BCC Minutes 03/13/2001 RMarch 13, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 13, 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 9:05 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F' of the Collier County
Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
James D. Carter
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Thomas Olliff, County Administrator
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 13, 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
March 13, 2001
o
INVOCATION - Reverend Mary Anne Dorner, Church of the Resurrection
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA,
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 13, 2001 - Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation recognizing the member financial institutions of the Collier
County Loan Consortium for their part in helping to provide home
ownership opportunities for Collier County families. To be accepted by Al
Williams and George Breeden from the Loan Consortium.
2) Proclamation proclaiming March 20, 2001 as "Children's Day in Collier
County, Florida". To be accepted by Mrs. Myra Shapiro, President of
Naples Alliance for Children.
3) Proclamation proclaiming the week of March 11 - 17, 2001 as The 22nd
Anniversary Of The "Know Your County Government Week". To be
accepted by Brooke Haas and Michelson Aristhyl.
B, SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Annis Moxam, Planning Services
2) Mary Keidel, Parks and Recreation
3) Deborah Gardner, Museum
4) Stephen Shelton, Wastewater
2
March 13, 2001
5) Jeannine Merritt, Public Information
6) Leonard Pohl, EMS
7) Jane Eichhorn, HUI
C. PRESENTATIONS
l) Presentation regarding a promotional free garbage pick up award.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve commercial excavation permit No. 59.779,
"Patterson Lake Commercial Excavation" located in Section 29, Township
47 South, Range 28 East; bounded on the North 70th Avenue N.E. Right-
of-Way, on the South by vacant lot right-of-way, on the West by vacant lot,
and on the East by vacant lot.
2) Recommendation to approve commercial excavation permit no. 59.778,
"McDaniel Lake Commercial Excavation" located in Sections 20, 21, 28,
29, Township 48 South, Range 28 East; bounded on the North by vacant
lot, on the South by Randall Blvd. Right-of-Way, on the West by occupied
lot, and on the East by vacant lot.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Reauthorization of Local Option Gas Tax. (Backup material to be
provided.)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
3
March 13, 2001
10.
11.
1) Approve a Lease Agreement with the Police Activities League to utilize
County property for all terrain vehicles.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Adoption of FY 02 Budget Policy.
2) Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners review
the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards scheduled for review in
2001 in accordance with Ordinance 86-41.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a settlement
in Paul Lashbrook v. Collier County, now pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 2:00-CV-122-FTM-29D, in the
amount of $150,000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Community Health Care Planning and Finance
Committee.
D. Board discussion of the possible repeal of Ordinance 2000-82, the Pelican Bay
Services District Ordinance. (Commissioner Carter)
E. Discussion regarding wastewater connections in the North County Regional
Water-Sewer District. (Commissioner Carter and Commissioner Henning.)
OTHER ITEMS
4
March 13, 2001
Ao
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
13.
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1)
DUE TO ITS SIZET THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR THIS ITEM MAY BE
VIEWED IN THE BCC OFFICE~ 3"[~ FLOORT HARMON TURNER
BUILDING. Growth Management Plan Amendments(s) Adoption Cycle,
CP-2000-3, CP-2000-4, CP-2000-5, CP-2000-7 and CP 2000-11. An
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier
County Growth Management Plan for the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County, Florida by: Amending the future land use element and the future
land use map and map series; amending the Golden Gate area master
plan element and the Golden Gate area master plan future land use map
and map series; and providing for severability; and providing for an
effective date.
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
C. OTHER
1)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 27~ 2001 BCC
MEETING. Adoption of consolidated impact fee ordinance.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners receive public
input on selecting a non-profit organization to be designated as an eligible
entity for receipt of community service block grant funds and approve a
resolution supporting the Immokalee Multicultural Multipurpose
Community Action Agency, Inc. efforts to be designated by the Governor
of Florida as the eligible entity to serve Collier County.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
5
March 13, 2001
14.
15.
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
l)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition V-2000-
33, Freedom Screening Corporation, representing Curtis Chandler,
requesting a 2-foot variance from the required 10 foot rear yard setback
for accessory structures to 8 feet for property located at 225 Bayfront
Drive, further described as Lot 18, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6,
Township 48 South, Range 25 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-
20, Jeff L. Davidson of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing B.C.
Excavating of Naples, Inc., requesting a conditional use for earth mining
activity on a parcel of land zoned "A" Agricultural for a property located on
the east side of Friendship Lane approximately % mile north of Immokalee
Road in Section 24, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida. This parcel consists of approximately 4.4 acres.
3)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition CU-2000-
16, Jeff L. Davidson of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Jesse
Hardy, requesting a conditional use for earth mining activity on a parcel of
land zoned "A" Agricultural for a property located in the "Hole-In-The-
Donut" within the southern Golden Gate Estates, more specifically the site
is located about two miles south of Interstate 1-75 and one and one
quarter mile east of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 16, Township 50
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. This site consists of 160
acres.
4)
THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. Petition PUD-92-08(1)
Bryan Milk of RWA, Inc., representing William T. Higgs, requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD known as White Lake Industrial Park PUD
having the effect of changing the name to White Lake Corporate Park
PUD, increasing the industrial land use from 67.4 acres to 86.3 acres, and
changing the property ownership, for property located northeast of and
adjacent to the intersection 1-75 and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in
Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
6
March 13, 2001
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Waterways of Naples,
Unit Seven", and approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the performance
security.
2)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Jubilation" and approval
of the standard form construction and maintenance agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
3)
Petition VAC 00-025 to vacate, renounce and disclaim easements
recorded in separate instruments in the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
4)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Heritage Golf and
Country Club Phase Two-A".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Heritage Golf and
Country Club Phase Two-B".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Heritage Golf and
Country Club Phase One."
7)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Strand Replat 1-A".
8)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Candlewood Three".
7
March 13, 2001
B=
C=
D=
E=
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Marker Lake Villas".
10)
The Board of County Commissioners approve a Budget Amendment to
the Urban Improvement Grants Account due to non-receipt of anticipated
grant monies.
The Board of County Commissioners approve a Budget Amendment to
the Urban Improvement Grants Account due to non-receipt of anticipated
grant monies.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve a contract with Mitigation Credit Sales Mitigation Banks as Iow
bidder for the Livingston Road Project Wetland Impacts, Collier County
Project No. 60071.
2)
Approve committee selection of firms for contract negotiations for
Construction Engineering Inspections Services for various capital
improvement roadway projects in Collier County.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve the wellfield agreement between Albertson's Inc and Collier
County Water-Sewer District, Project No. 74039.
2)
Approve the sole-source pumhase and installation of additional landfill
odor monitors and an associated Budget Amendment.
3)
Approve a Resolution to authorize the Public Utilities Administrator to
execute a utility work agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation for work associated with U.S. 41.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Approval of an agreement with performers for the Country Jam Concert.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approve payment of Collier County's Pro-Rata Share of the repair costs to
the East Naples Fire Control District's Station #21 (East Trail).
2)
Approval of a Lease Agreement between Collier County and Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
8
March 13, 2001
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Approval of an agreement to terminate lease between Collier County and
Primesite Consulting Group, Inc., and Florida Rock and Sand Company,
Inc.
Authorization of Work Order VL~00-06 under the County's Annual
Architectural Contracts for Victor J. Latavish, AIA to design a Sheriff's
Substation at the Golden Gate Government Center Complex, Project No.
80535.
Approve expenditure of over $25,000.00 for purchases based on quotes
on Bid #99-2958 - Sprinkler Parts and Related Items.
Approve expenditure of over $25,000.00 to Aaction Mulch of SW Florida
Inc., for the purchase of mulch.
Approval to award Bid #00-3175 to Advanced Air Refrigeration Inc., and
Conditioned Air, Inc., as primary, and Modern Air Conditioning as
secondary for the purchase, repair, maintenance and installation of air-
conditioning equipment.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Recognize revenue and appropriate the monetary portion of the National
Association of Emergency Medical Technicians "Provider of the Year
Award".
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-184;
#01-197.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MlSCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
2)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 91-
3678-MMA, and 91-3679-MMA and 89-2152-CFA, RECOMMEND
APPROVAL.
Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
9
March 13, 2001
17.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Approval of a Sheriff's Office United States Department of Justice COPS
Moro 2001 Technology/Equipment Grant Application.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize application for tax deeds for 523 County-Held Tax Certificates
and authorize notice to proceed to the Tax Collector.
2)
Approve the agreed order awarding expert fees relative to the easement
acquisition of pame1107-T in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. John B.
Fassett, Trustee of the Anne M. Fassett Trust Dated June 5, 1986, et al,
Case No. 99-3040-CA (Livingston Road, Project No. 65041).
3)
Approve the agreed order awarding expert fees relative to the easement
acquisition of parcels 41-T and 13-45 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. John B. Fassett, Trustee of the Anne M. Fassett Trust dated June 5,
1986, et al., Case No. 99-3040-CA (Livingston Road, Project No. 65041).
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.
Petition PE-2000-5, Tom Masters, P.E., Director of Engineering, Vineyards
Development Corporation, roquesting a parking exemption for a shared parking
agroement between Vineyards Development and the Lutgert Companies, on
Outparcel 6 of the Crossroads Shopping Center in the Vineyards, located on the
West side of Vineyards Boulevard.
Petition CU-2000-17, Herb Ressing Voicestream Wireless representing Big
Corkscrow Island Firo Control District requesting a conditional use for
communications tower on a parcel of land zoned "E" Estates for a property
located on the Southside of Immokalee Road, just West of Randall Boulevard.
This parcel consists of approximately 2.5 acros and contains the Big Corkscrew
Island Firo Control District Fire Station.
10
March 13, 2001
Petition VAC 00-021 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the
Public's interest in a portion of a 15' wide drainage easement in Tracts 4 and 5,
according to the plat of "Wiggins Bay Phase I' as recorded in Plat Book 13,
Pages 89 through 90, Public Records of Collier County, Florida located in
Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 27 MEETING.
Recommendation to accept a settlement proposal in the Case of Walden Oaks of
Naples Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., vs Collier County and BIC's
Investment Corporation, Case No. 98-2540-CA and Case No. 98-3135-CA.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 13 MEETING. Petition
PUD-00-16, Robert Duane of Hole Montes & Associates, representing Ralph
Aberica, requesting a rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Collier Boulevard mixed use commerce center
PUD allowing for residential, commercial retail and office land uses for property
located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 1-75 and Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
An Ordinance amending the future land use element of ordinance 89-05, as
amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida, by correcting scrivener's errors on the Future
Land Use Map; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
11
March 13, 2001
March t3, 200t
Item #3A, B, & C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we're ready to rock and roll,
aren't we? Okay. Commissioners, are we ready.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're ready.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to the Board
of County Commissioners' meeting. Will you all join us in the
invocation by the Reverend Mary Ann Dorner, Church of the
Resurrection, and followed by the Pledge of Allegiance?
REVEREND DORNER-' Dear God, we thank you for this new
day. Spiritually grateful that we live in a nation where we can
gather in peaceful assembly to share our concerns and to work
together for the common good, not only of our local projects and
communities, but for the benefit of all of us who live and visit
Collier County.
We ask your blessing on those who will receive special
recognitions and service awards this day, and for all those who
will present their needs and petitions before our County
Commissioners. May our Commissioners make wise decisions
and right judgments as they exercise the authority we have given
to them to act on our behalf.
We thank you for all of us that make this world a better
place in which to live. Help us to follow in their example, to
protect, preserve and enrich our land. And help us always to
embrace the diversity of people who come to Collier County and
call it home, whether for a day, a season or a lifetime. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You all look like you're bright-eyed and
bushy-tailed and ready to do it. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
commissioners. This morning I'll walk you through your change
list, which hopefully you have a copy of, and we've provided
some backup in addition in advance. And again, we've tried to
go through these in the order of your agenda, so hopefully that's
Page 2
March 13, 2001
a little easier to follow along.
The first item is an addition. It's Item 10(F), as in Florida.
It's a discussion of the Florida First resolution. And that's at
Commissioner Carter's request. It's 10(F).
The second item is another addition. It's Item 10(G). It's a
Board approval to waive dumping fees for Naples Manor and a
community cleanup and sweep-up day. And that's at
Commissioner Fiala's request. It's 10(G).
The next item is also an addition. It's Item 10(H). And it's
approval for public information to design flyers for distribution to
residents for that same Naples Manor cleanup effort, and a town
hall meeting at the Lely High School cafeteria. That's a
companion item, really, to the commission, prior, but it is also at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is a continuance off of your consent agenda.
Item 16(A)(2) is being requested by the staff to be continued to
your March 27th meeting. And that is a request to approve for
recording the final plat at Jubilation and approval of the standard
form construction and maintenance agreements and approval of
the performance security for that same project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that, and we've been getting
a lot of correspondence on that, is that something that we're
going to solve the problem or is the problem now too serious to
solve?
MR. OLLIFF: There is no problem too serious to solve. I
think that's why the continuance is here, to see if we can't try
and resolve the one ingress/egress issue that I think is still
outstanding.
The next item is moving an item off of your consent agenda
to your regular agenda. It's Item 16(A)(7), being moved to Item
8(A)(3). And that is a request to grant final acceptance of
roadway drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final
plat of Pelican Strand, re: Plat 1-A. That's at Commissioner
Fiala's request as well.
The next item is an addition, and it's an addition to your
consent agenda, frankly, because it's just a very minor item. It is
an approval of a travel request for two members of your
community health care planning and finance committee to attend
the project access community event. It's very limited travel
expenses for one of your important advisory boards. And that's
Page 3
March 13, 2001
at staff's request. It would be 16(D), as in David, (2).
A couple of little notes. Under 8(G)(2), which is your
advisory board discussion, I just need to make a note that the
Bayshore MSTBU Advisory Board's report will be continued until
your next meeting. It's simply so that we can work with that
advisory board and try and develop a little better financial
information for them.
And then, just a couple of suggestions that had been made.
Mr. Chairman, I need to make you aware that one of your
registered speakers has indicated that for one at least of the
items in your growth management plan amendments item, which
is 12(A)(1), that they have scheduled probably 100 people to be
here no later than 9:30 this morning, primarily to discuss the
proposed amendment dealing with the corner of Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Collier Boulevard or 951. I'm just making that --
bringing that to the Board's attention.
We also have a couple of other items, including the Pelican
Bay Special Services District, and the discussion of the
wastewater plant connections that the Board may want to
consider moving around on your agenda this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that on our agenda, the
wastewater plant?
MR. OLLIFF: It's under your Board of County Commissioners
Item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' t0(E).
MR. OLLIFF: -- 10(E).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I wasn't sure if that's what
this was. I personally think that ought to go to the very top of
the list today because there's so much potential negative fallout
from that and so much worry, you know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that's
an excellent suggestion. One, I had recommended the Pelican
Bay issue. I would recommend to the Board that we take that
first. We have discussed it several times and we have -- I have
some things to say, some ideas to share with the Board.
And I think that is one that we have a pretty good idea that
will work within a time frame so that -- or the people that may be
here in regards to that issue, they will have an opportunity to
have heard it.
And then we can then move perhaps to the water issue that
Page 4
March t3, 2001
we have and also the -- the item where, if they are intending to
bring a group here, as the county manager has indicated, we
need to get that up there and deal with it as early as we can on
the agenda and still keep in mind all the other items that are
here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds like the right way to
order the agenda, based on what we have, but I won't move it
until we see if there are other additions.
MR. OLLIFF: The only other thing that I wanted to point out
for the Board and for the public's sake is that you need to keep in
mind, do have a scheduled lunch today with the 4H group that's
here and that's scheduled for 12.'00 across the parking lot at the
Methodist Church.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're so glad you're here
because he doesn't ever let us have a lunch break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, it's nice to see young
faces in the audience, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll certainly do that, members of the
Board, and I would not want to deny you all that opportunity to
interact with the 4H'ers. They are a wonderful group. And I'll put
my slave away -- whip away for an hour and we'll do that.
Any other additions or corrections from you, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Weigel, do you have any
additions or corrections that we need to put in the mix here?
MR. WEIGEL: No additions or corrections. I will have a
statement of request concerning potential executive session on
a lawsuit at the Board communication.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, then, for Commissioner Mac'Kie's
suggestion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move for approval of the
agenda, consent agenda, summary agenda, with the changes as
Page 5
March 13, 2001
noted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carried 5-0.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS~ MEETINn
March 13. 2{)01
~pD; Item 10F: - Discussion of Florida First Resolution. (Commissioner
Carter request.)
ADD: Item 10G:. Board approval to waive dumping fees for Naples Manor
Community CLean and Sweep Up Day on Saturday, April 21, 2001 from 9:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (Commissioner Flala requesL)
ADD: l~e[q 10Ha Approval for Public Information to design flyers for
distribution to residents of Naples Manor for clean-up effort and s Town
Hall Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 29 at 7:00 p.m. at Lely High
School Cafeteria. (Commissioner Fiala request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 10(A)2 TO MARCH 27. 2001 I~IGC MEETIN~: Request to
approve for recording the final plat of 'Jubliletion", and approval of the
Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of
the amount of the Performance Security. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(A)7 to 8(A)3: Request to grant final acceptance of the
roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Pelican Strand Rapist 1-A'. (Commissioner Flsla request.)
ADD: Item 16(D)2; Approval of s travel request for two members of the
Collier County Community Health Care Planning and Finance Committee to
attend the "Project Access" community event. (Staff request.)
March 13, 2001
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13, 2001 REGULAR MEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Approval of the February 13,
2001 regular meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MEMBER FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LOAN CONSORTIUM -
ADOPTED
All right. Let's move to proclamations and service awards.
Jim Coletta, you are going to give us a proclamation on
recognizing the member financial institutions of Collier County
Loan Consortium, et cetera, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Carter. Would L.
Williams and George Breedon come up front, please? MR. BREEDON: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: WHEREAS, Collier County Loan
Consortium and the University Extension Service, a department
of the Public Service Division of Collier County, have entered into
a public/private partnership; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Loan Consortium is to help
very Iow, Iow and moderate income families achieve ownership;
and
WHEREAS, through the Board of County Commissioners'
support the University Extension teaches home buyers
education, prepares a family for the home buying process; and
WHEREAS, more than 350 individuals and families have
received home loans through this Loan Consortium program; and
WHEREAS, home ownership helps to build strong
communities by providing roots for families and a more stable
work force; and
WHEREAS, eight financial institutions have committed $4
Page 7
March 13, 200t
million in loan funds for 2001.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that we recognize
and thank the members of the financial institutions of the Collier
County Loan Consortium for their part in helping to provide home
ownership, opportunities for a Collier County family.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 13th day of March, 2001.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response.}
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to see you again, George.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will go -- ah, the gentleman has
words of wisdom for us.
MR. BREEDON: I won't take a bunch of time, but I certainly
want to thank you all for giving some tribute to the efforts of
local banks, you know. I think it demonstrates that banks do
want to lend money, contrary to a belief.
More importantly, banks certainly are liquid. We feel we
have a responsibility to provide work force housing. And one of
the things we realized some years ago with that, two of the
components necessary to get into a house for first-time home
buyers tends to be the lack of down payment and the lack of
education.
We came together with the University Extension Service
some five, six years ago to help us piece together marketing
efforts and educational components, where we could teach
potential homeowners what the responsibilities of home
ownership are.
It certainly goes beyond just paying a mortgage payment, as
you know. There are upkeep for maintenance, which is always
ongoing, real estate taxes, hazard insurance and so forth.
The bank is local bankers and it's a group of us who decided
we would develop a program that would allow someone to get
into a home with a minimum of three percent down. We would
certainly waive or reduce the standard closing costs. And as a
result, you've seen the number of homes, people we have been
Page 8
March 13, 2001
able to get into first homes.
I would like to not ignore the three gals that we work very
closely with, if I could have them stand up; Marcy, Denise and
Bonnie Falls. And they are with the Extension Service.
And again, we hope we can continue the efforts. Hopefully
that you will continue to support all their efforts in educating
folks so we can continue getting people in work force housing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If somebody hears this on TV
about getting into a home with three percent down, where should
they call?
MR. BREEDON: Bonnie Falls.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the number, do you know it?
MR. BREEDON: I don't know it offhand.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 353.
MR. BREEDON: 353.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 4244.
MR. BREEDON: 4244. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bet you'll get some calls. Thank
yOU,
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MARCH 20, 2001 AS
"CHILDREN'S DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. We'll move to
proclamation number 2, in regards to Children's Day in Collier
County. And Commissioner, when you -- each one of you, when
you finish your proclamation, move for approval by the Board,
please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is Myra Shapiro here?
MS. SILVER: I'm Marion Silver for Myra Shapiro.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come right up. Thank you.
WHEREAS, the Naples Alliance for Children, in conjunction
with Child Care of Southwest Florida, the Collier County
Readiness Coalition, the Florida State Legislature and other
organizations statewide are celebrating Children's Day March
20th, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the research on brain development indicates that
stimulating and nurturing environments during a child's first five
Page 9
March 13, 2001
years of life are critical to long-term development and school
readiness; and
WHEREAS, by calling attention to the importance of
high-quality early childhood education and care programs for all
children and families within Collier County, Florida, these groups
hope to improve the quality and availability of such services; and
WHEREAS, the ability of Florida parents to continue working
is tied irreco -- irrevocably -- my goodness, it's a bad day, today,
isn't it -- irrevocably to their ability to find and obtain quality
affordable child care -- see, you told me about that; and
WHEREAS, families receiving public assistance must be
assured of high-quality early childhood programs for their
children to be ready to begin school and for parents to reenter
the work force; and
WHEREAS, our future depends on the quality of early
childhood experiences provided to young children today; and
WHEREAS, the Naples Alliance for Children, Child Care of
Southwest Florida and the Collier County School Readiness
Coalition will continue to collaborate and be committed to
advancing the needs of children and families through early
childhood education and their comprehensive services.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that March 20th, 200t,
be designated as Children's Day in Collier County, Florida. And
urges all citizens to recognize the valuable contributions of early
childhood educational programs and to actively support the
needs for more and better programs for children throughout our
community.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 13th day of March, 2001.
Boy, that's really an important thing to all of our children.
And I know how, working with the children's community for many
years, how important this particular document is. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move for acceptance of the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion carries. Thank you so much.
If any of you after the proclamation would like to say a few
words, when you step to the microphone, what I would ask you
Page t0
March 13, 2001
to do is please identify yourself for the court recorder (sic).
Thank you.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MARCH 11 - 17,
2001 AS THE 22'D ANNIVERSARY OF THE "KNOW YOUR COUNTY
GOVERNMENT WEEK" - ADOPTED
The next proclamation is by Tom Henning and the
anniversary of the Know Your County Government Week.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. Is Brook Haas in the
audience? Would you come up, please? And also Michelle
Artistal.
MS. HAAS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's not here. Okay. Do you
just want to stand here for the picture taking?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Stand there and look right at the
cameras.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here we go.
WHEREAS, county government in its complex and
multifaceted process, which affects the lives of all residents of
Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the increased knowledge of how various aspects
of county government works can enhance an individual's quality
of life in Collier County; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works;
and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters of Collier County
and Collier County 4H and the Collier County Public School have
co-sponsored the Knowledge of Your County Government teen
citizen program for 22 years.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that this week of
March 11th through the 17th, 2001 be designated as the 22nd
anniversary of Know Your County Government Week.
DONE AND ORDERED ON THIS 13th day of March, 2001, and
signed by our leader, Dr. -- Chairman, Commissioner James D.
Page 11
March 13, 2001
Carter.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
Do you want to say anything to us this morning?
(Laughter.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She has a speech. She has it all
ready.
MS. HAAS: Good morning. My name is Brook Haas and I'm
one of the representatives of Gulf Coast High School. We wish to
thank you, the Commission, county manager and all of the county
division and department heads, the constitutional officers and
adults from 4H, League of Women Voters and Collier County
Public Schools who have worked together to make the Know
Your County Government program possible.
Twenty teens from throughout the county are participating,
representing Naples, Barron Collier, Immokalee and Gulf Coast
High School, as well as home schoolers.
We began our journey at the second session, where we
visited many places and met many officials, including the
constitutional officers. Most interesting to me were the
domestic animal services and the south county wastewater
facilities.
We were very lucky to have been the first group to visit the
new facilities of the animal services. We were able to walk
through the building and experience a day in the life of the
domestic animal worker or volunteer.
Many of us became interested in the volunteer portion of
these services and some plan to pursue the volunteering hours at
this facility; while working hand in hand with the various
domestic animals ranging from pigs to kittens.
Another facility included the south county wastewater tour.
Here we were able to see a behind-the-scenes look at the lab
testing and legal processes involved in the wastewater. Job
opportunities were introduced to us; things ranging from lab
technicians to the behind-the-scenes computer workers.
The last place that I'm going to mention today is a place
that I am very personally -- very familiar with, the Extension
Page 12
March 13, 200t
Services department. This department provides the public with
educational help on matters dealing with agriculture,
horticulture, home economics and even leadership development.
They also deal with the 4H youth program, which develops skills
in citizenship and leadership.
These are only three of the many places that we visited over
this two-and-a-half week period of learning about our
government. This morning we're looking forward to visiting the
Clerk of Courts and having you join us for lunch. In addressing
the Board, we are able to add another component to our learning
process. Again, thank you for your support.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have service awards for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. We're glad this morning to
get to honor and show our appreciation to some employees who
have served Collier County well and for five years. And we will
call all of these five-year attendees up at the same time, if they
could join us.
Annus Moxim, from planning services. Deborah Gardner,
from the museum. Jean Merit, from public information. Leonard
Paul, from EMS. And Jane Icorn, from HUI. Thank you very much
for your service.
Thanks. Are you Deborah? Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before you take that away, can I keep
it here? I've got to do a drawing. Thank you.
Item #5C1
PRESENTATION REGARDING A PROMOTIONAL FREE GARBAGE
PICK UP AWARD - AWARDED TO KATHY NEAL AND ALICE A
BRADY
This morning we are going to have a drawing in regards to
Page 13
March t 3, 200t
the residential mandatory garbage collection and disposal fee
passed for fiscal year 2001 and -2. Our Solid Waste Management
set up and manned a display in the Collier County Fair this year.
We hope you had a chance to stop by and see the display.
Now, during the fair, those who did stop by were asked to
complete a survey about the services that Solid Waste provides.
These surveys are very important to us as we look at that whole
solid waste issue. They tell us what the citizens of our
community would like in the future and also how we're doing in
our customer service area.
For all of those who completed the survey, the county, in
conjunction with Waste Management of Collier County, offered
two free subscriptions to the annual Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Program fiscal year 2002.
Now, I'm going to draw two names out of the hat here, or
wastebasket, and we will find out who the big winners were. We
have Kathy Neal, who lives at 2025 Crestview Way in Naples. We
have Alice A. Bray -- I'm sorry -- Alice A. Brady who lives on 20th
Street Northeast in Naples. So those two are the lucky winners.
And if you're listening this morning, you can run down here and
get those or you will be duly notified by Mr. Mudd. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While our Chairman is coming up
here, Tom, what did they win?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Free garbage pickup.
MR. MUDD: Basically the fee that you pay annually to have
your garbage picked up, they don't have to pay it this next year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, all right. That's worth it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That in itself ought to be worth going
to the fair next year and going to that booth and putting in a slip
so that you have the opportunity you went through this morning.
What a great idea, Jim. We're going to continue to do that.
Item #10D
BOARD DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBLE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE
2000-82, THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDINANCE -
PELICAN BAY ORDINANCE 2000-82 TO BE ADVERTISED FOR
4/10/01 TO BE REPEALED
Okay. That moves us to -- we have moved up Item 10(D),
Page t4
March 13, 2001
which is in regards to the Board's discussion of the possible
repeal of Ordinance 2000-82, the Pelican Bay Services District
Ordinance.
And before we have that discussion, with your indulgence, I
would like to read a statement in regards to the Pelican Bay
issue. This Pelican Bay issue is the first thing on the agenda.
Through your cooperation we were able to move it there so that
we could discuss this in courtesy to the people who came from
the bay, be able to handle the situation. As you know, we have a
lot of other issues on the agenda this morning, lots of people.
And we have to respect all of those who will be coming here
shortly.
As you know, it was first brought before the Board of County
Commissioners in October 2000. The second was brought back
in December 2000 for final approval, after all were duly public
noticed, which is true of everything that we do.
The ordinance has been through four revisions by the
MSTBU since June 30th last year. The MSTBU has had three
separate votes and each time the vote was for approval of
Ordinance 2000-82. The most recent vote was again just a week
ago. However, the people who are currently serving, the Board
of Pelican Bay, approved that ordinance again by a vote of seven
to four in favor of it.
I am suggesting to the Board, since we have heard this
issue several times from the same people, that we owe it to the
general citizenry to allow some input this morning. What I
suggest is that we limit that input this time from each side of the
issue to only one spokesperson, who will have up to ten minutes
to state the case.
At the end of each presentation, I would suggest that all of
those who support the presenter's side of the issue could raise
their hand and we will know that they are in agreement with the
speaker.
When we are done with hearing from both sides, any
additional speaker who signed up and didn't agree with either
speaker will get an opportunity to speak at the first meeting in
April if the Board adopts what I am going to present to them
today; and that is, if we do -- if the Board decides to do this.
To my colleagues on the Commission, I am making the
following suggestion, which you have in front of you. I am
Page 15
March 13, 2001
recommending this and I have outlined it so that it should be
there from Attorney Weigel, so that I could reference you to each
situation. I am recommending that we do not rescind Ordinance
2000-82; however, that we make the amendments you have in
front of you, which I will read into the record in a minute.
Now, I make this recommendation even though professional
politicians have strongly recommended that it will hurt my
chances for reelection if I choose to run. Again, however, this
issue comes to the core of my value system. I believe that
people have a right to vote for the people who tax them.
In addition, I made a promise to myself and to all of my
constituents in this district and to the community when I ran two
years ago. That promise was this. The day I get too busy trying
to keep my ]ob that I stop doing what I believe to be right and in
the best interests of the community, then I deserve not to be
reelected.
All of those leaders in Pelican Bay who supported this
ordinance, except the MSTBU, were elected representatives and
so the people spoke through their leaders. And I believe this is
the American way.
We cannot allow special interest groups to run our country
or our communities. Every time someone does not like the way a
vote comes to the Commission, I don't believe that we can sit
here as Commissioners and change our vote. We must be
decisive and follow the process. And we will have several
challenges in front of us in this issue.
If the concerned citizens of Pelican Bay want the ordinance
repealed, then ! believe they should follow the accepted process,
just as the elected leaders of the community followed in
presenting the process.
By the way, citizen means registered voters. There are over
4500 registered voters in Pelican Bay and only a supposed
thousand showed up to vote at the town hall meeting. Of those,
a little over 700 people voted for repeal. We cannot allowed 700
people to speak for the entire 4,500 registered voters in Pelican
Bay. That is less than one-fifth of the people.
I believe we have been fair. We all listened to staff and
each commissioner. We have tried to conciliate and reach a
workable solution. And the only solution the people who call
themselves concerned citizens will consider is unilateral repeal.
Page 16
March 13~ 2001
I do not believe this is a reasonable position. I ask you to
vote not to rescind this ordinance, but propose the following
amendments which address those aspects in the ordinance that
most reasonable registered voters found objectionable. And with
your indulgence, I will formally read them now so they can
become a part of the public record. And I'm proposing the
following amendments.
This begins with Section B, amend Paragraph G -- all of this,
by the way, pertains to bonding by mortgage, sell, any kinds of
encumbrance, eminent domain, those things. B.' Amend
Paragraph G to remove reference to considerations under power
-- under power. That's on page 16.
C.' Amend first paragraph -- the first part of.Paragraph 1, to
remove to borrow money and issue bonds, certificates, warrants,
notes or other evidence of indebtedness as hereinafter provided.
That's also on page 16.
Amend Section 8, special powers, Paragraph A.1, to remove
the power to finance.
Number 6.' Amend Section 10, revenue, Paragraph B, ad
valorem taxes as follows. An ad valorem tax levied by the Board
for operating purposes exclusive of debt service on bonds shall
not exceed .52 mills -- five -- .50 mills. That's on pages 21 and
22.
This imposes a millage cap of one half mill to replace the
two mill cap already in the Ordinance 2000-82, which was a
reduction from ten mills in the ordinance that was repealed.
Although a millage rate can be established, this imposure
(sic) of this one half mill is to replace the two mill cap already in
the ordinance, although a millage rate less than one half mill may
be established for any particular fiscal year.
Amend ordinance to provide Exhibit C, identifying the
systems, facilities, services, equipment, materials and personnel
currently under the ownership, management, direction and
control of the Board of County Commissioners.
Item Number 8: Make an appropriate revision of the
ordinance relating to the treasurer, clerk and supervisor of
elections during duties and election laws. A copy of the current
ordinance, with your provision, subject to potential revisions, are
highlighted and is provided herewith.
Now, if the Board were to give direction to the county
Page 17
March 13, 2001
attorney and staff to draft amendments to Ordinance Number
2000-82 at the March 13th, 2001 board meeting, today, these
amendments would be advertised for consideration at the April
10th, 2001 Board meeting. That's at least thirty days from now.
And by the process that we have always done, it takes that
period of time to bring those back.
And in addition, and I don't have the specific section but I
will get it and have it read into the record, change the word "will"
to "may" regarding the hiring of a manager. There was a lot of
concern that they will hire a manager. They have the option.
They may hire a manager, even though they have one under
contract today.
! would ask the Board to further consider that we set up a
representative from each side, one for and one against, let them
select a person, to meet with your coordinator of mediation
services, Sal Gardino, within a time frame -- I am going to
recommend within sixty days -- to bring back to us any additional
changes that both sides would agree that would be reasonable to
amend this ordinance.
It can be amended at any time. It needs to go through the
process and it comes back to us for final approval. The Board of
County Commissioners always is the end one to make approval
or deny approval on any of these issues.
So I am recommending these to the Board this morning. We
can have discussion on this. We need to have discussion. We
first may, if you like, we can go and have the input from both
sides before you have the discussion or maybe you would prefer
to have the discussion and then request those people to come
forward. I'll leave it to the pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just have to commend you
for working so hard with your community to listen to their needs
and do everything you can to please both sides. It's always hard
to do, but you've really gone out of your way to do that. And I
have to liken it to a time before when there was a previous
commission who didn't listen to their community. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that blew up in their faces.
And I just want to say, you've worked very hard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta.
Page 18
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will reserve my comments until
after the speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine. I do have some
questions and I do have some comments. I can wait until after
the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. As you all know,
Commissioner Mac'Kie has had to recuse herself on this
situation. She has done it consistently every time it came before
the Board. She may participate in a discussion, but she may not
vote on the issue --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I have three registered
speakers. First is Frances Barsh, followed by Robert O'Nagley. I
have four registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning.
MS. BARSH: Good morning. I am Frances Barsh. I am a
resident of Pelican Bay, a taxpayer, a voter in Collier County and
a concerned citizen of Pelican Bay. We welcome your discussion
this morning on Ordinance 2000-82.
After this past Sunday's town meeting, you know the
sentiments of the people of Pelican Bay voiced by themselves,
not by boards speaking without their permission, but the people.
Ordinance 2000-82 is like a car that is a lemon. No matter
how many times it's fixed or amended or tinkered with, it still is
a lemon. It won't change. Ordinance 2000-82 is just a lemon,
lemon, lemon.
The ordinance is critically flawed. It does not contain the
critical core, Exhibit C, and did not contain it when it was
passed, and no amendment to make that appear now can correct
the damage that was done.
It was not voted on or approved by the people of Pelican
Bay. It has created a situation where in Pelican Bay we will be
unfunded, unless Ordinance 2000-82 is repealed now and the
MSTBU is reinstated now so that we can operate and get back
into the county budget in time, the county budget cycle.
Because of the dates and rush of this Ordinance 2000-82,
the critical items in Item C may be transferred, may not be
transferred. We don't know. But it's required to have -- be done
by April 9th.
The unelected people, the people that won the election by
Page 19
March 13, 200t
default, do not take office until April 26th, so there is a period
when there is nobody in charge of the store if this ordinance is
not repealed and the MSTBU is not reinstated. What kind of
government is this? What are you doing? Think.
The order -- the repeal of ordinance -- of Ordinance 2000-82
has been expressed on Sunday, yes, by only 700 people. There
were over 1,400 people there. People, not boards, people,
speaking for themselves. It was the first time that they could
speak for themselves.
These boards that brought this to you did not put it up to
their membership. They spent money without the membership's
permission in raising -- in hiring consultants and in hiring Mr.
Dorrill to create this ordinance.
They were not informed. They did not know what this
ordinance contained, and it was voted upon without their
knowledge. And you, our commissioners, were poorly, poorly
informed and misinformed. These people were not our leaders.
They did not inform us.
We are speaking to you today. Please, please rescind,
rescind and repeal that ordinance while there's time. We'll be
running out of money. There will be no government. And what
are you doing to the highest tax base that you have in the
county? Think. You must, must reinstate the MSTBU now.
Talking about representative government in only 700
speaking, yes, at the town hall meeting, that's all you could do in
a day. The people have risen. We have over 1,400 petitions
signed for repeal. This was done in a matter of weeks, when the
people found out what has happened to us.
We are told that the registered voters of 700 or the people in
-- did not represent the people of Pelican Bay on Sunday. Well,
there are 4,448 voters in Pelican Bay. There are 14,000 people
that live there, 14,000, and you're having about 4,000. Usually
the statistics say that only about half of the registered voters
vote in an election, so that's 2000 that are representing 14,000
that are paying taxes.
We're not against elections of members to the MSTBU
board. We're not against that. We're against the situation that
has been created by this ordinance.
I conclude, please think, be responsible to the people.
Repeal, repeal this Ordinance 2000-82. Reinstate the MSTBU
Page 20
March 13, 2001
now, while we can get back into the budget cycle of the county.
Be responsible representatives. We elected you to represent the
people, not boards, people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Robert Nagel (sic), followed by
Charles Popper.
MR. O'NAGLEY: Thank you. This is pronounced Nagley. My
name is Robert O'Nagley, Junior. My address is 7993 Via
Vecchia. I have been a resident of Pelican Bay, a registered
voter since 1994. My former government experience was a
planning commissioner in the suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
for three years and I was an elected counsel representative for
four years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have had this fun before.
MR. O'NAGLEY: Yes, I have, several times. Thank you. Dog
ordinances are more fun, though, aren't they?
In Pelican Bay at this point I'm the -- I have been chairman
of my local neighborhood advisory committee. I am an elected
member of the Bay Colony Board of Governors, elected
homeowner member. And I'm president of the Homeowners of
Bay Colony.
And just a little bit of background, from my point of view.
It's been alleged that there hasn't been proper public display of
this and yet I have been going to meetings since 1999,
sporadically sometimes, and keeping up with the publications in
Pelican Bay and even in the Naples Daily News. And the process
has always been spoken about.
Talking about governance after build out. I -- specifically
Straight Talk, which is the Pelican Bay property owners house
organ and mailer to the members, winter of '99 talked about the
series of informational meetings to be set up and held in the
community. In Straight Talk, spring of 2000, the headline was
this: Important meeting, Pelican Bay future, May 4 -- and this
was the May 4th, 2000 issue.
And the consultants, there seems to be this pervasive intent
to slam Mr. Dorrill. But in that process also was a -- for whatever
reason, I don't know -- he was a distinguished member of this
county administration, I think, for ten or fifteen years. But in
addition was Dr. Richard Woodruff, whom we all hold in high
esteem and presently works for a private engineering company
Page 21
March 13, 2001
as a consultant.
In the Pelican Bay Services District bulletin of August 2000
it says this. It mentions specifically an elected advisory board.
And historically, if we look at Pelican Bay, you can see that
the foundation was captive to WCI and it turned over to
Community Control. That's been the historical part of it.
In Bay Colony we have been captive to WCI. But as we
move towards build out, we have elected members. We have
three elected homeowners on our Bay Colony board and we are
preparing for build out.
And the MSTBU, as I view it, is just in Pelican Bay. It is our
public works department. And the county has had control of the
advisory board, which is -- well, we needed to establish that good
fiscal responsibility and good precedence.
Now this ordinance moves us toward a dependent district,
which means community input and county oversight, of course,
according to the budget. And the most important part, I think, is
a right to vote for elected members of the board of supervisors.
And we have an informal association in Bay Colony called
the Condo Presidents and Association Chairs. We have about
fourteen. And the majority of us support the concept of elected
representatives. We have a meeting to specifically go over -- it
was one of three items in January to go over this and the
concept we fully supported.
In Pelican Bay, and also from Bay Colony Dr. Al Varley, a
man who has really helped me to understand everything from the
Clam Bay restoration to the governance in Collier County, and
has been a long-time resident here, you know, I go to him to look
for somebody with wisdom and counsel based on his experience.
And so I have -- I have seen Dr. Varley. I know he's an honored
member of the MSTBU, and he supports this and the formation of
this right from the very outset.
I talked to an old friend of mine who was the president of
the foundation, served when Charlie Popper was on the
foundation, Dr. Jerry Frederick, who now lives in Fort Wayne,
Indiana. I talked to him last evening and I said, "Tell me about
this."
And he said, "The MSTBU," and he said, "1 sat in on many
meetings. We knew at one point it would be important for us to
have elected members of the community representing us, rather
Page 22
March 13, 2001
than just the advisory board."
At the -- and interestingly enough, as we talked about it, the
MSTBU has voted three times, split votes, but seven to one, six
to three and seven to four in favor of that, so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know at this point, Mr. Olliff, if
there is anyone else that will take the remainder five time
allotted to this side. I would recommend to the Board that you
may reserve your right if someone else doesn't speak the
position you speak.
MR. OLLIFF: It's your call, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any objection to that by any of the
other Commissioners? And if someone else does speak for the
ordinance, then --
MR. O'NAGLEY: I'll steal from his or her allotted time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there anyone else here to speak for
the ordinance? All right. At the pleasure of the Board, we'll let
you continue.
MR. O'NAGLEY: Thank you. At the town meeting on Sunday,
March 11, thank you for holding that. We were appreciative. I
thought there was a very fair and profound presentation by the
Collier County Attorney, Mr. Weigel, where he laid it out with a
Power Point presentation about the pros and the cons of the
ordinance.
I think that some of the opponents of the ordinance made
some very good points as far as the things that needed to be
changed in the ordinance. I believe you've addressed those
today with the amendments.
And not only the Collier County Attorney had to sign off on it,
which puts his personal honor and the integrity of the county on
the line, but similarly the Collier County Board had to examine it
and vote on it, which you've already done.
One question that was troubling or one point that was
troubling at the town hall meeting was 1,400 signatures of-- I
don't know, was that registered voters? I have not been aware --
where are those 1,400 signatures? They have not appeared in
any piece or publication that I have seen. And are they
registered voters of Collier County?
It seemed to me, generally, that because of some of the
flashpoints that have been raised of the opponents of the
ordinance, that people have been fighting for the right not to be
Page 23
March 13, 2001
able to vote for an elected board of supervisors. And for the life
of me, I can't understand that.
In this country men and women gave their lives for the
concept of one person, one vote. In the present situation we
have one person, no vote. Some people would like to say, we
would like to have all the taxpayers vote, not just registered
representatives. That would be one person, two votes.
This Ordinance 2000-82 guards the concept that we hold
dear; and that is, one person, one vote. And I support it and ask
you not to rescind it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Charles Popper, followed by
Joe Bawduniak.
MR. POPPER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Charles Popper. By this time I think I'm an old face up here. For
the record, I have been a resident of Pelican Bay for the past
thirteen years.
During which time I was very involved in a multiple of civic
areas, including the Foundation. I was vice president. Served on
the MSTBU for two terms. Founder of the Pelican Bay Business
Association. During my working career I was also the managing
director at the Registry Resort.
I've spoken before you several times about the different
issues of this ordinance. I must admit, at this time I'm absolutely
astounded that the will of the people in Pelican Bay, whether
voters or not, has not been listened to.
What took place Sunday was a perfect example of real old
time religion, if you will, where we bring people together and let
them express themselves. And certainly, Commissioner Carter,
you were there. I can't believe that you have not listened to the
people.
This was an opinion poll. You folks sitting up there said,
'~/e want to have a sense of what is going on in Pelican Bay. We
want to know. We want to hear from the people." You heard
from the people. You heard from the people overwhelmingly.
You read this morning's paper, which I'm sure you have, 938
-- this is the official count -- it said repeal it. 228 said leave it
alone. Status quo. That is the official count that I got yesterday.
We talk a great deal about, let's vote. Let's vote for the
representative, let's -- the supervisors. We think that's a fine
Page 24
March 13, 200t
idea. We have established that with you for some time. We
agree with that.
But there's a fundamental issue that's missing here. We
were not given an opportunity to vote whether or not we wanted
the ordinance. You listened to a very selective interest group
that had their own agenda. And I've talked about this several
times and I'd hoped that you had listened to me at that time.
This group did not represent the will of the people. They
never asked for a vote of their constituents. And I'm referring
now to the Property Owners' Association. I told you that they did
not ask for the will of the people. The Foundation never took a
vote, nor did the President's Council. You were mislead. You
were misspoken to.
One person, one vote, that's been spoken about here. I
would say to you that whether you're a registered voter or not --
and I know that in certain political areas that's very important
because it means your reelection or lack thereof.
But nevertheless, Pelican Bay was asked to provide for you
commissioners an opinion of how they felt. They have a right to
tell you how they wish to be governed. And they spoke to you
earnestly, forthrightly and very, very loudly. And if you do not do
the right thing for the people and listen to the people, at some
point the people are going to tell you at the ballot box how they
feel. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Joe Bawduniak. And Mr.
Chairman, I received one speaker slip after the item had begun.
It's your discretion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I probably won't -- it would be my
recommendation we don't take it. We said originally we would
take ten minutes from each side. It was agreed to by the Board.
This will give the people who had spoken against this
actually fifteen minutes. And I think they have been respectively
listened to by both sides this morning. And they can come back
in April if they haven't been heard this morning. Mr. Bawduniak.
MR. BAWDUNIAK: Good morning, commissioners. I'm very
surprised to be standing here this minute. My name is Joe
Bawduniak, 803 Norwood Court. I'm a year-rounder resident.
And while I don't differentiate terribly much between myself and
Page 25
March t3, 2001
my neighbors, I am a taxpayer here. Some of them are not.
I serve on the MSTBU. I had no idea that I would have to
step forth with the puzzlement I have right now. I attended the
meeting yesterday -- or rather Sunday. The results to me were
clear-cut.
As I said, I serve on the MSTBU. I have attended every
meeting relating to this issue. I, in early summer, made the
motion from MSTBU, "Let's move forward with the process."
What I have seen here is the devil in the details of this ordinance.
In January after it had been enacted by several months,
there was some slight revelation of the details at the property
owners' meeting in the Registry. As a person who comes from
corporate life, I was a corporate officer of a biotech corporation,
I was astounded at the patch-up ]ob being done.
Letters have been sent out to residents. Our good county
attorney has given an explanatory process recently, after the
fact. How anybody can suggest that the hundreds of people who
voted against this and spoke out against it on Sunday doesn't
represent the 4,000 puzzles me.
Because I know that selected members of our community,
such as the president of the Pelican Bay Property Owners, the
chairperson of the MSTBU and two or three others worked
diligently on this with Chairman Carter.
They did not take a poll. They did not take a vote. The
property owners spent 26,000 plus dollars orchestrating this. No
vote to the membership. It was iust revealed Thursday, the total
sum.
I do not suggest that repealing this ordinance is throwing
the baby out with the bath water. We're throwing a turkey out
with the bath water. When a machine or an instrument is so
flawed, very often the return is to scrap it and say, "Let's go back
and take another look." I support elected officials. ! would like
to be replaced with an elected official. This is not the vehicle.
We heard from the people.
The question of voters, taxpayers versus just residents,
well, that's one for credibility. I think a person who pays taxes
here certainly has some say, albeit it does not have to be formal
by voting.
I think this Commission has the intellectual capacity to
reevaluate events as they have evolved and say, "Okay, maybe
Page 26
March 13, 200t
we should repeal this." I think you should. I urge you to repeal
this.
I think another ordinance will be set forth that will be done
with information to the citizens as we go along. Citizens don't
write ordinances, but they are not mushrooms either. They
deserve to be told the facts.
And my last comment is, I've known Commissioner Mac'Kie
for some time. And this commissioner has made a judgment,
based on some relationship in Pelican Bay, to not participate and
not vote.
I'm puzzled that our good Commissioner Carter, who lives in
Pelican Bay, who is a member of the property owners, who has
met diligently to move this forward -- and as I understand
yesterday from a conversation with our county attorney, he
worked on the white ballot, which certainly was confusing. And I
had at least six people come up to me and say, "What does this
mean?" I'll admit, they were elderly people, but then I may be
one of them in a year or two.
So please reconsider this. The citizens of Pelican Bay, I
feel, have really spoken. And they certainly spoke and were not
represented by the handful of, quote, leaders of Pelican Bay.
Thank you very much for your time and thank you for hearing me
out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That concludes our
speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Board members, discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions that you would like to
direct in regards to any of the comments by anyone?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I asked to speak.
MR. WEIGEL: There is a policy that you turn in your --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have one
question, which is, who called the meeting Sunday? Was it the
people opposed to it or was it our Chairman or --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, at the direction, when the
subject was brought in front of the Board of County
Commissioners, there was a sentiment for having a town hall
meeting. Both sides at one time or another said, "No, we don't
Page 27
March 13, 2001
want to do this."
And again, for all of the comments that were made here this
morning, it seemed to me that we needed to have that meeting.
And the question became, how do you let people know that there
is a meeting?
We reserved a place. It was done by the Property Owners'
Association, at my request, because who was going to pay for
the meeting? And they said, '~/e will pay for the meeting place."
And we're directed to do that so that we could have an
opportunity to have that meeting prior to our discussion this
morning.
How was it noticed in the community? It was advertised.
We had it on Channel 44, the channel within Pelican Bay. I
believe any and all means that we had at our disposal -- we tried
to let everybody know by word of mouth. There were petitions
circulated by the concerned citizens. Those petitions I have
never seen, fellow commissioners.
if the -- until, as we found out in other issues, that if we don't
have them in front of us, it's not that we're doubting that they
don't exist. We just don't have them as part of the public record.
And that always makes this difficult. I understand that the
people that were on that list were called.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was the majority or it was
a cooperative effort between the residents of Pelican Bay --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Each side had brought that issue up at
one time or another. And it seemed to me that this was an
opportunity with an agenda that was presented to both sides as
we worked through it to make sure, A, that it was properly -- a lot
of time was allocated to each side on this issue.
That clarification could be made up front. That the person
who would chair that meeting would not be myself, but the
coordinator for mediation services, Sal Gardino, a neutral person;
as it was perceived by some in the community that I was biased.
I was denied the right by both attorneys, who strongly
suggested that I do not address that group on Sunday. I wished I
would have because the comments I had to make had nothing to
do with one side or the other.
And the statement that I had in there, I wanted people to
reason together. I wanted to heal the community. And I quoted
Herbert Spencer, that the greatest barrier ever to learning and
Page 28
March 13, 2001
blocking things out and presenting is forgetting what we really
need to know before making a decision, was contempt prior to
investigation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Another question. You stated --
what's going to take place in April? I'm unclear of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: April 9th, you mean.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, in April, if the Board decides this
morning that you are agreeable to the amendments that I am
presenting on the ordinance, we have to give it thirty days to
have it brought back. Plenty of time for public discussion on
this, publicly noticed. And if those are approved at the second
meeting, then they would become part of the ordinance.
The other thing that I haven't put in that -- and ! apologize
for that -- I was also recommending to the Board that the elected
supervisors appoint two ad hoc advisory members from the
business commercial interests in Pelican Bay. These people
would serve on that board and they would not -- they wouldn't
have a right to vote because they were not elected to the board,
but they could make their input.
And that would be at the discretion of the business
commercial interests to, A, nominate a couple of people to be
there, and so that we are aware of who they are, you know,
ultimately that belongs to our responsibility. But if that
supervisory board had those two people there, I think that would
have, you know, answered another issue that came in front of
me.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Here's where I'm going. And I
thought it was a great time spent Sunday afternoon of listening
to the will of the people of Pelican Bay. And Commissioner, I
have the utmost respect for you as a true leader of this
community.
I could read the numbers. And what they tell me is, the
residents are not in favor of this ordinance. So I'm giving you the
opportunity to convince me to do the opposite of the will of the
people.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let me, if I may, answer
Commissioner Henning's question. Then I'll go to Commissioner
Coletta and then Commissioner Fiala. I've read the numbers, but
let me share with you how I felt looking at the numbers.
Page 29
March 13, 200t
First of all, we had a set agenda for the meeting. It was
timed and it was clearly expressed that at the end of the meeting
a ballot would be passed out so the people there could cast that
ballot in favor of the ordinance or against the ordinance.
Now, people could quarrel about language on a ballot. I
think our last election, national election, would say people can
always quarrel about ballots or how they are presented.
My point was, there was a set format to do this. That format
was violated by the other side. They came into the room. They
put in their own ballot boxes. They brought in their own ballots,
a blue ballot, passed them out at the door before anyone heard
anything.
Many people who came there said, "1 am voting and I'm
leaving." Because I asked. And other people -- one guy said that
-- I didn't hear this, but one other person said, "1 will vote even
for my cat." So there is no way that you could take that blue
ballot and ask yourself, what does this mean? That created
confusion in itself.
And Jennifer Edwards had a locked ballot box that she was
going to collect all of these in at the end of the meeting so that
no one would see anything, and be counted by her office.
Graciously she took all of these ballots, put them in those locked
boxes and then, then counted them.
If I went to the white ballots, which were the ones that we
had asked people to do and which would have followed the
original format of the meeting, the results are interesting to me.
To appoint advisory board people, forty-three voted for.
That would be under the old ordinance. Under the new
ordinance, where you elect your supervisors~ seventy-one of
those people said yes. Of that, thirty-one who were against were
nonregistered voters and eighteen were -- were registered voters
-- and the nonregistered voters who went for or against.
My concern is, and no matter where you live in this country,
that any time you pass ordinances, there are only certain bodies
that can do this. And we know what those are, whether they are
cities or whether they are counties or whether they are
legislators. And those are elected officials who represent their
constituents.
All elected people in any organization are representative of
the people, whether it's a condo association, whether it's a
Page 30
March t 3, 2001
whole community association, whatever it is. Those people
represent those who elected them there.
And when they want to change something, if they don't like
who is there, they have to go back and remove those people.
And that is the way it's been and that's one of the reasons we
live in a free country.
So I don't believe people because they pay taxes have just
the right to say, '~/ell, I live in this community and I want to vote
on any ordinance." If that was the case, anyone that owns
property anywhere in the country can do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This is what I read from
the ballot, Mr. Chairman, is, it was -- and I was there. It was
stated there's approximately a thousand people there. And I
agree with that. And from the total of the white ballots, the for,
against and the undervote~ you have 177. And from the blue
ballot you have 1,014 total.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I would think that the blue
ballot would represent a true representation from the
community.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we -- excuse me. And if
we read the blue ballot registered voters from the white ballot
registered voters, it clearly states you have 600 from the blue
and from the white you have about 110. That's the way I read
the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- outcome of the ballot. So
that's where I stand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Commissioner, I value your
observation. And you were there and I thank you for being there.
I believe if it was not confusing to begin with, that if the process
had been followed~ and a decision was made between both of
those groups and the attorneys prior to any ballot being passed
out, and one was accepted over the other and that was followed,
and followed that in a meeting, that would have eliminated
anyone coming in without listening, without having any
opportunity to hear what each side had to say from just casting a
ballot and walking out.
And the other would be, in that respect, is that if that
Page 31
March 13, 2001
process had been followed, I would give much more credibility to
the blue ballot. But I have to say honestly, I don't give it a lot of
credibility because of the way it was handled. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with that last statement.
I don't give it a lot of credibility, the way it was handled from
almost the beginning. And what I'd like to do is make a motion
for discussion, try to move this forward, that may be able to meet
the needs.
I do agree that the registered voters should be the voice in
the end, but we're not reaching the registered voters. We're far
off the mark. And you can take this for what it's worth and we
can discuss it from that point.
I suggest that we -- this motion would be to continue with
the present and existing MSTBU and the regulations that have
governed it. That a referendum ballot to create the proposed
Pelican Bay District Service ordinance outlined within this
particular document with the changes to it be sent to the public
at a time that is convenient.
If it fails, we would continue with the current MSTBU. And I
would also further suggest that it not be presented for
reconsideration for five years. If it passes, then the proposed
Pelican Bay Service District ordinance be enacted at an
appropriate time in the future. And that also, too, not to be -- not
to be presented for a reconsideration for a five-year period.
Let the election office do what it does well. Let them
handle it officially so there won't be any question of whose
ballots were what. It's got to be very confusing. And I admire all
the time and effort that's been put in this by all the parties that
are involved.
But the truth of the matter is, we should have in the very
beginning made it a referendum to the voters of Pelican Bay.
The people that can actually say, "this is it" or "this isn't it." And
that is my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's already -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I need a clarification on
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought we had a motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Repealing the ordinance and
reinstating the MSTBUB -- MSTBU.
Page 32
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because I'd say currently the one that
was approved is on the books.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm saying that we reinstate the
one that was there before.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well~ you would have to repeal -- you
would have to repeal the one that's there and then bring back the
other one.
COMMISSIONER COI. ETTA.' Then I amend my motion to
repeal it, but to send it to the voters to see if they will accept it.
In other words, the same stipulations, we had to repeal the
present that we have together that we originally approved,
repeal that and just make it a referendum ballot that's sent to
the voters of Pelican Bay to see if this is acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second your motion if you
remove the referendum question. Because I think the leaders of
Pelican Bay can do that on their own in the community, instead
of the encumbrance (sic) of the supervisor of elections. I mean,
it's just like if the residents want to rename a road, they need to
have fifty-one percent, or fifty percent plus one before they bring
it to the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you are saying,
Commissioner Henning, is that you want to go past the
registered voters and reach out to all the members of Pelican
Bay; is that what you are saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm just saying, repeal the
ordinance, reinstate the taxing unit. And if the community wants
to come back, they have to show through a petition, this is the
will of the people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' The voters, fifty-one percent or
property owners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well~ it's voters.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Registered voters is what I hear
Commissioner Henning saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I really don't care to amend it. I
still think that there is enough interest out there. Even though
we have had tremendous outpouring on both sides, I can't clearly
define that it's strong in one direction or the other. How much is
it going to cost to put the referendum together compared to
leaving this indecision going on forever, who was right or who
was wrong.
Page 33
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, let the residents bring it
back and we might not see it for a while. We don't know. But my
feeling is, let's do the will of the people. Let the residents do the
homework, instead of the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning, I
agree with you, the will of the people is my foremost concern.
That's why I want to bring this to rest with a referendum that will
one way or another answer the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just ask who would pay for
the referendum? Are you talking about a mail ballot?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would defer those -- I would defer
comments or questions in regards to mechanics to our attorney.
MR. OLLIFF: In regard to a referendum within the area of
Pelican Bay, if we get outside of the general election process,
then we have in essence a special election, if we use the
supervisor of elections' offices, which has its own incumbent
costs; currently estimated at between 8500 and $10,000 to
conduct a referendum election.
If in fact there were to be a referendum ballot question
concerning a future services district, and it were part of the
general election process, which of course there are elections in
spring and fall of 2002, it piggybacks in at little or no cost
whatsoever. I remind --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the motion would need to
specify, wouldn't it, a referendum, at what time or something.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. That could be clarified later because
there's a lot of time before that election, those elections that
come up. Obviously the supervisor of elections always needs, in
a coordinated way, to have the ability to provide a little bit of
input, but also just to have a scheduling time to order ballots
once a question is determined.
This Board of County Commissioners, however, is the legal
entity which determines the ballot question and orders and calls
an election. A question could be proffered to this Board and the
Board adopt that question or it could certainly amend anything
that the citizens or any groups bring to it.
I had provided the Board of County Commissioners, as well
as many of the proponents and opponents recently, reminding
them of the 1996 policy that this Board put in place called the
Collier County Citizens Initiative Petition Policy, which does
Page 34
March t3, 2001
provide for an orderly petition process that is coordinated
through the county manager, as well as reviewed by the county
attorney for legal sufficiency.
So that the questions that come forward are the kind of
questions that the Board, when and if there is a petition
submitted, can in fact legally be handled by the Board.
Because it's possible that questions or the types of
signatures and format on a petition don't lend themselves for
much utility by the Board of County Commissioners or in fact the
supervisor of elections.
That policy was adopted with the assistance of the then
supervisor of elections. And the supervisor of elections, in fact,
as part of our policy, signed on to the policy. The supervisor of
elections reviews the signatures of registered voters of whatever
area is being polled or for whatever area the signatures --
petitions are being collected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Am I correct in assuming that I
shouldn't say anything until we find out if we have a second on
this thing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We don't have a second at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. First of all, you are
absolutely right. This is really a very difficult decision for all of
us to make. And I think no matter what we do, we're never going
to make everyone happy.
I think the people in Pelican Bay will eventually want to
have their own elected representatives, but I feel they all want
more input. My problem is, I think back to the Foxfire vote and
the tremendous opposition after the vote that went unheard and I
don't want to see that happen in this case.
Is there any hurry to pass this? I don't see that there is a
hurry. I see that everybody eventually wants the same thing.
They just want to work together on it. I think it's important to
allow the people in Pelican Bay to make their own decision as to
who votes, whether it be the taxpayers or the registered voters.
I think that they should go back, take another look. And as
long as I -- as long as there is no real hurry, let the community
strive to work together to create the ordinance that they want
representing the whole community.
And then let them put it in for passing. I believe it will pass
next February when everybody has a chance to hammer this
Page 35
March t3, 2001
thing out and let it go forward. I think they eventually want their
own elected representatives.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question again of the
county attorney? The policy that you referred to with the fifty
percent plus one for board members, that was a policy that we
adopted that if a community, if a neighborhood wanted to make a
change in anything from as small as a street name to as large as,
I guess, their method of governance, you know, anything, they
would bring to the County Commission signatures of fifty
percent, plus one, of the question. Property owners or registered
voters.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, it could be either, but it particularly
provided for a review of the registered electors of an area by the
supervisor of elections.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that -- the policy, though, was
because of the -- because of the supervisor of elections'
involvement, the policy was that registered voters' signatures
would be --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Required.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- compared against, just like we
did for regularly canvassing boards, would be confirmed as
registered voters.
MR. OLLIFF: It was to determine the authenticity of the
petitions that came forward so there weren't people signing for
other people and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MR. OLLIFF: And the categories include the creation of
taxing units, benefit units, special assessment districts, to name
a few, as well as potential referendum ballot questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's not mandatory --
MR. OLLIFF-' Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' -- because I know in my district
we have done some things without going through that process
because I was confident it was what the community wanted.
MR. OLLIFF: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not something that we
have to do.
MR. OLLIFF: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it is sort of the standard
procedure, is to get those signatures.
Page 36
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have signatures and that says --
speaks to the issue of registered voters. And when it's a
taxation issue, I will always believe registered voters and only
registered voters are the ones that can make those taxation
issues. If they choose to have an input on how they are taxed in
a given community, let them move there, sign a -- and register to
vote in the state in which they want to reside.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask another practical
question? Just because -- I know I can't vote, but I would like to
try to help flesh out whichever direction the Board is going to go
in.
If the Board should rescind the ordinance today, what
becomes the legal status of Pelican Bay as far as who owns its
assets, what will be in our budget as we get it the next few
months, those kinds of issues? The Board needs to know that.
MR. OLLIFF: Certainly. I'm glad you asked the question. I
have an opportunity to respond. The amendment that I put in the
ordinance, when it was adopted November 28th was specifically
so there would not be a gap between the MSTBU and the
ordinance establishing it that was to be repealed and the new
district when it came on line.
So that the current, or former, depending on how you want
to look at it, the Pelican Bay MSTBU advisory committee, the
ordinance and Board of County Commissioners as its governing
authority continue in effect until the new district board of
supervisors are elected and seated.
Which means that subsequent to April 26th, they are
effectively elected, but they are not seated until they take the
oath of office pursuant to state statute. And in fact the
ordinance provides that the Board of County Commissioners shall
certify the election results, which would be the meeting
following April 26th, which is May 1st.
Now, if the Ordinance 2000-82, the new services district
ordinance, were to be repealed, I think the argument can well be
made that nothing would have to be done to bring back the
Pelican Bay MSTBU because this new one has been dissolved
before it ever was officially created and had the legal authority
to do anything.
But what I would suggest, if I were drafting -- I expect that I
would be the one directed -- that I would make it abundantly
Page 37
March 13, 2001
clear in the repealer ordinance that the Pelican Bay MSTBU,
which hasn't been officially dissolved, never was and continues
unabated.
In regard to the assets, that question came up at the town
hall meeting on Sunday. I was behind the curtain at that time
talking about ballots being used. But the fact was, is, there
wasn't an Exhibit C with the ordinance November 28th because
there couldn't be. I could not have and have never had -- one
moment please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Barsh and Mr. Popper, will you
please take your seats? I have concluded taking public input.
And you may stand at the side, but I would address that to
anyone that comes in front of us. So please extend the courtesy
to people who are discussing that and step back away from the
microphone.
MR. POPPER: Commissioner, we apologize.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: The fact is, is that the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County Government, holds the assets in
trust pursuant to the implementation of the new ordinance.
Because there is no district board of supervisors in place, no
authority to receive the assets, I have to look at the ordinance in
toto, all together to see that in fact an absolute transfer of
assets cannot occur until after the district board is seated.
The ordinance also provides that there will be an interlocal
agreement identifying those assets and turning it over.
With that in mind, I knew two things on November 28th.
When the ordinance was adopted, expressing a listing of assets
per Exhibit C, I knew that that listing would be forthcoming
because the ordinance absolutely required there to be an
interlocal agreement adopted.
But also, I had the confidence that we're dealing between
two governmental entities here, so nothing is going to abscond
or be lost. And secondly, that there was no district to give the
assets to and it wasn't the intent of the ordinance to give the
assets until after the new board was seated.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for that clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, there is no
second to the motion. I'm ready to make another motion if you
would like to -- someone would like to remove that motion.
Page 38
March t3, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll rescind my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. You wanted a -- you
were looking for a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was looking for a second and it
failed, so.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I need to point out you've
received one more registered speaker, from Mr. Ray O'Connor,
who has asked to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't take any more. In all due
respect, I would have liked to. The other side did have fifteen
minutes versus ten. And I, you know -- I couldn't do that. But we
have a lot of things to do here and I don't think -- at this point I
think the Board needs to continue our discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Words of wisdom from
somebody who sits in a small office and writes into the Naples
Daily News, Letter to the Editor, editorial board said to me,
"Keep it simple, stupid." So here it is, is to repeal Ordinance
2000-82. That's the motion. (Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That fails for a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to ask if I could add
something to it, even though I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Excuse me, commissioner. I'll
allow you to -- you heard the motion and if you want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Short, sweet and simple --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- make an amendment, please do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and add a couple of words. And
encourage the community to work together and to revise the
ordinance and bring it back to us next February, this time with no
opposition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that, Donna.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would like some clarification on
how you propose that happening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Really. I mean, who is going to
represent whom? Or how is that going to happen?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know names there. I think
that that's up to the Pelican Bay community.
Page 39
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't know either. I mean, and
then that would be a bias on my part to say these people should
be the ones that do it. But there needs to be a process here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this is just a --
Commissioner Fiala, that you just want to give direction and you
don't want -- part of the motion is to, you know, bring -- clean it
up, bring it back to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In other words, just make the short,
sweet, simple motion as it stands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep it simple, stupid.
FIALA: And then with the directive that I
COMMISSIONER
gave as followed.
COMMISSIONER
agree --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
direction.
COMMISSIONER
right.
HENNING: Well, I mean, just as -- and I
FIALA: But not part of the motion.
HENNING: Right. And I agree with your
FIALA: If the will of the people so choose,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would also ask in that that they use
the current one that we voted approval of as a basis for the
beginning of their discussions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is another good suggestion.
I'll second your short and sweet, simple motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did we incorporate all phases of
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. We're offering suggestions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Suggestions to the residents.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One is to repeal. It comes back to us
by February I of the year 2002. That --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what we said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's not part of the motion. The
motion was just -- I took mine away and I added it just as a
suggestion to the community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the person that made the motion
agreed to -- are you making that as an amendment, that there's a
time line?
Page 40
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not. What somebody
suggested was that -- what you, it was, that said who is going to
do what. So I took away my sentence that I wanted to add to
that motion, left it as Tom stated it, repeal the ordinance, period.
But then I added the suggestion to encourage the
community to work together and revise that ordinance that now
stands. And then Jim said, if it be the will of the people, and
then you said, working together. So -- but that's just suggestions
on our part for February 1st.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or whenever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Or whenever, yes. So yes, I second
your motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Clear.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have the motion read
back to us?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like it read back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Repeal Ordinance 2000-82.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' And we're not going to
incorporate Donna's suggestion? How about Jim's suggestion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're encouraging -- what I'm
saying is, encouraging the residents of Pelican Bay, please bring
back what you want to do and we'll support you. It has to be the
majority of the registered voters, just like our policy statement
says.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, wait a minute. You're injecting
something here that says they have to go through that process
before they bring it to us, which says it's fifty plus one; is that
what I'm hearing~ Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: I think what you're hearing is, there is a very
simple motion on the floor to repeal the ordinance. And then
there is a lot of encouragement, which has nothing to do with the
ordinance or the motion.
An encouragement on the part of the Board to have the
Pelican Bay community in some form or fashion decide what it is
they want to do in terms of this ordinance, and bring it back to
the Board with some evidence that that's what the community
wants to do. That's what I've heard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think --
Page 41
March 13, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will add this at the end of it. I
believe that all the people that worked so hard to put this
together for the last two years, I feel that motion really discounts
what -- the efforts that they have made.
And I don't know what your expectation will be at the end of
this, you know. Reading up here, I get the direction. I know
what you want to do and I won't talk you out of it. I will just
suggest to you that what it says to me is, those people didn't do
what they needed to do.
And -- and I say to myself, what will happen if it ever comes
back or any ordinance comes in front of us? Will not the same
questions be raised? Did they get the input? Did they do this?
What assurance will you have, as a board of directors, that they
went through a process that everybody in the community or
relatively most of the people in the community really want? You
have not heard --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me. Let me just finish.
You have not heard from the people that I walk the streets
with or talk to the people who don't come here to these meetings
who say, you know, "1 think it's really basically a good ordinance,
Commissioner, and you shouldn't throw the baby out with the
bath water. That it can be amended. We like the amendments
that you're suggesting. And take what you have and amend it
and work forward."
That seems to be not the direction of this Board this
morning. I respect your decisions and your input, but I needed to
share how I feel about it and make that statement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Jim. I don't think
anything is ever lost. All the work that has been put forward may
have come to an end at the moment, but it's still there. The
document is still in its place. At some point in time when the
people of Pelican Bay decide to pick up and go forward with it,
I'm sure they will pick up where you left off with this document
and go from there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And now they will probably all know
that it's going on because everybody is acutely aware in Pelican
Bay, so I don't think you'll have anybody complaining that they
were not advised. Everybody knows now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, everybody knows it's going to
Page 42
March t3, 2001
happen. I would not quarrel with that. What will happen, I would
not make any predictions on what will happen. That will be up to
the community to decide, whatever process they decide to
establish.
But I would say to the community, whenever you establish,
if you are not all inclusive, and if you don't include everybody
that needs to be included, we will be going through the same
thing if it ever comes back here again. Whether I'm here or other
commissioners, it will go through the same, same drill.
So that would be what I would recommend to the Pelican
Bay community, to do that and do it to the best of your abilities.
And again, whatever you decide to do, and my judgment will
always be, those who are registered voters at the end of the day
are the ones who cast votes on whatever you do.
I can't cast a vote to pass or deny an ordinance unless I was
an elected official. And that's the law of the state. It is the law
of the land. And that's -- now that's how it works. And that's
how I feel. So I call a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All in favor? Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Opposed by the same sign?
Aye.
It moves to -- what week does that have to be brought?
MR, OLLIFF.' We'll bring that back April 10th, which is the
first available advertised date.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
MR. OLLIFF: Tuesday, April 10th.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is the process again. And I thank
everyone for whatever your point of view was in this. I respect
all of you. You're all fine people. You all deserve to be
participators in this process and I admire all of you.
And I thank you for your time and your energy and effort.
And I hope, truly hope that you move forward and take the work
that was already done and come back to this Board on a timely
basis so that you have an opportunity to really put yourself in a
position where you elect those who tax you. So thank you very
much. We need to move to --
MR. POPPER: Commissioners, thank you very much for
listening to the will of the people.
Page 43
March 13, 2001
MS. BARSH: Yes, thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have listened. I may not always
agree, but I listened.
We need a quick break for our court recorder (sic) and then
we're going to come back and move to the -- which item was
that?
(A recess was taken.)
Item #10E
DISCUSSION REGARDING WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS IN THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER-SEWER DISTRICT - STAFF TO
WORK WITH CBIA AND SUBCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION AND
OTHERS IN THE INDUSTRY AND DEVELOP A SPECIFIC ACTION
PLAN WITH ANY AND ALL POSSIBILITIES AND RETURN TO THE
BCC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND TO DEVELOP A COUNTY
POSITION PAPER TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE END
OF THE DAY
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for quickly quieting down
and taking your seats. As you know, we have a very busy
agenda. We're going to move forward. The subject we're talking
about is the sewage treatment plant and that was -- help me with
that, Tom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is the North Naples --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tinney.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tinney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I would request, if I could,
is just the Board to have a formal briefing right now on what is
the status. I mean, we're obviously hearing from people who are
in a panic and it sounds panicky to me. It sounds horrible.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If that's the pleasure of the Board, I
would recommend that we do that, if that's all right with you,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I have to remind my
colleagues that this was brought up last month and that's why I
wanted to bring it up today, because we need to hear about the
economical impact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Geez.
Page 44
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't disagree with any of that.
But the last month that it was brought to us, we -- I don't think
at that point had the information that we'll have today. So I
thank you for putting it on the agenda. I concur it needs to be
there.
Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'm Jim Mudd, for the record,
public utilities administrator for Collier County. Over the last
month from about the 9th of February until the first week of
March, the north treatment plant has experienced extreme peak
flows from the hours of around 6.'00 in the morning until 11:00 in
the afternoon, which has caused the plant -- and when I say,
"extreme," it's in the tune of 25 million gallons a day. Their peak
hourly is around 17 million gallons a day. And that's both plants
combined; the north plant that's on Goodlette Frank and the
Pelican Bay plant, package plant.
And so during that period of time we have had four spills.
We had two internal to the plant that we were able to contain
within the plant and we have had two where the retention ponds
that sit out there, out of the Goodlette Frank plant, have gone
over the side and into the drainage ditch.
In all four instances we've contacted the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection and we've done some extreme
measures to try to contain those peaks so that we can stay in
operation. And that's really the key here, is stay in operation.
We've gone and used the 300 miles of pipe that we have in
the ground and we've tweaked the system in the lift station so
that we can hold up to about 3.5 million gallons a day in the
pipelines during the peak hours, to hold it back so it doesn't go
straight into the plant. And then -- and then in the waning hours
in the evening when flows aren't so high, we basically pump that
out so it can handle the next morning's flow.
We were doing pretty well as of Tuesday last week and we
were in good shape all the way until yesterday, where a Monday
peak -- and I don't know if it's influx of tourists. They leave town
on Saturday night and all of a sudden on Sunday you get more
coming into hotel rooms. But on Monday mornings we get
slammed.
And we got slammed yesterday. We gained about two foot
of free board on those ponds over last week by hauling
Page 45
March 13, 2001
wastewater out of the north plant to the south plant, twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week. Many complaints from the
residents about the lights and noise. My apologies for that, but
I've got pretty much an extreme situation where I've got to
handle it.
And then yesterday morning we suffered that extreme flow
again and we lost about a foot and a half of that free board.
We're about six inches from the top. And I'm holding my fingers
and crossing everything I have today to hope that we can hold on
and get some more free board so that I can get ready for the next
Monday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a really stupid
question about that particular point? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know, can't you put
sandbags? Can you make the surrounding, you know -- make it a
deeper lake. Can't you do something --
MR. MUDD.' Ma'am, you're permitted for the holding ponds
and there is things that you can do, and we're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The permit won't let you.
MR. MUDD: We can deal with that process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Practicality will not rule, right.
MR. MUDD: The issue here is, there's no interconnect
between the north and south plants. There are two isolated
areas in the county and we're treating them separately. And in
the future we're going to solve that problem. And it's going to be
in the relatively near future. Before the summer ends, I'm going
to have an interconnect between the north and the south.
What we have coming on line is a five million gallon a day
expansion to the north plant to be on line, run through debug so
that it can handle capacity in February 2002, so I don't have the
problem in the north.
But I will tell you based on permits that have been promised
in the past that if we don't have the interconnect, then I can't
take some peaks off the south, we'll be talking about the south
side next year at this time. And that's not good planning on our
part, so I'm going to get that interconnect.
Now, Joe Cheetham and Carl Boyer -- Joe Cheetham my
head of wastewater, and Carl Boyer, my chief of engineering --
are over right now with Mr. Middleton over at the city office to
Page 46
March 13, 2001
see if we cannot find some way to take the peaks off with the
city system. And even the city system isn't hooked up to the
county system.
And let's talk about safety and hurricane issues and
disasters. Those systems need to be connected so we can help
each other. So they are going to talk through that process as we
go along.
But I will tell you based on the permits that have been
promised through '99, '99 and 2000, that when we bring the five
million gallon a day expansion on in February of '02, that by 2005
-- remember I put up that chart and said, "2016 just doesn't make
it here and it's going to be a lot less than that." Our prediction is
about 2005, I'm going to be beyond the five million gallon
expansion.
In order to offset that with the interconnect, we have plans
or had plans on the books, with your approval, to go to three
million gallons a day at the south plant. I am in the near future
going to come to this Board and ask you for your permission to
take that three million gallons and put that off and say, "It needs
to be eight million gallons, not three."
Because as I looked at the process and I looked at the
permits again down in the south end, and as soon as I bring that
three million gallon a day expansion to the south end in 2003, I'm
going to have to start building the next expansion.
And that plant is in the middle of the Lely Community. I
mean, St. Andrews Road is a very nice road, but it's the only way
in and out. And why put that community through ten years'
worth of construction when we can do it once and do it in
two-and-a-half years and be done with it.
That plant will then be at capacity. We'll make sure that
there's no odor and we'll get that under control, and we have
done a good job with that. And then that will start giving us
some latitude between the north and south, and then we can get
ready to start putting the expansion on the north end.
I will tell you in the out years, 20t0, we've got to be looking
at the Orange Tree area because at 2011 we've made a promise
to take that package plant on that's already overwhelmed and
they're hauling sewerage to our north plant so that they can stay
in compliance right now, today, as we speak.
So we need to start thinking about a plant in that neck of
Page 47
March t3, 2001
the woods and to be on line around 2010. So as we look through
that, an interconnected system with the capacity that we need.
Right now we are just barely holding our own. There is where we
sit in sewer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just -- because
Commissioner Henning was right. We have heard that update
before. The one that I'm so anxious to hear is, what is the
current effects on building permits? Because that is an
economic -- I don't want to say -- disaster waiting to happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Impact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it potentially is. We've got to
address that. I want to know what effect on permits, which
permits will be issued, which permits won't be issued. And what
is a solution for the ones that won't be issued and how long do
we expect that to last. That's the report I'm wanting to hear.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. When we had our first two
incidents and we contained them, that was okay. When it went
over the side, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection came on line and said, "You're no longer -- as of the
23rd of February, you're no longer under the general permit
process, which is the short form. You will go to the long form.
"That long form, when it gets to our office at Fort Myers, we
will turn it around and say that the permittee can have a dry line
permit, not a guarantee of connection. And that's the way it's
going to turn around to you, and then the county has to deal with
that process." That's as far as the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection will take it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So if somebody already has, to
the extent that communities have their, I think they call it wet
line permit from the DEP, they won't be affected by this at all?
MR. MUDD: That's right, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about phased communities
that have wet permits from DEP, but they haven't platted the
subsequent phases yet?
MR. MUDD: Those plats don't have a wet permit from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and they have
to go through the process, just like they did with their previous
phases.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Okay. So the wet permit, then,
only apples to the platted phases.
Page 48
March 13, 2001
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So if you're platted, you're
protected?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I would say if you have your FDEP wet
line permit, you're okay. I won't go to -- there's too much
confusion with platted and SDP'd and everything else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's the key. If you have a permit signed off
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the
public utilities administrator of Collier County that says that you
have guaranteed hook-up for sewer on the north end, you're
okay, if the house is there or the house is to be built.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other question, then,
becomes -- because I guess that means that the major
developments in the community that have, you know, big
subdivision permits, have those wet permits, won't be as
dramatically affected by this as a home builder.
So my question then becomes, as to the people who are
affected by this, the small home builder or anybody who is -- I'm
not, but what if I were trying to build a house in a community
that's not in a subdivision that has a wet permit, can you provide
some relief to me? I've heard some suggestions like temporary
septics, temporary package plants. What's out there as a
possibility?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. If they so choose in those
particular instances that you just mentioned that if -- well, first of
all, the dry line permit says you can build at your risk. Now, the
construction industry has told us yesterday, it's very difficult to
get a loan under those kind of circumstances.
But there are -- there are some instances like the -- I think it
was the Dunes that was mentioned yesterday, okay, which is a
high-rise that will come on in about sixteen to eighteen months,
that this -- that dry line permit would be sufficient in the fact that
they are not going to get occupancy until they are done. And
then the north expansion will be on line and that would give them
a wet line permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So a dry permit for a high-rise is
not as big a deal because it takes them eighteen months to build,
so hopefully we will be on line with the capacity by then. So they
would be taking some risk, but not a huge one.
Page 49
March 13, 2001
MR. MUDD.' In some instances. I don't want to -- that isn't
carte blanche right across the board. I used one particular
instance that was brought to our attention --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's for that developer to
decide for themselves. We are certainly -- what we're saying is,
you take that risk if you choose to. But for our information just
logically, if it takes eighteen months to build something, you are
going to have the capacity in eighteen months; true or false?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So now what about the not
high-rise, not plat, not FDEP wet permit?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. They can on their own provide
temporary sewage treatment or disposal systems as an interim
measure. And when they prove that to be the case, we will go
back to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in
those particular instances and say, "There's temporary septage
(sic) in that particular area. We need a wet permit."
And then it's going to be up to the homeowner or that
builder to be able to show that process, that that's going to be
there and it's a guarantee in order to get that wet permit. And
you can do that.
In the interim, we're trying to get connections. And this is
the -- this was brought up yesterday at a meeting, and we had
thought about it and talked before with staff. It's also a political
issue, and we're going to need your help for this, no doubt, to
talk to the city council in that process.
But if we can -- they have some additional capability in the
City of Naples. If we can make some temporary connections to
take the peaks off and show that, that's on line already, we
probably won't be able to use -- won't need to use it, okay,
because the expansion will come on on line, but it will be a
measure to show the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection that there is a way to ease this off in the interim.
I think we can go up there and negotiate with them to get
out of the dry line permit business, in order to -- in order to get
back to the general permit criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carter, this is where you can
come in and really champion and help out these mom-and-pop
single-family home builders, these guys out there building
commercial churches, is to reach out for that capacity through
Page 50
March 13, 2001
your constituents in the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the constituents in the
City of Naples are in my district.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The City of Naples belongs to
Commissioner Mac'Kie, but I will champion that to the mayor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did I say?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at
you too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's great.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We will both work on it, that's for
sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll both work on it. But all of us --
you can be assured that the Vice Chairman and myself will work
diligently to do everything that we can to make this as easy as
possible in a very difficult time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's another piece, if I could
just finish, because I was almost done with my line of questions
and then I'll understand the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. The other piece is,
okay, it sounds to me like for this year, for the rest of this
calendar year, if you have a wet FDEP permit, you're okay. If you
can live with a dry permit, that's your choice.
If we can get some temporary solution with the City of
Naples, that might get us back in the wet line permit business.
Or builders can do temporary package plants or temporary
septic.
Is there any idea -- I guess it's hard to quantify the cost of,
for example, a temporary package plant because it would be
based on the capacity. I'm just wondering what we're doing to --
MR. MUDD: If you're talking about bringing one on that
could take eight million gallons a surge, you are not talking
about a temporary package plant anymore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I was talking about in
individual communities. If I were a developer and I were trying
to get a bank to loan me some money, I would be pricing out the
cost of a package plant in my subdivision because otherwise I
don't think a bank is going to loan them money.
So I would like to know at some time, there must be a per
Page 51
March 13, 2001
unit general cost for a package plant. I would just like to know
what that is so we could know sort of what we're costing people.
MR. MUDD: I'll get you that information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then the last question that I
have has to do with next season. After everybody goes home at
Easter, you won't have this problem, right, because the peaks
will have passed?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At that point will FDEP, they're
not going to talk -- it doesn't matter.
MR. MUDD: They want to know what you're doing for next
peak season, okay. So the promise that the plant is going to be
on line at that time isn't a foregone conclusion, so we're trying to
speed up that construction as fast as we can up on the north
plant. We're trying to make sure we get the interconnects with
the City of Naples. And then I'd like to do a temporary
interconnect north and south on our own between the county line
sometime this summer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the last --
MR. MUDD: When we have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: When we have those kind of things and we
basically show them a demonstrated pattern that this is not
going to happen again and we've got a good solid plant on the
line, I think they will look the other way and say, "You're back in
the general permit mode."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I think what's -- I think
we kind of -- I, at least, think I'm beginning to have my arms
around what the construction industry impacts are to this for the
rest of this year. The next question then becomes, how long is
this going to last? And saying that by February of next year we'll
have this expansion, that doesn't solve our problem, so.
MR. MUDD: I would say to you February of '02, when that
plant comes on line, and I'm going to do everything I can to make
sure that plant is on line, fully functioning with the expansion, we
can go back into a wet permit kind of issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the question is, what could
we do to accelerate February 2002?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'm working on that. I'm crashing the
program, trying to get the wet train on line faster. I'm dealing
Page 52
March 13, 200t
with that contractor. I've got to call the CEO of the plant as soon
as I get done with this today to get him on board. The CBIA
yesterday and all the construction folks were there, basically
said whatever that we need to make that happen, they would
help us make it happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just want to say from my
perspective, and I bet the rest of the Board will agree, if you
need more money to accomplish that, then I want to hear it.
Because a slam on the brakes of the construction industry in the
north part of this county is unacceptable to the economy of the
county. So if you need money, tell us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think, Jim, you'll be bashful
about that. We're a receptive Board and we will do whatever we
have to do. I may speak for this Board -- and if you disagree with
me, please do -- that we will provide every assistance that we
can to make sure that we get to where we need to be by
February or sooner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sooner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the sooner the better. And if
there's anything that I can do from any corporate contacts that I
have that would assist you in this process, I know you're not
bashful and you would ask me. And we just need to get it done.
I think the critical thing here beyond this, is what Jim Mudd
is telling us, we have to be prepared that -- to get our sewage
treatment and water treatment plants on the same kind of
direction to take care of the pent-up demand and look to the
future to make sure that we're not sitting here, whoever is here a
few years from now, wrestling with the same problem. We owe
that to the community. And if we don't do that, then I think
we've failed at our jobs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just would add, I agree with
you a thousand percent, we owe that to the community. But
because of our mistake in calculating, because we have been
measuring capacity on averages instead of peaks, we owe the
community a quick fix, as quick as it can be gotten, to the
problem that exists today, the emergency problem that exists
today, in addition to the long-term solution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, I want to take
your comment. I couldn't agree with you more. And again, when
Jim Mudd found this out, like myself, I was absolutely appalled
Page 53
March 13, 2001
that we had designed a plant on averages for that kind of thing.
You can't control average sewage. I mean, I have never found a
way to do that. Unless there is some sort of schedule in which
people can go to the bathroom on certain days, you can't do that,
SO.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't want to go there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know. I know. But what I want to
say again is, Jim, I just really value what you have done for this
community in the short time you have been here. You don't hide
the problem. You come and say, "This is the problem. This is
what we are doing to fix it." So you're to be commended for that.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to say the
same thing. Thank heavens Jim Mudd came on board at the time
to point this thing out before it blew up in our faces. I realize it's
almost there, but I know that, knowing you and your capabilities,
you will take care of it and work with Commissioner Mac'Kie and
Commissioner Carter's suggestion and put this on a fast track.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD.' One of the things you are going to talk about
this week is the growth management issues that John Dunnuck
will talk about. He's going to talk about, is it iust the average
population we service or is it the peak population that comes to
town that we need to be servicing, in every particular instance
where it touches everybody in Collier County?
And that's a big change in his regs and rules. And he's going
to be talking about that, not only in water, in sewer, but roads,
landfill, solid waste, everything it touches. Is it Friday, John?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
MR, MUDD: That's a Friday workshop that you have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the free ride is over, ladies and
gentlemen. If you're a visitor, we love having you here, but
you've got to pay your fair share.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's one of the points that I
want to make. You need to appreciate that Jim and his staff
have been wrestling with this for months. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand.
MR. OLLIFF.' And you know that they have been squeezing
this lemon every way they can to try and figure out how to get us
through the season. From a practical standpoint, after Easter we
Page 54
March 13, 2001
probably don't have an issue on our hands. But from a DEP
standpoint, we still do have a significant issue on our hands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah.
MR, OLLIFF: We will be showing you in writing the critical
path. Because the critical path is not something that takes
between now and six months from now. The critical path
includes not only getting the current plant expansion in the north
end on line, it talks about interconnections then that are
necessary after that. It talks about south plant construction.
And then from your standpoint, from a policy standpoint, I
hope you recognize that just as we talked about at Friday's
strategic planning meeting, when we talk about that bag of
things that needs to be taken care of from our end, go back and
look at transportation. We were in this shape. We talked to you
about solid waste. We were in this shape.
We're now telling you on wastewater, we're in the same
position. And we've got a number of issues that are critical
issues of this community that your staff sitting there has got to
take care of before we can start moving forward and doing novel,
new, innovative things. We need to take care of the business
that we have at hand. And these are the kind of examples that
we keep bringing to you and showing you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure makes me want to have a
reunion of former county administrators and bring an Uzi.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, again, I thank you, Tom, for that
approach, the management approach. It's called program
evaluation review technique. And you always have a critical
path through that. And for ail you management scholars, you will
be pleased to hear we have administrators doing that. We have
registered speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have six registered speakers.
The first one is Steven Coleman, followed by David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. You all understand the
rules; one up, one on the on-deck circle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Steve has been cited as one
of the examples of the project that is really, really in trouble as a
result of this, so welcome him.
MR. COLEMAN: My name is Steve Coleman. I am a
managing member of Banyan Woods, LLC. We are the developers
of Banyan Woods. If you're not familiar with where that is, it's on
Page 55
March 13, 200t
the corner of Airport and Pine Ridge Road.
Prior to purchasing the property, we went to the county and
asked them, "Is there adequate sewer and water for our
proposed intended use?" At which time they gave us the letter
and said, "Yes, there is, at that date."
But we were grossly misled. In fact, there wasn't adequate
capacity at that time. And I went ahead and purchased the
property based on my having adequate utilities, and in fact we
don't have them.
I think this has created a huge hardship on myself and I
think I'm in the same boat as a lot of other developers here, that
they were given letters that there is adequate capacity and we
know there wasn't.
And we're all looking for a resolution, I know that. But in the
meantime, what are we supposed to do? Someone has to pick
up the ticket. We've got to put in, whether it be septic or
wastewater treatment plants, but someone has to pick up the
ticket for that too. I think we're all looking for a resolution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I don't know how to
answer that question right at this moment, but I'm sure we'll try
to find a way.
MR. OLLIFF: David Ellis will be followed by Cathy Curitello.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning. My name is David Ellis and I am
the executive vice president of the Collier Building Industry
Association.
I certainly want to come to you this morning and talk about
this very important issue. I don't want to spend a lot of time
really talking about how we got here, but more how we're going
to get out of it.
I'll tell you, it's a matter of grave concern for the builders,
for the subcontractors, for the property owners and the citizens
of Collier County. And I appreciate the importance you've placed
on it in your discussions this morning.
Unlike some of the challenges we face in the community, we
talked about transportation and some of the other things. One of
the good news things is, actually the funding is in place to
resolve some of the short-term issues that we've got. And
certainly, again, going back to the planning process, it certainly
begs an evaluation of how we do our planning in terms of these
types of infrastructure.
Page 56
March 13, 2001
Because I'll tell you again, to know that the money is there
and the resources and even the planning for it and that it hasn't
come is certainly, again, a great frustration.
I tell you, yesterday we had a very positive meeting in terms
of learning what was going on. Jim Mudd and his staff have been
very accessible and open. Since this information has come to
light to the industry, they have spent a great deal of time
explaining to us what they explained to you this morning and
answering a number of questions.
From that meeting what we've done as an industry is, we've
formed a task force of builders, subcontractors, suppliers,
engineers, true experts and people that work with this on the
private side of the equation. We've also asked that the folks
from the county on the public side be a part of working with us to
try to determine some of those solutions.
I think you'll find that the creativity and the expertise of the
people in that process can perhaps come together and with the --
hopefully the political support of you and the community and the
building industry, we can maybe get some of these hard
decisions done and make some of the bridges we're going to
need to make.
As a matter of fact, yesterday -- let me go over a few of the
solutions they mentioned. Jim brought up some of these as
opportunities. Just to accelerate the contract that we're under
right now in the expansion of the plant. When the guys that I
work for have to get a ]ob done, they find ways to accelerate that
and work with their contractor to get that done.
The work with the interconnect with the City of Naples,
again, I don't know the political issues there, but I certainly
know that there is a practical matter. If it can be done, it's
something we need to be vigorously pursuing.
To accelerate the expansion of the south plant in
con]unction with the idea of interconnecting the north to the
south plant, it makes a great deal of sense. And if it can be done
and can be expedited, those are some of the things that we need
to be moving ahead with.
And frankly, one of the things that I think we can continue to
pursue is aggressively negotiating with FDEP. The situation
we're in, I believe that they can work with us to offer some more
creative solutions, of ways we can get out of this in the short
Page 57
March 13, 2001
term, as you have so eloquently said, Commissioner Mac'Kie. To
look at some of those issues and ask them, '~Nhat can we do?
And again, I know Jim has been doing that. And again, one
of the things I know from the building industry side, in the
development side, there's many, many folks, engineers and
experts in other fields that work directly with FDEP and could
add resource to that. And that's what we pledge to you.
What I hope is in two weeks from now at your next meeting
to bring back recommendations to you that are a little more
concrete than what we just kind of went through. To say, "Here
are some things we think are very feasible in the short term.
Here are some things in the intermediate and in the long term."
And again, I think in many ways we're going to be
reinforcing the things that Jim has been talking about, but
hopefully giving you as clear a path as we possibly can to define
those issues.
Again, from our perspective to you, a couple of things that I
think we would ask is -- to think about this, is its impact. Again, I
appreciate how you have acknowledged it. Because it's not just
a building and development industry issue. It's an economic
development issue. It's a tourism issue. It's an environmental
issue. And it's an industry -- an issue that affects all the citizens
of Collier County.
And again, I would ask you to do a couple of things. To
really offer direct, aggressive direction to your staff to pursue
this vigorously. And I appreciate what you mentioned this
morning about funding. Let them know that the checkbook is out
there and we're looking to solve this problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We owe it --
MR. ELLIS: And frankly, again, from you, also asking you to
give that kind of leadership to this issue. There may be some
hard decisions that we're going to have to make in the next
couple of weeks on how we're going to solve this. And I would
ask you to really approach it in that way.
Because I am convinced that with the expertise and the
creativity that we have in our community, we can solve this and
some of the other problems that we're facing. But again, it is
going to take that political will and that direction from you to
make it happen.
Again, I come this morning really offering what we can do as
Page 58
March 13, 2001
an industry to help solve it and I hope we can meet halfway and
make it happen. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- David, before you go --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple things. One is,
because of the critical nature of this, if there's a need for an
emergency meeting, if we need to meet sooner than two weeks
from now, two weeks counts in people's paychecks. MR. ELLIS: Sure does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we can be here -- I know this
Board would be willing to come at the drop of a hat for an
emergency meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We meet this Friday. Is that too soon
for you-all to be ready?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Well, just know that --
MR. ELLIS: I really don't know. We'll be meeting in the next
day or so. We were actually planning to meet Thursday at noon.
And I will tell you, it's not just CBIA. It's the ASCF. You are
going to hear from Cathy Curitello and some of the other affected
industries that are all really pulling together to try to figure this
out,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thought that I
would have is, I like what you said about being aggressive and
negotiating with FDEP. Because what Mr. Mudd has told us, is
that in the real world, we don't have a problem after Easter. We
have a permitting problem after Easter, but not a flushing
problem after Easter.
And so maybe what we need to do is get a contingency of us
to go and lobby face to face. I mean, I would be happy to go with
you and try to negotiate a change in that permitting policy
effective after Easter.
MR. ELLIS: Commissioner, I think it's a great suggestion.
Again, I think those are just things that we need to explore in
order to feel like we've checked all the boxes and done
everything we possibly can to meet this need.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, David, I will tell you this. I will
write the Governor explaining -- stating our case and try to elicit
his support in helping us in this issue. MR. ELLIS: Terrific. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think there's a prominent
Page 59
March 13, 2001
developer in town that has his ear, if Mike could help us with that
too. If anybody knows who that is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Probably a lot of developers have the
Governor's ear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ed Hoffmintz (phonetic) is his
campaign financing chair, so --
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Cathy Curitello, followed by
Mike Delduca.
MS. CURITELLO: Good morning. I'm Cathy Curitello, with
the American Specialty Contractors' Association. I appreciate
the comments of each and every commissioner this morning
because this is a devastating problem for our entire community.
I come to you representing specialty contractors and suppliers,
and working closely with developers and GCs through the great
leadership over at CBIA.
The problem is the consequence of this kind of reactive
planning when we reach crisis mode always falls on the
shoulders of the construction industry. What this means to the
people that I represent who are owners of businesses, anywhere
from two people to five hundred people, is devastating.
They are not transitory workers that move from community
to community based on the work that's being done. They are
permanent residents of this community. And they have grave
concerns over the consequences of this and other crisis mode
reactions to what's going on in our community.
We are willing to work with Commissioners, with the county
staff, along with CBIA to work towards solutions to this and
other problems concerning interconnectivity, concerning the
south plant. And want you to know that we're here, but please,
rely on us before the problem becomes a crisis for our members,
and be proactive about it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Mike Delduca, followed by David Bryant.
MR. DELDUCA: My name is Mike Delduca. I am with the
American Specialty Contractors and the owner of Naples
Concrete and Masonry. I came here today to speak to the
Commission about mainly two things; about trying to explain to
the Commission that not -- to underscore the seriousness of this
issue and to come up with a few solutions.
Page 60
March 13, 2001
I have heard several times that, of course we're always
worried about the mom-and-pop outfits and that type of thing.
But the reality of this issue right now, the bomb has exploded,
Commissioner Fiala. This is right now going to affect the major
developers, the major employers, the major suppliers in this
community right now.
Now, we've already had a couple of -- Mediterra, for
example, had their wet permit denied. Of course, that's Bonita
Bay Properties. That's a very large development. They had
number one and number two approved. Number three was
denied because they have to go to dry permitting.
Today I found out that two projects that we're working on,
one of them is another part of the Dunes. They only have a dry
permit to get started. They are considering whether or not even
to go ahead with the rest of the project at this time because
there are two-story buildings which will be ready a long time
before the high-rise. There's another project, Bridgewater Bay,
it's in a similar situation.
What we're talking about here also is, these dry permits for
the most part are useless. Because the building department is
directed not to give building permits, only under certain
conditions like models to issue -- they have to have a Certificate
of Occupancy in order to be able to get it, in order to get the dry
-- or to get a permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Mike, can I interrupt you?
MR. DELDUCA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true anymore. Even if
you have a dry permit, you're on your own discretion whether you
want to continue or not.
MR. DELDUCA: Well, okay. According to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' That's --
MR. DELDUCA: That's all settled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We straightened it out.
MR. DELDUCA: That's all settled, okay.
Now, the other issue with that is, even if you have a dry
permit, you have to have potable water on site for the fire issues.
You can't use a pump or a well in order to protect against fire
issues.
Now, if you have a dry permit, you start building, the fire
department is going to come out and close you down. Maybe
Page 61
March 13, 2001
that's something you guys can work with, but the other reality is
that it's an extremely hard situation to get financing from a bank.
You are going to sit there with millions of dollars in development
money and then you got to get a bank -- convince a bank to go
along with you.
And then if you can't get -- there still is no guarantee that
you can still hook up to the water system when -- in February. So
you could be sitting there with a major, major economic collapse
with developers going broke; and of course everybody associated
with it.
Which you're talking banks having serious problems.
Subcontractors already are starting to feel -- because of what I
found out today, my company is already starting to lay off
because that turnover of crews is happening immediately, all
right.
Most of the things -- the nearest I can figure out from talking
to a lot of people, fifty percent of what's coming up in new starts
is going to be affected. Now, immediately you are going to lose
fifty percent.
Even the big developers like DiVosta only have wet permits
out for a certain period of time. Within a few months, those
projects are going to come to a screeching halt. Within six
months, we're in real trouble here in the north end. The lawsuits
that are going to follow from that are going to be devastating to
the bonding capacity of Collier County and the solvency of Collier
County.
Now, we've talked about several solutions. You know, most
of them are pretty tough. The City of Naples -- if I was the county
commissioner, I would go to the city council. Because I know
that there's bad feelings between the two. And I would come
with a financial package and my hat in my hand or whatever it
takes to get the permission to hook up because we're talking
about serious stuff here.
Also, the U.S. military, the National Guard, they have
treatment facilities they can put up for armies, all right. They
have a heck of a lot of these plants right now that are surplus
that you can buy for practically nothing. That's my information. I
have only been given a day to look into this stuff.
But if they can put a 500,000 man army in the field in Desert
Storm, they can take care of a couple million gallons a day of
Page 62
March 13, 2001
effluent from Collier County. That's got to be something that's
looked into.
Accelerating a construction schedule, which other people
have talked about, is a necessity. We're getting plans right now
with the cooperation of the gentleman from the county and we're
going to have the task force look into what we think we can do
to help the county in that mode.
And the other thing is that I also have a commitment from at
least one trucking company to do 250,000 gallons a day of
trucking of raw sewage. Now, the problem with that is, we have
to find some place to put it. So it would have to be with another
county, make a deal with Lee County or Lehigh Acres or Fort
Lauderdale or whatever.
And the other thing which the City of Miami has done -- and I
know there's a lot of problems with this also -- is that Jim Mudd
has mentioned that they are holding 300 miles worth of sewage
in the pipes. And the City of Miami, ! understand, has
containment facilities to hold, you know, millions of gallons of
sewage.
Now, I understand that this stuff can explode, so obviously
there's got to be some way to do this where that isn't going to be
a problem. So I think that in -- commissioners are right. We
really don't have two weeks to talk about this. We need to react
immediately and really try to develop a plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mike.
Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike, you had mentioned something
about portable sewage plants that the U.S. Army brought out to
handle 5,000 (sic). Would something like that be an acceptable
thing if somebody is building a whole PUD; can they use that
sewage --
MR. DELDUCA: Well, that also drops the cost of that on the
developer. Any way you look at it, the county, if -- I mean, Jim
knows. Obviously he's an expert and a professional. I don't even
know if that's a viable thing.
The U.S. Army, I know, can put -- can put several divisions in
the field and they take care of that raw sewage. If that's
something we can put at the north plant site and use that for the
overflow and try to talk the DEP into accepting that, to be issuing
Page 63
March 13, 2001
permits, I don't know. It's worth looking into.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everything is worth looking into.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mike, I just wanted to mention
one thing. You mentioned the City of Naples. We do have a very
good working relationship with them right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sure they are going to
come through for us if anything can be done.
MR. DELDUCA: Well, I was at a council meeting a couple
weeks ago. Fred Tarrant didn't act that way, but I think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He didn't --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's only one of seven.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We call it a diverse opinion.
Occasionally you've got it out there.
MR. DELDUCA'. Well, I think really that that is the best
short-term answer to this problem. I don't know how long it
would take to hook up to that system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the question.
MR. DELDUCA: But it can't take that long. Because as one
of the gentlemen said in the meeting yesterday, the pipes run
parallel in some parts of the county and city where they are real
close to each other. And I don't know what the process would be
to tie that in because I'm a bricklayer, but it shouldn't be that
tough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one more. Because you
really do represent the people who this starts hurting today and
that just is -- I can't describe how horrible that is and how bad
this Board feels about that, and how, you know, apologetic. But
that isn't going to help anybody buy groceries the next week.
But if there is anybody who is going to come up with a
solution, it's going to be you guys who know. I mean, maybe not
the bricklayers, but it's going to be the contractors who know in
the field where we could hook up and how we could hook up and
how fast we could do it.
So, you know, please, please, as mad as you must be at us
and as appropriate as that is, please work with us to help us. I
would like to do a temporary solution. If we have to do fifteen
Band-Aids before we get to a permanent solution, I want to do
fifteen Band-Aids because we need to solve the problem as fast
as we can.
Page 64
March 13, 2001
MR. DELDUCA: Well, really I think for the most part
everybody is very disappointed and upset, but that time is over.
The time now is to come up with solutions and to, you know --
there isn't any sense in crying over the spilt milk. We need to fix
the problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Positive attitude.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I value Mike a great deal. I've
known him for years. And I appreciate all that, Mike, and I would
encourage you and David Ellis to really accelerate whatever
suggestions you have so it can get back to us ASAP. Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I will defer some of that to you.
Because if you put them in -- you were part of Desert Storm, I'm
sure you can answer a lot of that.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is David
Bryant, but then you've got four speakers who submitted slips
after the item started and it's your discretion if you want to hear
them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please let them speak.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, I think we need to do that.
MR. OLLIFF: After Mr. Bryant would be Dino Longo.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
I'm David Bryant. As some of you know, I'm an attorney, but I'm
also a state-certified contractor. So I'm here today not only
speaking as a representative of several of my clients, who are
watching their economic life pass in front of their eyes as they
get up this morning, but what they are asking me and what I
would like to know for them is, what did the county know and
when did it know it?
How did this come about that my clients picked up the
paper and read this for the first time? Why didn't this Board
know about it? And why is the county entering into this
Draconian consent agreement as opposed to litigating this issue
with DEP, at least challenging DEP? My people are saying it's
called a consent agreement. Why are we consenting to this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a real good question. !
haven't heard the answer to it.
Page 65
March 13, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I haven't heard the answer to it,
sir. The first part, I would say any and all things we can do with
the FDEP without making it adversarial, but get them to be
cooperative with us. They can get just as hard and we're not
going to get where we want to get. That's an option. Of course
that's an option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we didn't consent -- and I'm
sure the Chairman will give you the time -- but Mr. Weigel, if we
didn't consent, does that toll the effect? I mean, can we
continue issuing permits while we fight over the consent order?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the answer to the last part of the
question, I think there may be a risk in doing that in a sense that
the DEP obviously has a kind of jurisdiction over us, and
particularly in this issue. However, we have received -- we, the
county, the county staff, have received this draft consent order,
but ultimately it's an order that has to come before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's effective today, so how is
that if it hasn't come before us?
MR. WEIGEL: The DEP decision to cease issuing wet
permits has nothing to do with that consent order. That is a DEP
decision. And I can also tell you that, in response to David's
question, it's a good one and it's a legitimate question, what did
the counsel know and when did they know it?
I will tell you, had we been able to make it through this
season, we still -- and as silly as this sounds, I will tell you this
does sound silly from our planning standpoint, from your growth
management plan standpoint, you do not have a concurrency
issue. Because you have a plant expansion on line, and I will tell
you that that policy needs to be changed. And that's a planning
issue for later.
But locally, at the county level, that's why you're continuing
to issue certificates of public adequacy. Because according to
your plan, you have a plant expansion on line that's going to be
up and running in February of next year. We are concurrent in
terms of wastewater.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that, Board members -- that
just really points out the absurdity of our concurrency
management program. Because it says if you have something
budgeted to be built in the next three years, then we smile and
act like everything is fine. And here it has finally come home to
Page 66
March 13, 2001
roost.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I agree with you, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. I don't think any of us were really excited as we
learned all of this. But we were also pointed out by legal counsel
that when you have an action plan in place, then you're in a very,
very bad position to try to run against that.
Of course, the way to do it, as you are saying and I'm saying
and everyone else is saying, is change it. And we're going to get
that opportunity Friday --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the former Board would not
agree to change it. They certainly brought it up on several
occasions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I agree. I think there was a time
when we tried to do a lot of things, but there was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they thought they were
protecting the development community, and that's iust clearly
wrong. Today you can see.
MR. BRYANT: Commissioner Carter, in all due respect, and I
appreciate your position of not being adversarial with DEP,
however, at times you have to be adversarial when this type of
Draconian order is issued by that agency.
And I submit to you that I believe that we would have been
entitled to challenge that decision, and we probably would have
been entitled to a 120.57 Division of Administrative Hearings
hearing on that issue. We didn't have to just roll over, I would
submit to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would have been or could still
be?
MR. BRYANT: Well, if it went into effect the 23rd of
February, and I haven't seen the consent order, then I don't
know. I think maybe our time has passed. I can't tell you on
that.
But what I'm saying is, sometimes you don't have to agree
to what the agency is telling you they want you to do. Because
they aren't going to be put out of work here. Those guys in Fort
Myers are going to go to the office and get their states paycheck
whether we stop building or not and my clients go broke.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: David, I couldn't concur with you
more. And what I'm going to try and do is work with the cards I
have and do everything to work with those. And I don't disagree
Page 67
March 13, 2001
with you at all.
There has to be better ways and we're trying to find those
better ways. And I apologize to the community that we haven't
always found those better ways and been ahead of the curve
instead of struggling to even get on the curve.
MR. BRYANT: And we appreciate that. And I appreciate one
thing in particular, Commissioner Carter, is your going on the
radio every week and sharing your thoughts and taking calls. I
think the community appreciates that. And all of the
Commission has been very open and responsive. Commissioner
Henning was at the meeting yesterday and offered a number of
good thoughts.
And we're not mad at the Board, but we're worried about
paying our employees and we're worried about making our
mortgage payments on our development. The fellow from
Banyan Woods said it better than anybody, so that's all we're
saying. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are my neighbors. The
people in the construction trade and the support staff of the
construction trade are my neighbors, so I'm looking out for
neighbors. That's all.
MR. BRYANT: We appreciated your being there,
Commissioner.
MR. OLLIFF: One thing before Mr. Longo comes up, because
I think it's an important issue, and I would like to ask Jim to
clarify that consent order issue at DEP and just give you a little
better view for exactly where we are in that case. Because
there is no consent order that we've consented to at this point.
MR. MUDD: No. We've received a warning order, talked
about us being out of compliance. And it basically said that they
are pulling the general permit. Now, FDEP has the right. That's
their general permit.
Just like any other permitting thing, it basically says,
'Here's the requirement for the general permit. You have
capacity for future development at that plant." Okay. And we've
shown them with Forest Hills that we don't. And we didn't do it
on purpose. We tried to contain them and do everything we
Page 68
March 13, 200t
could in order to do that process. And they pulled our general
permit and put us under a long form.
And they said, "Now every permit application will be looked
at on an individual basis." But they have also come back and
said, "Hey, I'm telling you, you're not going to get anything more
from us than a dry line permit."
Okay. And we've talked about that issue and I've tried to
work it. We will go back to them when ! can show them that
we've taken some peaks off of this and that there is a
redundancy in the process outside of that expansion.
And with that, I feel pretty comfortable that they will come
off of the long permit process and go back into the general
permit requirement. But we're going to have to show them that.
And oh, by the way, commissioners, I will also tell you that
your bargaining position with FDEP is poor. They have no
confidence in you whatsoever, if you showed it to them. At the
landfill, you had a consent order still outstanding.
We just got off a consent order at the water plant. You had
one at the south sewer for a while. And it's one consent order
after another in this business. And you know, you've got to show
them that you're in for the long term and it just isn't a bunch of
Band-Aids.
So I would tell you that going in there with a strong-arm
position with those folks at this particular juncture, you could be
looking pretty foolish.
MR. OLLIFF: But I will tell you that there is also a new local
district director that we have established a very good
relationship with from our government to him personally. In fact,
we are the ones who went to the DEP in Fort Myers and
established a joint shared position to have funded half locally,
half by the DEP, located in your development services building.
And I will tell you, this whole issue boils down to a linchpin
of a DEP decision. And so if there's one thing that we need to do
is to be able to go up there and try with everything that we have
to talk to them reasonably.
But then there are other options beyond that. So I think, you
know, we will try and bring you an action plan that includes that.
But keep in mind, that's sort of our linchpin decision-making
point, is at the DEP in Fort Myers.
Dino. Dino Longo will be followed by Ed Griffith.
Page 69
March 13, 2001
MR. LONGO: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Dino Longo. I am a general contractor. I'm also president of the
Collier Building Industry Association. First of all, I would like to
thank Jim Mudd for bringing these issues to light. And I thank
the commissioners For at least their positive attitude about
getting these things done.
I would like to point out that it is not just a short-term
incident and it's not a short-term fix. When builders and
developers, especially large developers, are planning
communities, they are not looking at two years or three years.
They are looking at five and ten years out, and they plan and they
market accordingly.
It's not just the linchpin. It's poor planning on our part as a
community. I would encourage the Commission to enact an
emergency ordinance, based on findings from our committee
working with Jim Mudd and his staff as to what some of those
short-term quick fixes are as far as on-site package plants, so
forth and so on. We know there are burdens. We know there are
additional costs, so forth and so on, but there has to be some
fixes.
We have contractors out there that are not just involved in
communities. They are involved in building banks, commercial
buildings, churches. They cannot get their wet line permits.
I particularly know that of the three that Jim Mudd brought
before us yesterday, which was Mediterra, the administrative
building for the school, and Banyan Woods are just three that
were across his desk. There are probably literally hundreds still
not applied for yet that he will probably reject or at least try to
issue a dry line permit.
I hate to see us in a reactionary mode. I would love to see
us in a proactive mode. If that means, with your backing, that
we have to spend more money to bring things on line quicker, get
beyond concurrency and take a harder look and a better look at
our planning, I would encourage that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Ed Griffith, followed by Waffa
Asad.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If you're next up after Mr.
Griffith, could you please get on the on-deck circle? Thank you.
Good morning.
Page 70
March 13, 2001
MR. GRIFFITH: Ed Griffith, WCI Communities. And this is a
crisis and I know the county is treating it as such. I think the
ramifications overall to this can lead to a much greater crisis,
which I think Commissioner Mac'Kie alluded to, and we shouldn't
lose sight of that. And that's very important. We don't want to
get into that situation and economic downfall.
A lot of what I've heard I emulate (sic), all the concerns that
have been said. I think the flexibility that Mr. Mudd has
discussed about considering package plants, I think that's a
great idea. I also think we ought to be considering being able to
borrow across service boundaries, if need be, where that
situation may arise.
I think we just need to think out of the box to work on this.
And we, WCI, would be more than happy to work with the county
on that and help as much as we can. I think what we're all sort
of wondering about, though~ is really where do we stand today.
Because we have people out there that are saying, you
know, "Hey, we're ready to sign on the dotted line." We also
have people that have signed contracts that are commitments to
provide them with this product, that those contracts are signed
before you ever get a building permit. And those contracts are
subject to the Land Sales Act and other laws, so there's a lot of
liability and obligations out there on a lot of us in this business.
And so what we're all sort of very, very curious about, which
I think we really do need to understand at this point in time as
quickly as possible, and that is, where do we stand with our
businesses today? And is building permits something that is
going to be subject to restrictions?
I mean~ I heard Mr. Mudd talk about, you know, FDEP and the
wet. And if you got wet, ! mean, you're guaranteed. But when it
comes to dry, I still haven't really heard anything about how that
relates to building permits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ed, ask that question. I don't
really understand the question. MR. GRIFFITH: What?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ask that question, if you could. !
mean, I understand if you've got an FDEP wet permit, you're
covered. If you don't, then what is the question?
MR. GRIFFITH: Well, I guess that's sort of what -- I'm asking
the question with a question, I guess. Because I heard Mr. Mudd
Page 71
March 13, 200t
say that when the question was asked, that as long as, I guess,
the applicant has a wet permit he doesn't have anything to worry
about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. GRIFFITH: But if they have a dry permit, that allows you
something, but what does that mean in regard to what position is
the county going to take with building permits?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to --
MR. OLLIFF: The question is, is there a restriction on county
building permits? The answer is, according to your plan, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're going to issue them.
They are going to not include sewer capacity.
MR. OLLIFF: We will probably begin issuing a notice on
them that if you don't have a DEP wet permit, you need to
proceed at your own risk because DEP is probably not going to
issue you a wet permit.
But from our perspective, we have plant capacity. We are
based a little more on reality in the fact that we know come
Easter we're going to have a plant capacity. And your plan
doesn't provide an opportunity or a means for us to limit the
issuance of building permits at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're issuing. Ed, is that your
question? We're permitting.
MR. GRIFFITH: That was it, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. GRIFFITH: Well, that's a direct answer, then. And I
guess the other thing too is that looking down the road -- of
course, I know we don't have an answer today -- but five million
gallons, what does that get you?
Because all of these contracts that I talk about, you know,
some of these products that we're developing and building are as
minimal as six months, but some take, you know, a year or more,
a year and a half. We've got some large square footage
residences.
And so, you know, you've got to look down the long term and
know that for sure when this person is being promised that they
are going to have this at that point, that they are going to get it.
So it's a flux problem right now for our part of the industry
anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may need your boss' help on
Page 72
March t3, 2001
the political side.
MR. GRIFFITH: Well, we can talk about that. We want to
help any way we can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR, MUDD: Commissioners, if I could answer the
gentleman's last part. Yeah, the five million gallons brings you
up to speed for next year, maybe for the next two and gets you
over a hump.
But if you don't have that eight million gallons coming on
down in the south end, you're in the same -- all we're doing is
putting off the inevitable. You've got to start to get ahead of
this. And that's where that eight gets you ahead.
In the south side of the -- right now I'm at capacity, okay, in
the south plant. You've got -- I've got 2.3 million gallons already
promised out on the south side to developers. You've got 7.6
million gallons already promised on the north side. You can do
the math. If you're only bringing on five, you got 7.6, you are still
2.6 short, and you're 2.3 short down south.
Now, I can't do it with the three million gallon add-on in the
south. It's got to be an eight to get us ahead of this and then I
got to start thinking about the next expansion up north.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Jim, with your real numbers,
with peak capacity numbers instead of averages, if you get the
eight and you connect the two plants, you would think that
covers us through when?
MR. MUDD: That will get you through until I can get the next
expansion on in the north. And what I'm contemplating right now
is not to have the contractor demob, at the north and have him
just work in the next expansion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I do have a question.
If we could come up with a plan that would show how we could
alleviate this problem before the crisis comes again next
January or so, would we be able to start having wet permits
issued again if we had the plan in place? And even though it isn't
there, and it's happening and if we can guarantee --
MR. MUDD: If I have an interconnect to take it off right now,
FDEP will -- I got -- I'm not talking north and south. I'm talking
interconnect between maybe the city. I have to still go to see
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in order to
Page 73
March 13, 200t
convince them in order to do that, to get us back into the general
permit situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And your best guess at this
would be how long would it take if all the things came together?.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I've got my folks over with the city right now
trying to work that out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the city had said yes, today the
answer were yes, not going to guess.
MR. MUDD: I don't want to guess at that. You're building an
expectation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that.
MR. MUDD: As fast as we can do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, maybe when the 6:00
news rolls around, we'll see a report where the city said they
would be more than happy to cooperate with us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But do we know what kind of
capacity, excess capacity the City of Naples has?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, they just came out with a new edition.
They have some extra capacity, from what I've been told.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are over capacity. I was
talking to Bonnie MacKenzie just a couple of days ago.
MR. OLLIFF: They have capacity, but keep in mind that
decision is DEP's. We have to be able to convince DEP that all
the steps we're going to take in the short term are acceptable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if the City of Naples says
yes, then we have to convince DEP that that's enough for now.
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's when I think we have
to, you know, pack a plane and go up there on our knees, if that's
what it takes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They do have the capacity. She
told
me that.
MR. OLLIFF: And that decision is at the Fort Myers office.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So you won't have to pack to go too
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Packing a car.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Waffa Asad, followed by your
last registered speaker, John DeAngeles.
MR. ASAD: Good morning. I am the developer of Laurel
Lakes on Immokalee Road. And my request to you today is that
Page 74
March 13, 2001
at the end of the meeting you would issue a statement that
clearly identifies the different positions that you're going to allow
us to proceed in.
Our only source of information is the newspaper and some of
your staff members are very kind enough to call us when we
have questions right away, but we can't rely on the newspaper
and casual conversations like that.
So we would like to have a statement at the end of the day,
just expressing your views about your decision and what you
intend to do so we can find which category we belong to and we
can go about our business. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. And I don't think any
of us would have any trouble duly noting that and see what we
can do by the end of the day.
MR. DeANGELES: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name is John DeAngeles. I'm a principal in DeAngeles
Diamond Construction. First I want to thank you for you
empathetic attitude this morning in understanding the situation,
how dire this really is.
You've heard a lot about residential developments. And I'm
kind of representing the commercial side of things and all of the
private business owners, the doctors, the churches that are, you
know, in capital fund raising campaigns. And if they don't start
this summer and don't show progress for the congregation, you
know, they are really going to have some problems with their
building campaign.
And I have doctors that have to be out of their space at the
end of this year because their space is leased. They are moving
into their new building. We're supposed to start it this summer.
If we can't accomplish that, if we can't move them in by the end
of the year, they are going to be, you know -- they don't have
anywhere to go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They will have patients with
nowhere to go.
MR. DeANGELES: That's right. So there's numerous people
like that in northern Collier County. Most of our work is in
northern Collier County as a commercial contractor. So it's not
just a big developer issue. It's not just a multifamily residential
issue. It's a small business owner, commercial single parcel,
one time, you know, build job issue.
Page 75
March 13, 2001
So anything that we can do as a building industry, we want
to support it as Dino has said and Dave Ellis. But we want you to
just understand that it's more encompassing than just the big
guy issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. That concludes our --
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- public input. Members of the Board,
we have an obligation to sit with some young people from 4H,
which we promised to do at noon. I don't want to break those
promises to young people. And I think we will have to come
back after lunch and wrap this item up, if I can defer or should I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surely we can wrap it up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we wrap this up now? Let's wrap
it up and then we will go to the -- what was the next one? We
had a lot of people here that we had moved out of the lineup.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12(A)(1).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we'll go to 12(A)(1) at 1.'00.
Comments from the Board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just think we've given
direction to staff and they know that if they need us sooner than
two weeks, we expect them to call us to a special session so we
can address the solutions Mr. Mudd has outlined and that the
committee is going to come up with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying in two weeks?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. If people would be quiet as
they leave, we would really appreciate that.
I think we've given adequate direction to staff that we want
them to be as aggressive as possible. That we understand there
may be financial consequences to that, but we want them to
move forward with all deliberate speed to avoid a problem to the
greatest extent possible. If you need to call us back into special
session tomorrow, then do it. But whatever it takes, we want to
be providing a solution because we owe it to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would add to that, keeping
an open line of communication going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They will. You're right.
MR. OLLIFF: Just from my perspective, I guess I would like
for the industry's sake and for your sake to try and summarize
the direction that I think that I've got, which is to work with not
only CBIA and the subcontractors, but other members of the
Page 76
March 13, 2001
industry out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm having a hard time hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: People, would you exit? Please
quickly do that so we can conclude this item, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, could you please close that
door? You might be closing it on somebody, but it's hard to hear.
MR. OLLIFF: The direction that I think I have is that your
staff needs to work with the CBIA, the subcontractors'
association and other sections of the industry, develop what I
would call a specific action plan with dates and times and
actionable items, clearly indicating which of those we can
administratively do, which of those need Board policy directions.
And I return to the BCC as soon as possible with that list and
those action items from you.
And then I think the other good idea that came up from the
public speakers was the idea of developing a county position
paper, if you will, iust sort of an outline of where we are on this
and providing it to the community by the end of the day. And I
thought that was a great idea.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any additions or comments from the
Board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard some great things like
accelerating the contract, working with municipalities to assure
that we have capacity, and then we can go to FDEP to
demonstrate that we do have the capacity there. Mr. Mudd
naturally is going to work on the interconnection for -- our next
challenge would be in the soft plant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we have the possibility of
temporary package plants, working with the National Guard or
the U.S. Army and that's a possibility I felt --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if the DEP would buy into
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, all of these the DEP has to say
yea or nay, but I would like to add it to the consideration list.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assume that all possibilities,
including the many, many that have not come up yet, will be
considered by our staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we ought to conclude that by
saying, any and all possibilities --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
Page 77
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- be added to that list. Everyone
okay with that? Is that sufficient for staff direction? Well, thank
you all very much, members of the Board and members of the
community.
And we're going to adjourn from now until 1:00 p.m. We're
going to lunch with the 4H'ers over at the Methodist Church, I
believe, isn't it?
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
session. We are going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not on.
MS. FILSON: Yes, you are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Nothing about my patience that would
ever be reflected here.
We are back in session. Thank you for your patience, and
we had a great lunch with some young people that we'd all be
very proud of in this community.
Item #11C1
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - BOB KRASOWSKI RE
LANDFILL ISSUES
Now I'd like to move to public comment. I understand there
are two registered speakers. We would like to have those people
-- give those people that -- give those people that signed up for
that an opportunity to speak at this time and then we will move
on -- back to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just public comment on
general topics, that's what you're taking now?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. MCNEES: You have two, Mr. Chairman. The first is Bob
Crisowski (phonetic), and he'll be followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. CRISOWSKI: Good afternoon, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good afternoon.
MR. CRISOWSKI: Good afternoon, commissioners. So nice
to see you. I appreciate your allowing me my five minutes now
as it's scheduled in the agenda to speak, rather than waiting
around some more. This is my third effort to talk to you.
Page 78
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I understand that, Bob, and thank
you for your patience.
MR, CRISOWSKI: That's quite all right. Let's see. For the
record, my name is Bob Crisowski and I'd like to take the
opportunity to speak to you under the public comment section of
the agenda and general topics, and what I'd like to address is my
-- some information I've found in regards to the landfill issue,
solid waste management issue.
After a review of the minutes of your workshop of December
20th of last year and reviewing the Malcom Pernie (phonetic)
documents that have been provided to you and visiting the Lee
County incinerator with Commissioner Mac'Kie and also another
time with Commissioner Henning, I've identified several issues
that I'd like to address on the record, okay? There's a document
I should have brought with me. I have it over by my chair. What
is this? Oh, I thought there was a clicker.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm so sorry.
heavens.
MR. CRISOWSKI: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I apologize.
I thought -- my
Gracious me.
MR. CRISOWSKI: In one of the Malcom Pernie documents
that has been generated for you and that was discussed at the
landfill, one of the pages suggested that an additional landfill in --
in Collier County is not an option. Now, I can well understand
the political thinking behind that, but I do believe that Site L
should be considered as a possibility in comparison to all of the
other options that you, in the future, may be considering.
I understand your staff now is compiling various options for
-- for you in regards to handling the waste. Also, in that
document, it said that no new landfills had been sited since
1991. That's a -- part of the argument is that it would be too
difficult to locate a new landfill. Well, the Lee/Hendry landfill
facility that is receiving -- will be receiving the ash from the Lee
County incinerator was permitted in 1994, so that's inaccurate to
that extent. And then also, if -- if the -- the fact that a landfill
hadn't been sited since '91 was a major concern or
consideration, I ask you when the last trash burning incinerator
was sited anywhere in the country, but in particular in Florida,
and that was the Lee County incinerator in the early '90's, okay?
So that's -- you know.
Page 79
March 13, 2001
Now, also in that document, there was a statement on one
of the pages that mass burn, which is the type of facility in Lee
County, was environmentally sound. Now, that's debatable and I
don't think we should accept that premise that incineration is
environmentally sound until we can analyze the whole process.
It might fit the -- the requirements that are now identified by the
state as being environmentally permitable (sic), but I -- I'd like to
bring up the point that in certain locales, restaurants are allowed
by law to, in their kitchens, contain a certain amount of rat hair
or rat feces, and just because that's acceptable in some places,
doesn't mean that we would want that in our restaurants or our
in county. So we have to identify our own standards in that
regard, okay?
I found in reviewing these documents and these minutes,
there is apparently a bias, and I don't mean to be overly critical
of the fact that there's a bias, but there seems to be a bias in
favor of incineration as a component in the waste handling
program that we were kind of looking towards that is unchecked,
okay? I believe we should check this bias by including people of
the opinion that are critical of incineration. So when you come
to make your decision as to how to develop our program, that
you're not swayed by promotions or salesmen of one type over
another.
When I visited the Lee County incinerator, certain issues
came up, controversial issues, that the incinerator uses 400,000
gallons of water a day. Now, that's a major issue here, as you've
had a recent water workshop, so it's something you have to
consider. The ash from the incinerator is very controversial as
far as its containing heavy metals. There's a number of heavy
metals, and whether or not that's a threat to the environment
after it's concentrated into the ash. Air emissions -- air
emissions -- I realize that's my five minutes. If I could just briefly
go on. Thank you.
Air emissions are also another controversial issue, okay?
And then the cost, the two hundred million dollar bond it costs
and the increase in fees to the -- the community in regards to
their paying their solid waste bill, although whatever we do, it's
going to cost more money. That two hundred million should be
placed in the -- spent the best way. I'm sure everybody agrees
with that.
Page 80
March 13, 2001
So in conclusion, what I would like to see happen here is
that we, after the -- the suggestions or the solicitations that are
being made by Mr. Mudd and the solid waste department are all
received and the different companies submit their suggestions
as to how we might handle our waste stream, that we get
together again with another workshop to evaluate all these
proposals, and then at that workshop, the county include Dr. Paul
Connett (phonetic) who is a doctor of chemistry who is employed
by Lawrence University in Upstate New York. He's a
world-known environmentalist, very critical of incineration, very
strong for recycling and other methods of waste handling, and
that would give us a balance. I'm not saying you have to do what
he says. I'm just saying he would balance out the -- the
presentations we've received to this point that are pro
incineration. He also knows -- has a world knowledge of what
recycling's being done in other places in the world, how effective
it is, what amounts you can achieve.
So I suggest we balance -- balance the bias, catchy little
phrase, balance the bias and have another workshop, including
Dr. Connett, and you guys pay for his ticket to come down here
and not us or not the community and -- not the community, aside
from the tax money that you do everything with.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll have to ask you to wrap up, please.
MR. CRISOWSKI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. CRISOWSKI: And then include Site L in the -- in the
options that are possibilities, okay?. And not until the county
commission gets all the points of view can they make a judgment
on the issue that's worthy of this community. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say one thing, Bob,
before -- I appreciated so much, Bob, you traveling with me to the
incinerator and I understand you did it with Commissioner
Henning, because I asked a lot more intelligent questions than I
otherwise would have because they were his questions, but I
wish that you would leave that name with Mr. McNees, because
as we were there and -- and debating some of the environmental
issues associated with the incinerator, this gentleman's name,
and I'm sorry I still haven't learned it --
Page 81
March 13, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Paul Connett.
MR. CRISOWSKI: Dr. Connett, yeah. Dr. Connett.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Dr. Paul Connett.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then someone who's
associated with the company that operates the incinerator in
Lee County. Apparently they have never debated each other face
to face, but they brag a lot about wanting to take the other one
on. I'd like to give them that opportunity in Collier County.
MR. CRISOWSKI: We could only benefit from that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, from both sides.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I -- again, thank you, Bob, and --
MR. CRISOWSKI: Oh, nice seeing you and thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- we welcome your input.
Mr. McNees, do we have one other public speaker?
MR. MCNEES.' Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's not present, so we'll move back
to the agenda, and that takes us to -- even I am --
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 2001-12, RE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT(S) ADOPTION CYCLE, CP-2000-3, CP-2000-4, CP-
2000-5, CP-2000-7, AND CP-2000-11 - ADOPTED WITH
AMENDMENTS
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12(A)17
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 12(A)1, I think--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Is that the one we were going to
take out of order because there were so many people?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you're here on 12(A)1, raise
your hand. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All right. This is an advertised
public hearing and anyone that is going to participate in that will
have to be sworn in.
MR. LITSINGER: This is legislative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, no, it's legislative.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Didn't want to violate
something here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
Page 82
March 13, 2001
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning manager. This public hearing consists of your adoption
public hearing for the 2000 growth management plan
amendments which were originally transmitted to the
Department of Community Affairs on October 24th of 2000 after
transmittal hearings before the Planning Commission and both
the Board of County Commissioners.
As a result of your actions today, we will transmit the
adopted amendments as you so choose to the Department of
Community Affairs, which will have 45 days to review them and
either find them in compliance or not in compliance. In the event
they are found in compliance, there will be a 21 day period for
which any person with standing may challenge the amendments.
If they are not challenged, they will have the effect of ordinance
and your plan will have been amended. Excuse me.
Today we have four public petitions to amend the
comprehensive plan, all of which are summarized in your
executive summary relative to staff's recommendations, the
transmittal recommendations by both the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners upon transmission --
transmittal.
We also have one amendment by the staff initiated to
correct the definition for travel recreational parks and direct
principal access. So we have four public petitions and one staff
initiated petition. If there are no questions on the process, I will
begin with the first presentation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you would move to that
presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just -- has this board
already heard the staff initiated one or was that the former
board? I was hoping we could just move through that if --
MR. LITSINGER: It was the former board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind. Forget Which --
MR. BLAIR: Good afternoon. Aaron Blair, for the record.
This is the subject site. The petitioner seeks to amend the
future land use element and the future land use map by creating
a new subdistrict to be known as the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier
Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict.
The subdistrict is proposed at the northwest quadrant of the
Page 83
March t 3, 2001
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and Collier Boulevard,
approximately 33.45 acres, which is this section here, and on the
east side of Collier Boulevard and then north of Kingsville Road,
approximately 15 acres, which is this section here, with a total
of 48.54 acres.
This subdistrict will permit a maximum of 360,000 square
feet of gross leasable commercial development.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended we
adopt this and staff did not -- did not recommend to transmit and
the former board did approve this unanimously. THE AUDIENCE: Can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm having trouble hearing
you too. They can't hear you. Maybe you could get that mike a
little closer.
I'm sorry to be so far behind, but is this 2000-4?
MR. BLAIR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And so this is one that
staff recommended not to transmit? MR. BLAIR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the County Commission
transmitted anyway?
MR. BLAIR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now it's being objected to by
the -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we move to the
representative --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to -- to move to -- everybody's
on the right item here. Okay. Let's move to the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich
representing the petitioner. Also with me is Wayne Arnold who
also represents the petitioner, and Bill Hoover. This -- as you will
recall, this went through, unanimously, the board last time to
transmit, as well as the Planning Commission to both transmit
and adopt.
I want to state for the record, I have met with several
residents of the Vanderbilt Country Club community and they did
express a concern about a portion of the application, which was
a 15 acre -- a request to include 15 acres on the east side of 951,
as you can see up on the -- on the visualizer with --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The smaller parcel?
Page 84
March 13, 200t
MR. YOVANOVICH: The smaller parcel. We have agreed to
withdraw that 15 acre --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- parcel from the application, so the
change -- or the district would only be the northwest quadrant of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951. I don't know what's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Sue, could you have somebody
check on the mikes? It's so hard to hear, I can't -- is it just me?
Can you guys hear?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can hear, but not that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Straining.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, anyway, just so everybody --
everybody in the audience knows, the -- the request for any
commercial or retail uses on the east portion of 951 has been
officially withdrawn.
We have also emphasized to the residents of Vanderbiit
Country Club that we still have to go through the rezoning
process to address specific uses on that northwest quadrant and
we have committed to them that we would bring our PUD to them
first, share with them the potential uses on the property, and
obviously work with them to assure that they are comfortable
with the development that may occur across the street with --
from them on the northwest quadrant.
Essentially, we -- we are creating a district to allow
commercial and retail uses at that very busy corner. We can go
through the details of the petition if you'd like or we can respond
to any public comment, whatever the board wishes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from the public on
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many public speakers do we
have, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: You have three.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's go to public speakers.
MR. BLAIR: If I can real fast, I also had two written
objections to it and one call objecting to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Which -- objections, and you
said one had been withdrawn?
MR. BLAIR: One -- this is a resident from the country club
objecting to the project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
Page 85
March 13, 2001
MR. BLAIR: And this one had various issues about
notification of the surrounding people that live there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know if they objected to
the easternmost parcel or the --
MR. BLAIR: They didn't specify. They just said overall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MCNEES: You have three speakers registered under
item 2000-3 and then two that registered just in general on 12(A),
so I'm not sure which item they wanted to speak on. One of
those, however, was Ty Agoston, and unless he's returned, we
can skip him. Your next speaker would be Wayne Arnold.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the first speaker was Wayne
or--
MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm with the petitioner's
team, but I had registered just in case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to speak up.
MR. MCNEES: So you have John Prete or Prete.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All he said was he was with the
petitioner's team, so he's moving to the next speaker. It's hard
to hear.
MR. PRETE: I'm John Prete of 8386 Danbury Boulevard in
Vanderbilt Country Club, and so far as I know, I am the only
speaker speaking in opposition. There are a large number of
people here, as you know, who are in opposition, particulariy at
this point in the application process.
I am not a lawyer. In fact, I'm retired. I'm just an individual
who will be asking you to protect my interests and that of my
neighbors and that of my church. So with that, we heard
Attorney Yovanovich tell us that we have opened a dialogue
regarding withdrawal of the application for the development on
the east side of Collier Boulevard. That's the one next to St.
Agnes Church.
Because of the short notice, we had hoped -- the short
notice -- I understand the notice process and it resulted in
virtually no notice to us. What you see here in representing the
church and us is the result of less than 48 hours of effort, trying
to patch something together real quick. To be honest with you,
we couldn't even hire an attorney in that short a period of time
and so we're here winging it the best we can.
We had hoped to ask for a postponement, but I understand
Page 86
March 13, 2001
that the County Attorney's office, just today, advises that you
must vote on the whole issue today, and if that is correct, then
consequently, until many other interested parties can be
contacted, including the church and the other five hundred or so
odd families of the 800 who will live in Vanderbilt Country Club,
then we have to indicate our opposition to the entire proposal
and -- and perhaps the applicant can submit a subsequent
application without prejudice on just the northwest quadrant, if
that's what they want to do. We'll have time to discuss this.
We'll have time to gather our thoughts, and hopefully something
harmonious can happen, but as I say, in the meantime, then we --
we don't have much choice since you're going to vote today, but
to oppose the entire proposal and I guess the applicant would
then have the option to subsequently somehow apply again just
for the northwest quadrant.
I was asked by leaders of St. Agnes church to state their
opposition to the proposed change in the comprehensive plan
before you as agenda (A}I -- 12(A)1, and I believe you already
have a letter from Father Glacken --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do.
MR. PRETE: -- indicating his opposition to the -- to the
proposal, and there are, I counted 50, there may not be now after
lunch, but we had 50 property owners from Vanderbilt that were
able to cut short their plans and zip over here so that they could
be represented and be heard. I have a list of the names of those
people and their addresses and so forth.
I -- since apparently I'm the only speaker, I didn't know that
when I got here this morning, but apparently because of the
notice, I am the only one you're going to hear, and so I'm going to
ask the indulgence of the commissioners to speak more than my
five minutes. I think I added this up to about seven or eight
minutes and that will be the whole story at this time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My -- you know, the closer you can
keep that to seven, it would be appreciated, but you may go
ahead, please, don't let us interrupt you.
MR. PRETE: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And thank you for asking permission.
MR. PRETE: I'll just zip through as quickly as I can here. I'm
going to outline our objections, make a suggestion to the -- with
all due respect to the commissioners, make a suggestion about
Page 87
March 13, 2001
how this, you know, may work okay, and -- and then raise up a
couple of questions that were in my mind that perhaps are in
your mind too, so -- okay. I have my seven minutes to go and I'll
start with the objections to the plan as we see them.
I'm speaking now not as a spokesman of the church, but as
just an individual who, 48 hours ago, was asked to appear here
and -- and state their problems with the plan and also among
some friends that gathered together at Vanderbilt Country Club.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I appreciate all that, sir, but I'd ask
you quickly to move to your points and your questions.
MR. PRETE: Okay. My -- thank you. My points, quickly and
briefly. First of all, this is sort of a hangover from the so-called
community activity concept, which I know that you're all familiar
with. This was supposed to be -- or was a good idea that just
plain didn't work. That's -- there were going to be villages
scattered around the community and each one of those villages
would have its own differentiated visual and aesthetic character
and so forth, and the whole idea was to concentrate commercial
uses so that they don't spread out all over the place, and
unfortunately what has happened, that concept failed completely
and there just is no -- it hasn't worked.
What has happened, what you see has happened is a
proliferation of heavy commercialization of every major
intersection so far in -- in Collier County. This, what you're
looking at, is an extension of the same problem, that is, heavy
traffic, red lights, congestion, great big signs and so forth. It is
my -- not my job to be a planner, but I must remind you that by
opening up this property for commercialization, we are, in effect,
doing exactly the same thing all over again.
I'm trying to skip as much as I possibly can here and still
make sense. As I stated earlier, the church, I'm going to use the
word adamantly, opposes this plan. I don't know if any of you
have seen the new St. Agnes church. It's a marvelous church,
meticulously designed by both public planners and private
planners all in agreement to -- to create a cloistered atmosphere
on that 40 acres surrounded by natural vegetation. The church
itself will be a missionary -- Spanish missionary style and it's a
superb church. It's undoubtedly going to be one of the largest
and one of the most beautiful churches in Florida. That's how it
was described to me.
Page 88
March t3, 2001
The proposed commercial use adjacent to it is entirely, I
think I am using the words of the -- of the church here,
incompatible and undesirable. Massive -- there's signage,
massive flood lighting and traffic congestion, completely
destroying the atmosphere that St. Agnes has worked so hard to
create.
The traffic pattern designed with the cooperation and
consent of the county traffic planners to minimize the impact on
the neighborhood street system will be completely negated by
the commercial traffic congestion. So in other words, we gave
the church a permit pretty much, I think they're pretty well along.
We already have people living, 500 or more families, soon to be
800 families in Vanderbilt Country Club, and now we're going to
stick a commercial piece right exactly in the middle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, sir, what -- Tom
Henning.
MR. PRETE: Yes, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The church got a conditional
use to use that property and I understand that you're opposed to
the project. What would you feel was fitting in the proposed
commercial area?
MR. PRETE: I think residential use was visualized, perhaps
multi-family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a real shortage of Iow
income housing. Would that be acceptable in that area?
MR. PRETE: I can't -- I wish that I could give you -- I can give
you my personal opinion, which doesn't mean very much, but as
far as I'm concerned, I don't -- I don't feel really comfortable
giving you advice on, you know, what kind of a development
ought to go there. So far as I know, it was going to be
residential. I think your own planners there can probably give
you some real good ideas about it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will ask you to make your concluding
statements, sir.
MR. PRETE: Okay. I have a suggestion that I will -- again, in
all due respect to the commissioners, I hope that you can
remember that there is no commercial development of any
significance on the east side of 951 for 15 miles, and also try to
keep in mind that the -- that there's a development at the corner
of -- a commercial development on the corner of Immokalee Road
Page 89
March 13, 2001
and 951 that's growing up. There is a very large development
right at the corner of Airport and -- and Vanderbilt Beach Road,
and there's an existing commercial development on the corner --
or right in the Vineyards Shopping Center.
So in other words, there's absolutely no need whatsoever, in
my humble opinion, for an additional large shopping area which
will be more of the same intersection mess.
Now, a few questions, as I say -- do I have a couple minutes
more, Mr. Chairman? I ran out already?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you want to provide those in writing
to us, I will --
MR. PRETE: I'll be very happy to do that, thank you, and I
appreciate the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
may.
MR. PRETE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
I do have a few questions, if I
I am a little bit concerned that
more of your neighbors aren't willing to speak here today. Do
you have a property owners' association? How did you get the
group together? Was it some sort of a mailing or did you come to
a consensus of opinion somehow?. I -- I'm trying to trace
backwards how this all came to be that you're here today.
MR. PRETE: I sometimes ask that question myself. Here's
how it happened. Some people from the church called indicating
that certain people who do this for the church are in Atlanta and
would I sort of help out, and so I, quickly as possible, spread the
word around to Vanderbilt Country Club. All the people here, I
can assure you, are very deeply concerned about the potentially
negative impact on their property. That's what they're doing
here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the 11th hour we're at
now. Even with the -- the east side development removed by the
church, you would still have objection? You realize that those
main intersections, for the most part, are destined, at some point
in time, to become something in the way of commercial, just by
the way that they're set.
MR. PRETE: I understand that land is allocated in the
comprehensive plan. I am not quite as rehearsed as perhaps I
pretend to be at this podium here, but I know there are four
corners. We just don't want it to expand beyond those four
Page 90
March 13, 2001
corners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, if we could
eliminate it from the east side like he agreed to do, that doesn't
give you any comfort level at all?
MR. PRETE: I can't -- this is why I wanted to get more time
so that I can -- so that we can meet with people. You see, we
haven't taken over the association yet at Vanderbilt Beach -- at
the Vanderbilt Country Club. The association is in the control
still of the developer, so there is no official body that can appear
here and say that we represent Vanderbilt Country Club. So here
I am, and I'm doing the best I can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing a fine ]ob. If you
could, please, I represent that district that you're in. MR. PRETE: I know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate very much
an invitation sometime to come and talk to your group. We -- we
need better feedback before we get to this point in life where
we're at with this and we don't know which way to go. MR. PRETE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, you did put some
indecision in the direction we want to go. The developer's been
kind enough to remove the commercial from the east side, but -- MR. PRETE: Okay. Here's our concern, if I may,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA-' I don't know if I can grant you
more time or not. That's up to the chair.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you know, and I appreciate the
concern and those are great questions, Commissioner. I think
the real issue that I'm hearing here is, remove this, you take
what's on the east side over here. The concern is what it is and
what it looks like, and it would certainly be a -- I think a good
opportunity for the developer and the community to work
together in terms of, how do you design that and looking at what
-- even if it's -- even if it -- first of all, if it is transmitted and even
if the Department of Professional -- or not Professional
Regulation, but Community Affairs approves it to move forward,
there's a great opportunity in the design where you do everything
and you might take the information out of the committee for
character study coming forward and implement in there, so there
may be a way to address the concerns if the board decides they
Page 91
March 13, 2001
want to transmit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this transmittal or adoption?
This is adoption.
MR. PRETE: I note that your -- your staff is, I couldn't help
but hearing, the staff, of course, I knew that in advance, has
advised against this proliferation of exactly this kind of thing,
and in answer directly to your question, Commissioner Coletta,
our concern is the same as yours would be if you lived where we
are. Once the block is busted, to borrow a real estate term, you
can see the sky's the limit. Every piece of property and every
owner has the right to try to increase the value of his property,
and how do you do it? Well, you do it by changing the zoning
from perhaps residential or some other use to commercial. I
mean, that's a big lump and it's going to increase the value of
your property.
What we're concerned about is that, sure, once the block is
busted, then -- and you get outside of those four corners that
have already been allocated for -- for commercial construction by
your plan, then what's to stop anybody, for the whole length to
say, well, look, Board of Commissioners, you let Joe next door do
it, how about me. You did it -- you allowed it across the street on
the northwest quadrant. You know, I'm right across the street on
the northeast quadrant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, we make those hard
decisions every day.
MR. PRETE: I know it's not easy and I want to thank you for
listening to me, and if you don't mind a moment, I want to thank
all the people who took all the time to come here and --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you very much, and some
of your questions can be addressed by staff and we also need to
hear from the petitioner. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of questions for
staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. Do you want to ask them now?.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Well, what was the -- I've been
looking through here trying to find it, but staff recommended
denial for what reason?
MR. BLAIR: Well, one was we thought that the intensity was
really too much, the 360,000 square feet and the fact that it is
across the street from estates zoning.
Page 92
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But see, I was just looking at this
too in the white book that I guess is the transmittal, you guys
gave us what -- if I'm understanding it, it's a useful bit of
information that -- it's saying that they proposed three hundred
and -- on page six --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of this item, which is CP-2000-4
in the white book, you give us a -- we have a little chart there
that says, proposed development, commercial subdistrict, 48.54
acres, 360,000 square feet, and it tells us in comparison, that
would be as big as Berkshire Lakes, as big as Carillon, more than
twice the Pavilion, as big as Naples Plaza. I mean, I need to get
that picture in my mind, and so if they take out the parcel that's
east of 951, what's the square footage that goes with that? So
the reduction in square feet would go from 360,000 to what?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Two forty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' To 240, and so then you would be
talking about a shopping center about like -- well, smaller than
Carillon, but about Pine Ridge Crossing. I mean, you know, we're
not talking about an insignificant little chunk of commercial
here. This is a -- a big center and I'm wondering if maybe staff
was right about it being too intense.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, if we can address
several -- several items, and Wayne -- Wayne Arnold will get into
those items. First of all, the comparisons in your staff report that
were previously made, we don't agree that those were fair
comparisons as far as acreage and percentage of development
on an acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, tell me what it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne will get into that in greater
detail. Also what I want to emphasize to the people of Vanderbilt
Country Club, as well as the person who just spoke and to
Commissioner Coletta, we fully intend to do exactly what you
suggested, which is, when we get to the actual zoning of the
property, I committed to going to the civic association for -- let
me rephrase that, the homeowners' association for Vanderbilt
Country Club to work with them to design the PUD. Today's
comprehensive plan amendment does not give me any
commercial uses on the property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It gives you an intensity
Page 93
March 13, 2001
maximum.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It gives me an intensity maximum, but I
still must prove I'm compatible and I still have the two public
hearings that I've got to go through, the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners for the actual zoning.
So all the details will, in fact, be fleshed out with the
homeowners' association, so there is -- by taking an action to
adopt today, you are in no way approving any rezoning, so they
are not hurt by -- by that action today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just - just for reference now,
suppose that you did get an approval today to go forward and you
came to us for rezoning, do we have the right to actually refuse
you or have we got some guidelines that we have to follow that
would allow this to happen after that fact?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to meet -- it's my burden to prove
to you that I meet your code in order to get the rezone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he can design to meet the
code. The question will be, on the rezone, is more what's it look
like than what's allowed to be there. I mean, the rezone question
will be how -- how many feet of retail versus how many feet of
office versus how many feet of doctors or commercial or
something like that, but once he's got his comp. plan
amendment, I mean, please tell me if I'm wrong, Mr. Weigel,
because I don't want to mislead the board, but once the comp.
plan amendment's in place, then it's a question of designing a
center that will meet the criteria, and we would -- we're -- you
know, we are designating that this is going to be a commercial
piece of property. It's just a question of how commercial, how
intense.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In addition, commissioners, if I may just
finish up on the comments, and I'm sure David will respond, the
intent is to build a loop road around the perimeter of that to take
and help relieve the intersection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good news.
MR. YOVANOVICH-' Those are all things we're committed to
doing in the rezone process, which I believe -- candidly, your staff
report acknowledge there are no public facilities issues related
to this comp. plan amendment, okay, so we're not -- we're not --
those issues are not there. It's a question of, does commercial
make sense at an intersection of two major roadways, and the
Page 94
March 13, 2001
last -- last time we went through this process, I think the board
was unanimous that, yes, commercial made sense.
Now, the concerns I've heard is mainly with the east side of
951, and we've agreed to eliminate any -- any commercial uses
on the east side of 951 and -- and I think that's a big step for the
property owner to make to show that he's committed to working
with the Vanderbilt Community Association, as well as the
church.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- And other board members may
have different questions, but that -- that goes a long way towards
helping me, because I think that is -- the biggest objection was
east of Collier Boulevard, but the next question is, how intense
west of Collier Boulevard. So if somebody can give me
something better than the analogies that the staff gave us, you
know, I'm just not very good at saying 360,000 square feet, it
doesn't mean much to me, but if you can show me one that's
about like it, then -- then I get a better picture.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It helps me a great deal and I have a
lot of concern about that intensity and the number and the
square footage and that is -- you know, and there's a lot of
different uses that can 9o there, and I do realize it has to go
through a process to come back for approval, they have to come
to us again and demonstrate a use for it, but I have a little -- little
thing that keeps nibbling away at the back of my head, is that
every step, and I'll ask the county attorney, is that every step,
say, that strengthens their position for the use of a piece of
property, which gets harder and harder to deny the further you
get downstream. So I need to have that piece of information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it or doesn't it make it more
difficult to deny a commercial rezone if you've approved a
commercial comp. plan amendment?
MR. WEIGEL: It does make it harder further down the
stream, exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure, and the other thing that I
just want to mention, Wayne, because -- then I'll try not to
interrupt you is, in addition to some kind of size comparisons, the
other issue, if you could address it is, I know we haven't adopted
the Dover/Kohl Community Character Study yet, but having had a
brief briefing on it so far, I think one of the main things it's going
to tell us is that our activity centers were intended to be mixed
Page 95
March 13, 2001
use activity centers, and we all know that, but we just lost sight
of it and started thinking of them as commercial activity centers
and this seems to me to be an ideal place for some mixed use
instead of pure commercial, and I just wonder if that's been
anywhere in the mix. Those are my two questions.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold. I
guess maybe I should backtrack just slightly and give you a little
bit of overview about how we got to where we are in showing
that there is a demand for commercial at this intersection.
First of all, we looked at the market area, and I know the
comparison has been, you have a new Publix shopping center
being located two miles north at Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard, but when you look at that market area that that area
serves, you have a community level shopping center at the
Strand, which is at Immokalee and Strand -- Pelican Strand
Boulevard. Then you also have commercial now at Collier
Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
That's a very large growing population in that area. You
have an activity center designation on that property, which
means you have four quadrants of the intersection that have 40
acres each devoted to future commercial uses. You also have a
density band around that intersection that allows bonus
densities to be developed, which means now you have a larger
population base within close proximity of that intersection.
When you come south on Collier Boulevard to the
intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, you
end up with estates to the south, a small area of the urban
designation to the east where you have St. Agnes church that's
being proposed, as well as Vanderbilt Country Club, and then
further east you have estates. Well, this market area primarily
serves the Golden Gate Estates market to the east through White
Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard. It also serves a large part of
residential development to our west, which includes Island Walk,
which has it's own internal convenience commercial, but it
doesn't have full fledged commercial that's associated with it.
The next nearest commercial is four miles away at Airport
Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road in the Naples Walk Shopping
Center. Two miles to our north, you have a grocery store based
shopping center. That's all you have until you get into Golden
Gate City within two miles to the north, four miles west and
Page 96
March 13, 2001
about five miles to the south.
So the geographic area we're serving is this band, if you will,
that's about a mile south of Immokalee Road, east, very far, you
know, to Wilson and beyond in Golden Gate Estates because of
the travel routes, there are north/south access ways in Golden
Gate Estates. That traffic goes east and west from Collier
Boulevard. So now you capture a lot of traffic at this
intersection that's going to be expanded in the not too distant
future.
Our thought is, let's capture and designate it like we would
have any other activity center. When you look at the future land
use map, the original spacing criteria was about two miles apart
for each activity center, and in this particular location, it's very
unique, it is two miles from Immokalee Road, but we have
estates to our south. We have estates to our east. We have an
urban area to our northeast, and we have urban area to our
northwest.
So what we're attempting to do here is create an activity
node, if you will, of much less intensity than a typical activity
center, and we've gone much further in the process by creating
standards of intensity, commitments to architectural standards,
unified signage, unified development, and at the time, in
factoring in the 15 acres east of Collier Boulevard, we had a
facility that had the opportunity to share even a potential traffic
signal, and remember too that that 15 acre piece east of Collier
Boulevard was buffered from its nearest residential by 25 acres
of continued residential, but I'm not even going to address that
15 acres of commercial because that's now off the table, but if
you look at, and I'll go to our comparison, as Commissioner
Mac'Kie mentioned, I went through, and using the same
examples that staff had mentioned, recalculated those based on
an acreage basis to come up with a square footage per acre
comparison, which is how -- maybe an easier way to look at that
is, and I looked at Carillon, Pine Ridge Crossings, Berkshire,
Pavilion and Naples Plaza. The only one that's even remotely
close to the -- the intensity level we're looking at is probably the
Pavilion Shopping Center, slightly less per acre in intensity. That
calculates out to just under 7,000 square feet per acre for the
Pavilion Shopping Center that's at Vanderbilt Beach Road and
U.S. 41.
Page 97
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know the total square
footage there?
MR. ARNOLD: Total square footage there is about 168,000
square feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you'd be about 80,000 --
MR. ARNOLD: On 24 acres.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood about the density.
MR. ARNOLD: So our proposal, as we had submitted it, was
about 7,400 square feet per acre. I mean, the standard rule of
thumb used in Collier County is roughly 10,000 square feet of
commercial acreage -- 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre has been the rule of thumb. So we're in at about 2,600
square feet less per acre, commercial square footage per acre
than most other comparables.
Let's take something like the Carillon Shopping Center. It's
13,296 square feet per acre, almost twice what we're requesting
on a per acre basis. The worst scenario was Naples Shopping
Center, which has 337,000 square feet of floor area on 20 acres.
That's about 16,700 square feet per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the bottom line is, you're
going to have more landscaping, more water retention and things
of that nature?
MR. ARNOLD: We end up with more -- we end up with more
open space on the balance, when you look at it from the per acre
standpoint. I think one of the other things that Mr. Yovanovich
mentioned, that we've continually made a commitment to and it
hasn't been necessarily requested of us, and that is, we made a
commitment to create a road to connect Collier Boulevard with
Vanderbilt Beach Road as a reliever, if you will, to everyone
having to utilize the actual intersection. That, we think, plays
into the whole issue of having a mixed use -- I wouldn't call it an
activity center at that point, but it certainly gives you an
opportunity to have feeder roads to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods from that loop road system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we talking about something
similar to Naples Boulevard that's over by the --
MR. ARNOLD: I guess you would say that that's maybe the
most similar example that we have in place today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of uses are going to
be in there?
Page 98
March 13, 2001
MR. ARNOLD: Well, right now, if you look at the language
that we've proposed, it says we have to rezone to the form of a
PUD, it has to be compatible with neighborhood residential and
institutional uses. Financial institutions, business services,
professional/medical offices and retail. We've limited ourselves
to single story. We've also made a commitment to common site
signage, building architectural elements, and we've also made a
provision that we would provide for interconnection with
adjoining properties on the northwestern quadrant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any commercial that's
part of the Vanderbilt Estates? Do they have anything besides
their country club?
THE AUDIENCE: No,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So compared to like Pelican
Strand -- I'll tell you, here's where my head is. When we were
talking about transmitting this, I was in the mindset that we
needed to provide some commercial -- some grocery store, place
to buy a loaf of bread from the Estates besides, you know, the
few places that are out there, and that this was logical because
it was right on the edge of -- you know, inside the urban boundary
and at a major intersection, but what I pictured at the time was
something -- you know, a grocery store, a drugstore, a dry
cleaner and a -- something else. Not something the size of, you
know, the Pavilion Shopping Center, and that's my -- I just, you
know, didn't -- I just feel like -- okay. Well, tell me this. At the
Strand, you referred to the Strand as a neighborhood
commercial. What's -- how many total square feet of commercial
are at the Strand? Does anybody know?
MR, ARNOLD: I don't have that number off the top of my
head. I think I referred to it more as a community commercial,
because I would look at a full service grocery store as really
more of a community, more so than a neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, when I was thinking that
-- that a community commercial at this site made sense, but not
a -- not a power center.
MR. ARNOLD: But when you add up the numbers -- I think
what we've established here is that this is not a power center in
the sense that -- that I think everything in the text leads you
completely opposite of a power center because we're talking
about having interconnection with the residential that will
Page 99
March 13, 2001
inevitably be to our west in making that provision, and we're also
going to be coming back in the form of a PUD. We've made a
commitment to work with the Vanderbilt Country Club owners
who are now, not adjacent to, but now they're a quarter mile
away from this particular center, and we've also made the
commitment to the loop road system, which provides for all that
interconnect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all of that's good. It's just a
question of how much commercial.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess my comparison back to the
Pavilion is simply that if you talk to the people that live in the
area around the Pavilion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They love it.
MR. ARNOLD: -- they love it because it's close in proximity,
it's accessible and who wants to go back on U.S. 41 if you live
west of 41 in that location to have to go get your daily
convenience goods or your weekly shopping?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But at the same time, it's on the
corner of --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, and that services a huge
number of people. I -- candidly, I don't view that as a comparison
in this thinking. Yes?
MR. BLAIR: The Pelican Strand is approved for 200,000
square feet, and built right now is 118,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See maybe what -- maybe you
guys should have 120 or 150 square feet (sic) of commercial and
some residential for some sort of a mixed use opportunity in this
PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was thinking -- there's many a
different commercial uses that can be -- right now, what we
have, we have so much traffic going to the west early in the
morning, you know, to get to work, to get to the industrial parks,
and we need to do something in the -- in the urban area such as
this so the work force is not traveling all the way to the west.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the eastern part of the urban
area.
GOMMISSIONER HENNING:
GOMMISSIONER MAG'KIE:
just how much.
GHAIRMAN GARTER:
Yeah, eastern part.
I agree with you. The question is
How much and the intensity.
Page 100
March 13, 2001
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I was thinking along your lines, if this
was transmitted, that there be a provision that the -- the
neighborhood commercial, whatever the term was used for
Pelican Strand, be the amount -- the uses would be in there, and
right now, is it 118,000 has been developed in there or something
of that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One eighteen,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One eighteen, so let's say it's 130 or
40, whatever it might be, and the rest must be utilized for
housing. It could be multiple housing, it could be whatever it is,
but it must be housing where people could live, and then that
would seem, to me, to be compatible with the neighborhood, and
I'm thinking out loud here, compatible --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Inaudible) -- is going to be telling
us that our -- that our activity centers, we should go back to the
concept of being mixed use, and that's -- I just wonder if that
isn't appropriate for here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, one thing I'd like to say --
again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich. This is not your typical
activity center. It's not four quadrants. You have estates on the
-- on the bottom two quadrants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's about as atypical as it could
get.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and I will tell you that the plan is
to come in with the PUD, not only for this property, but for the
property adjacent where you will end up with a residential
aspect of it along with the commercial aspect of it. This will be
your neighborhood type of development. It's not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a part of a residential
proiect? I mean, this is --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a part of a -- I will use the word
comprehensively planned area, yes, so we will include --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this is not going to be built as
a stand-alone commercial --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will service not only the areas we just
talked about, but the residential component of what's going to be
coming in down the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So your client owns more of the
property surrounding --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Than just the 40 acres -- 33 acres, sorry.
Page 101
March t3, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm kind of curious why you
couldn't get this point across to the residents down there in the
Vanderbilt --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, candidly, Commissioner, the first
time they had an opportunity to look at this, they're telling me,
was in the last 48 hours. We talked about that in the hallway and
that's why I agreed to remove the 15 acres to the east, which
was their primary concern, as a showing of good faith and we
would sit down with them when we designed the PUD to address
all of the issues including uses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, but I think we're
getting a certain level of uncomfortness (sic) here with the
process that we're talking about. Bear with me for a moment,
but how would it work if, for some reason, this was put forward?
In other words, you could bring it back on another date after
you've worked with the neighbors in that area?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, the problem we have
now is you have a cycle that you do your comprehensive plan
amendments in, and there's no guarantee that if we continued
this past today, that we would -- that the Department of
Community Affairs would allow you to carve out this one
amendment or put us back into a cycle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Marjorie's got the
answer for us.
MS. STUDENT: Well, for the record, Mar]orie Student,
assistant county attorney. We have procedures that are not
local procedures, they're mandated by state law, and we are in
an amendment cycle for a comp. plan. We're allowed do that
twice a year to take them to the Department of Community
Affairs. We just can't carve out a part of a comp. plan
amendment and continue it for a month or so and then transmit it
to D.C.A. They will not allow that because they have a process
established for the transmittal and adoption process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the only way we could
continue this one would be to continue the whole stack, this
whole white book is --
MS. STUDENT: No, it could be broken out, but this one
would have to go in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This can be removed to the next cycle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the next cycle will be a full
Page 102
March t3, 2001
year, or six months?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Six months.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, the cycle lasts well over six
months.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, in six months' time, some
grander plans could be brought together with the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, it is difficult to go to the
next stage of spending all that money to come to specific plans
when you don't know that you're even going to be eligible to ask
for it. All I'm asking for at this point is the ability to come in and
ask for commercial. I know I have to work with the neighbors to
get that approved. I know that the uses within that have to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I know it has to
be something that is -- is acceptable to the community in order
for the commission to -- to move forward and approve the PUD. I
know it's a heavy burden that we must meet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On Friday, our workshop is going
to be about the process on growth planning, and frankly, you
know, he's right, that if -- if we don't give him a comp. plan
amendment today, then it pretty much shoots a proiect down
because the investments -- the way it works, nobody's -- you
know, I -- what I like is when they do them concurrently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My big problems is, we've been
concerned with the will of the people and we've been concerned
with things that have been approved and then we have to go
back and withdraw or readdress it again and these people only
found out, as you said, 48 hours ago and yet you're saying that
you want to work with them from here on in. How come they
weren't worked with before?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please, please. I appreciate you being
here, but--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, this is not the first time
this has been heard publicly. You know that there was the
adoption hearing that occurred and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is about the third or fourth
public hearing on this topic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Oh, is it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what the notice
process is and we need to talk about that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand, you know, their desire
Page 103
March 13, 2001
to work with us and I -- I threw out the olive branch of giving up
15 acres because that was their primary concern. I've
committed to taking the PUD zoning ordinance to them first to go
through the process to make sure that their concerns are -- are
addressed and -- and I can't really do much more than that. I
can't -- I can't go and design a final project and the client's not
going to spend that kind of money if they think that they're not
going to get the first step, which is the comprehensive plan
amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You started in the right
direction when you say you threw out the olive branch, but you're
telling me if only one person showed up here today, would we
have seen the olive branch?
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, as far as -- would we? I
didn't know it was an issue, Commissioner. The first time I knew
it was an issue is when I showed up today, so how was I
supposed to know?.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's another point you bring
up. Today was the first day you realized it. Meanwhile, these
residents have been living there for a long time. I don't think
that due process is coming together here. Our attorney has got
some reservations about us carrying it past this point and trying
to recoup later. Make me feel comfortable with, if we passed it,
how are we going to be able to recoup later to be able to protect
the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I will commit to you
today, it will be a neighborhood shopping center. So it's not
going to be a regional shopping center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you reduce the -- the
intensity to something like 130, 40, somewhere in that
neighborhood? Because then that's sort of putting your money
where your --
MR. YOVANOVICH: How about if we go to the dimensions of
Pelican Strand?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is about 200.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know, the reason that
makes sense is because, you know, I thought the Pelican Strand
level of commercial would make sense because of Vanderbilt
Country Club having no commercial, that this would sort of serve
Page 104
March 13~ 2001
that function, and now they tell me they're also going to build
their own residential neighborhood in con]unction. You know,
that makes sense to me because what we've been saying about
we don't -- we'd like for people to be able to do their shopping in
their neighborhood --
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' And the loop road which brings the
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We haven't got to the
neighborhood yet. There might not be room on the road. We still
haven't heard from Norm Feder to find out if this whole thing is
doable with the roads the way they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to come back next
time, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next time, and that's -- that' s--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners~ I -- Commissioner
Coletta, I hope that that shows you, we agreed to a neighborhood
shopping center versus a regional shopping center, we've
brought the scale and square footage down to other residential
type shopping centers. I've eliminated the 15 -- the 15 acres. I
think -- and I've committed to going to them first with the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll tell the neighbors too, it's
my experience with Mr. Yovanovich that he does -- I mean~ he
spends a whole lot of time in the neighborhoods with the
communities when he says that he's going to. I mean~ I've
watched that over my six years up here, that that comes true.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're reducing the transmittal to
200,000 acres (sic) or are we -- I want to clarify. What are you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You mean feet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two hundred thousand --
MR. YOVANOVICH-' Give me 200,000 acres, sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. 200,000 square feet. My
question is, are you then asking for the rest of it and are you
going to dedicate that to housing or are you just requesting --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are eliminating the 15 acres on the
east.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: On the 33 acres that are remaining, it
will be up to 200,000 square feet of neighborhood shopping
center type uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that can go -- go ahead.
Page 105
March 13, 2001
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're committed to the loop road. That
loop road will actually help us bring our remaining property,
which will be residential uses, in to interconnect that
development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And when you talk about a loop
road, do you intend -- I mean, I just need to know on the record
that you're talking about a road that will connect Vanderbilt
Beach Road to County Road 9517
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Feder?
MR, FEDER: Norman Feder, for the record, transportation
administrator. We've hit a lot more than normally is in the comp.
plan area. I'm in an issue right now in rezoning. I was pleased to
hear about the loop road. I think the issue that we would have
and we'll address at that time, but is access off of that loop road,
not off of the arterial, and that's going to be the thing that we'd
want to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that the shopping center --
again, this will be at rezoning, but he's sort of giving you a heads
up that, don't look for any cuts off of the main roads, make your --
orient your shopping so that you can get there off of your loop
road and not off the main roads.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would agree. I don't want to go
through what happened up at Pelican Strand where we had Piper
Boulevard laid on the plans. We never were able to get that in. I
don't want a repeat of that. I want to make sure that we have
interconnectivity to the communities to get on the loop road. I
want a smooth traffic plan that doesn't over burden our collector
or arterial road system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we approve this, then
between the time that we approve it and it comes back for
zoning, you'd be working very diligently with the property owners
of Vanderbilt?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it on the record at least three
times and I'll say it again. We will go to the Vanderbilt Country
Club people with our PUD zoning, explain it to them and take in
their feedback.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And looking for the quality that
they're looking for?.
Page 106
March 13, 2001
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We want them to use our
facility.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would like to add that the church
and school that's on the other side, that you will certainly put
them in the loop of your conversations.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I plan on -- we involve all of them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, you have a couple more
registered speakers. John Welligans (phonetic) followed by John
Drozba (phonetic).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you're happy, you can iust
say you waive, but if not, we're -- we'll welcome your comments.
MR. BLAIR: Staff just wanted to make clear that at the
Strand, what you see is only 118,000 square feet right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they're approved for up to
200?
MR. BLAIR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the density of the Strand,
total units, compared to Vanderbilt, I guess times two, because if
what they're going to develop is something similar to Vanderbilt,
you know, sort of the ratio of commercial to residential, I'd love
to know that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's go to registered
speakers.
MR. WELLIGANS: My name's John Welligans. I'm a
homeowner. I reside at Danbury Boulevard, 8362. I'm just
curious, the applicant reduced it to 200,000 square feet. What
was the application for the westerly portion before their
reduction?
MR. BLAIR: I believe he said 240.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, it went from 360 to 240, so
really all he knocked off was 40,000 square feet on this side.
MR. WELLIGANS: But now we're told that what you're going
to be approving them for is approximately double what is
presently over at the Strand? That seems to me like an awfully
big project for the residential area that's located around that
intersection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's a good question, but the Strand
neighborhood commercial is approved for up to 200,000 square
Page 107
March 13, 2001
feet. They currently have completed 118, sir.
MR. WELLIGANS: Right, but I'm just going -- what you're
approving for this one is going to be double what's already
existing at the Strand, which --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, not quite, but --
MR. WELLIGANS: The other thing is, besides the people in
our community of Vanderbilt, I don't know how many other
people on the westerly side of 95t who own individual homes
over there had no knowledge of this application. They haven't
had a chance to present their views, and as I think the counsel
already said, once you approve this, it's much more difficult to
stop anything later on, because now you've given the builder a
vested right, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, yes and no, sir. It comes back to
us under a PUD and we have every right, at that time, to deny the
total PUD, to make modifications, et cetera, et cetera. When you
transmit, and for a land use change, you have, in effect, said we
will consider that, and my point was, any time you do that, then
legally, your case, if you really were gonna fight something from
day one, has been -- you've taken one of the bargaining chips
away.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you know, if we approve a --
if we adopt a comp. plan amendment with up to 200,000 square
feet, the amount that they will actually be permitted to build
there will be determined at the rezone. That will just be the
maximum, so --
MR. WELLIGANS: The other question I have is, if you
approve for the 200, is it going to be 200 (sic) square feet spread
over this 33 acres or are they now going to reduce the size of the
acreage and cram it all into a smaller acreage?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We will have said -- the acreage
will be what's designated today.
MR. WELLIGANS: Okay. So they can't put it all in, let's say
along 951, and then use the rest of the land for some other
purpose?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. Can they, staff?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It will be up to our discretion when it
comes back. We would have the opportunity to say yeah or nay,
SO--
MR. WELLIGANS: I mean, we're -- at least for myself, I'm not
Page 108
March 13, 2001
saying I'm against all improvements, I'd just like to know what's
coming down the stream before it's too late.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's reasonable.
MR. WELLIGANS: That's all.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Next
speaker, please?
MR. MCNEES: Dr. Drozba, and then Bob Stone is registered
on this item, but I don't know for which specific --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Stone, are you registered for this
item? Mr. Stone, are you here? Mr. Stone is not here.
MR. MCNEES: Solves that problem for us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. DROZBA: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. John Drozba. I reside
at 8310 Danbury Boulevard and I would like to ask a question or
two of the board as to the notification process. The notification
process, as I understand it, was given in October of 2000.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll let legal counsel answer that
directly, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. The notification process for the
comprehensive plan amendment in this -- as we said, this is
legislative, not quasi judicial and it has a component of
advertisement in the newspaper as mandated by the state, and
that is done in every element of the cycle of hearing that this
has, it's advertised in the newspaper. When you get down to a
specific rezone, which a straight rezone or a PUD amendment,
which is a type of rezone, that is when that comes into play, our
local ordinance requirements of specific mailing notice to
neighboring property owners as far as that goes, and that would
be the next step in the process if the board should go forward
and make a change with this growth management plan today.
MS. STUDENT: And if I may, I might just add, Marjorie
Student again, assistant county attorney. It was advertised both
at the transmittal stage for the Planning Commission and the
Board, so there were two advertisements for transmittal in the
fall, and then there would be two advertisements for this
segment, which would be one for the Planning Commission and
one for this board for adoption, so all told, there were four
advertisements.
MR. DROZBA: All right. Now, here's our problem. As
non-professionals, we don't understand the language of the -- of
Page 109
March t3, 2001
the petition, and consequently, I think there also might have
been a situation where this was forwarded to the Vanderbilt
Country Club board, which consists of no one on -- there were no
board members that were members. There were homeowners or
condo owners. At that time, there was not a board member.
There was a single board member elected in April and that was
it, so consequently, you were dealing with the developer. The
developer did not communicate this item to us, so consequently,
we were sitting there in the dark.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree -- I agree with that -- that
concern, sir, very, very much. I went through a long issue this
morning where the argument by the people who represented a
group against something said that they never knew, they were
never involved and didn't have any opportunity to participate. It
is -- it is most unfortunate that whoever the leadership is in any
situation, developer, elected citizen, appointed citizen, doesn't
communicate with the community he or she represents. I am
always concerned about that and I don't know how to change
that until it's sometimes after the fact, until the decision's
already been made and then we're faced with the dilemma of
what is the people's will, who -- who represent -- totally, or are
there many wills within a community and which one needs to
prevail, sir, and I -- I would like to have a definitive answer to
that, and that's part of the struggle that we go through here.
MR. DROZBA: All right. Now, here's our situation. The
members -- the homeowners will not receive full control of the
board until after, say November of the year 2001 and this is a
result of an agreement of 95 percent sell out at --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But sir, they're not agreeing just
to meet with the official association. I'm sure if you want to
leave your name and address, they will let you be the contact
person. If someone else who's here will be the contact person or
whatever means of communication. The fact that you're not
going to have official control of that association is not relevant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make sure it happens, you
can count on that. All I need is the name and address and
telephone number of a couple individuals.
MR. DROZBA: All right, Jim, that's fine. However, I have
some other questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll clarify for you on the --
Page 110
March 13, 2001
MR. DROZBA: Let me finish first. I don't want any side --
side delays here.
All right. Now, the Vanderbilt Country Club had
approximately ten minutes of rebuttal and I don't think that that
was a fair amount of time in view of the fact that Mr. Yovanovich
and Mr. Arnold have used about 27 minutes of time, so I would -- I
feel that we have been shortchanged as far as our presentation
is concerned.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I understand your concern, sir,
but we do allow people to sign up and they have five minutes.
We could not let people respond to every point made on every
situation that comes in front of us. We would probably deal with
one -- one subject every two weeks or every month or whatever it
is, it would take that long to discuss individual issues. So we try
to make it as equitable as possible, and again, what you're
telling me on your deadline before you have control of your
homeowners' association, rather than the developer, ! would
sincerely believe that when this is approved or disapproved by
D.C.A. and by the time they put together everything they need to
do to bring it in front of us and go through the -- perhaps the
Environmental Advisory Council, the Planning Council (sic) and
then finally to us, that we would be well into that time period for
you to adequately address all your concerns, and I know when
Commissioner Coletta says he will make sure that you know and
are involved, he is a man of his word and he will do it.
MR. DROZBA: All right. One other -- one other point that I
would like to make briefly. I think the -- that there would be less
concern if the -- if the development on the west (sic) side of 951,
Collier Boulevard, was limited to about 115,000 square feet.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir, but that has
been removed from this request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to take a risk here and say
that for our moving the meeting along purposes, that if we have a
conversation with every speaker who comes up, you know, we'll
be like last week and be here until 9:30 and sometimes I think
we could serve the public better if we heard the comments and
then went on to conversation and discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well taken, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
and all of us need to stop doing that.
Page 111
March 13, 200t
MR. DROZBA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Any other public
speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: Not on this item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Any other questions?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to point out for the record,
I was just handed the names of the two contact people. I
committed to that out in the hallway that I was going to speak
with -- John was going to get me the names, the person who
spoke first, as to who I needed to contact. We plan on speaking
directly to the people and not the developer or the developer's
representatives.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to make a motion to
approve this item with a maximum of 200,000 square feet of
commercial and with the elimination of the acreage on the east
side of County Road 951. What is it now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Collier Boulevard. I'll second
that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd just like to make a
provision that all the people -- just as Rich promised us, that all
the people are contacted and he works with all of them, so that
when they come back to us next time, we won't have -- we won't
have a lot of people saying they hadn't heard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll see you guys in a few
months.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We need to move to the next item.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I assume you're going back
into order then?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. David Weeks, for the record, of the
comprehensive planning section. This is a very brief item. This
pertains to the Orangetree PUD area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please, please, folks, be quiet as you
leave the room. Thank you very much.
Page 112
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this 2000-3?
MR, WEEKS: Yes, it is, CP-2000-3, the first petition under
this agenda item, 12(A)1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: This pertains to the rural settlement area
portion of the Golden Gate area master plan commonly known as
Orangetree PUD. This amendment is a clarification of uses. In
staff's opinion, this is an innocuous change. We have already
issued a written interpretation that placing this list of uses back
into the comprehensive plan where it used to be prior to 1997
makes no difference. Those uses are allowed whether this
amendment is approved or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is pretty much a glitch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I might be able to help move
that along a little bit because I took quite a bit of concern on this
one when it came up and I got an e-mail -- or a phone call rather,
a phone call back from Bob Mulhere. Orangetree amendment on
Tuesday agenda is no problem, puts the land back where it was
two years ago, and he suggests that after the amendment is
adopted, that the board freezes any further amendments until the
Golden Gate master plan restudy is completed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. If
there is no further questions on the part of the board, entertain a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to move that forward to
D.C.A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's a pair of seconds. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Motion carries 5-0.
Moves us to item three, Petition CP-2000-5. Good afternoon,
Miss Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Amy Taylor and I'm with your comprehensive planning section.
Before you for your consideration is comprehensive plan
amendment 2000-5.
The petitioner has sought to amend the future land use
element and map to allow the creation of a Livingston/Pine Ridge
commercial infill subdistrict. The proposed designation would
Page 113
March 13, 2001
allow up to 125,000 square feet of retail and commercial office
uses on 17.5 acres on the southeast corner of Pine Ridge Road
and Livingston Road.
The subdistrict would allow a single story retail commercial
and three story -- up to three story office buildings. The Planning
Commission unanimously approved this amendment and I'm
available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions from the Board of County
Commissioners?
Do we have any registered speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: You have Bruce Anderson, I believe
representing the petitioner, and Frank Crapero.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What's the pleasure of the board?
Would you like to hear from each one of these gentlemen or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Anderson and --
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Crapero.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Mr. Crapero. Thank you. You both
ought to be up here. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson,
attorney on behalf of the applicant, Alan Cann (phonetic) of
Aldrich Development Company who's here in the audience today,
along with our project planner, Tim Hancock, of the Vanasse and
Daylor Engineering and Land Planning firm.
This is a site specific plan amendment for property that is
presently used for the John Ebert Golf Driving Range and Golf
School at the corner of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road.
This amendment has been unanimously approved at three
previous public hearings with no objections by the public or the
Department of Community Affairs.
I would note, as Miss Taylor told you, that this does limit the
commercial square footage to no more than 125,000 square feet,
which is considerably less than the normal retail commercial
formula of 10,000 square feet per acre. The size of this parcel is
17 and a half acres, and under the normal formula, would equate
to 175,000 square feet, so we are considerably below that.
I would ask you to appreciate the fact that this property is
located next door to the North Naples Fire Department
Page 114
March 13, 2001
substation and is located at the intersection of two major
roadways. Both of these roadways will be six lanes, and at the
intersection of these roadways, the number of lanes on each
roadway will be greater than six in order to accommodate turn
lanes and related stacking lanes.
As the language in our amendment indicates, we are
working towards providing a loop road through this property that
would enable people to go from Livingston Road to Pine Ridge
Road without actually going to the intersection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my only question,
Bruce, was -- do you have to come in on a PUD? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so we will have the
opportunity to discuss that loop road with you at that point?
MR. ANDERSON: Indeed, you will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I want it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't sound like it really
impacts the road system, right, Norm, with the six lane, six lane?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's always good to get them off
the intersection though.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's why we'd have the loop road.
MR. FEDER: We would want it at the time. Obviously,
regardless of being six and six, if you can get your access points
off your arterials, you increase your safety and operations of the
system.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: And your next public speaker is Frank
Crapero.
MR. CRAPERO: I have just a couple of comments. Amy
Taylor's done a wonderful job on it and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As always.
MR. CRAPERO: As always, but there is no posting, and she
didn't have to do it, to put signs up for a hearing on the
comprehensive plan. I think that's a big omission. People don't
know what's coming up. They don't know what's being planned.
There's no posting at all and I think there needs to be a big sign.
They have brand new, nice metal signs for the Planning
Commission when they rezone, and I think that definitely needs
to go in and our county manager has been telling me he's been
Page 115
March 13, 2001
getting bids to try to get our agenda in the paper, which will be a
big help for the people of the county to know what's going on,
and I hope I can get your support to pay a little bit of money and
-- because they don't do it for free anymore, but we need that in
the paper so our community knows what's going on.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think you wouldn't find any
disagreement on this board.
MR. CRAPERO: All right. Well -- and on rezone, they post
signs for the planning meeting, but there's no signs posted for
the actual commission meeting when they go into the -- the final
rezone. I think we really need -- the commission meeting needs
signs posted too so the people are aware that this is a final, last
step in getting rezone --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is not the final, last
step, and John, are we going to deal with this in our growth
management plan on these transmittals to D.C.A. of posting on
the property?
MR. DUNNUCK-' For the record, John Dunnuck, Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator. Yes,
we're not going to deal with it probably at the growth
management workshop. We plan on doing it at the development
review workshop. We discussed that with you last Friday about
what we want to do as far as public participation and some of
our goals, and I think this will fit nicely in line with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have some solutions
planned, sir, to those problems.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other comments, sir?. Do you have
any other comments, sir?
MR. CRAPERO: ! have a couple more comments. I don't
know -- I'd like to see where this loop road goes because people
kind of have roads going toward my property. I live just east of
that rezone in a nursery of over 13 acres, and no one's bought my
property and the county's paid very poorly so far for the property
they did condemn. It was less than 80,000 an acre and
everybody else got three hundred and something thousand an
acre and we're still in negotiations with that, and we're still in
negotiations -- it seems like everyone with powerful influence
around here has a median cut and I was given a median cut as
part of a settlement in previous lawsuits with the county from
Page 116
March t3, 2001
years back that is in writing, and so far, they say they're going to
take mine away in deference to -- everyone else with some more
money is gonna get their median cut and I've had mine since
1977 and it was given to me as part of a settlement, and I think
we're going to go through a lot of litigation pretty soon that's
going to be very costly to the county if my median cut isn't kept
where it is. It hasn't been taken yet, but on the plans, it's been --
been taken and given to people with more money or whatever.
So I just want to say I'm there. No one's bought my
property. If a loop road's going through my property and they
intend on paying --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You are going to entertain offers?
MR. CRAPERO: Yeah, I'm entertaining offers, but like I say,
there hasn't been -- we have a $2,000 bid, I think -- or Mr. Kant
lost. I'm going to see if his attorney will pay on that. I'll give him
some information on that, but I iust want to say I'm here. I'm not
in opposition because, you know, that should have been done a
long time ago, and unfortunately, I was told about ten years ago,
don't expect any comprehensive plan change, the county owns
all that property and they just pretty much have bought ail the
property and now they're allowing comprehensive -- because
they don't want to pay the price once it's commercially zoned
and it's a problem.
I can't use my property for the last ten years because they
wouldn't put me in -- you might as well not even try. We're not
going to change you in a comprehensive plan, give you zoning
rights and then pay commercial price for the zoning, and that's
pretty much what they did. They said that mine's worth less
than 80,000 an acre. Next door is worth 320,000 because they're
already zoned, and I was told, don't even go in for rezoning
unless you intend to give the property to the county. That was --
that was kind of documented in the planning meeting when
Hospice went in. They had a big whoop-de-do on that, how come
Hospice didn't give land to the county to get a little rezoning so
they wouldn't have to go -- but I don't oppose this and I'm sure
you all will do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your input.
Is there any further public comment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 117
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Amy.
We are now to item number 4.
MR. WEEKS: Morning, commissioners. David Weeks again,
for the record, of the comprehensive planning staff. This is
petition CP-2000-7. This is the final of the four private -- privately
initiated amendments, and the subject site is located at the
northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara
Boulevard shown on the visualizer here in yellow, about 6.8
acres. It's zoned estates. It's designated residential estates, as
are properties to the north and west.
To the east across Santa Barbara Boulevard is Golden Gate
City. The zoning is C-4. It's developed with a shopping center,
and to the south across Golden Gate Parkway is also zoned and
designated estates and is within the Golden Gate Estates area
master plan as well.
The petitioner is asking for a change in designation. They
want to take the existing CR 95t commercial infill provision and
change the name of it and then apply it to this property as well.
The specific request would allow for 35,000 square feet of
building area of C-1 uses and limit the retail uses, that is, as
originally submitted, and that would include a sit down
restaurant limited to 25,000 square feet maximum and could not
be a free-standing restaurant. There are some other limitations.
I don't want to read the entire petition to you.
As I think you're aware, when you saw this before, the
previous County Commission did vote to transmit this up to
D.C.A., as did the Planning Commission. The board's vote at that
time was three to one. When it came time for the Planning
Commission hearing last month for adoption, some changes were
made to the petition, and without going into the details because
they're in your summary, I'll just say that staff's opinion is they
have increased the intensity of the development. Staff's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff -- say the last thing again.
MR. WEEKS: It's staff's opinion, the changes they have
made to their petition at Planning Commission increased the
intensity of the development. Regardless of that change, staff's
recommendation from the beginning has not -- is not to adopt this
Page 1t8
March t3, 2001
amendment. Our recommendation is either one of two things.
Either one, simply leave it designated estates. It would
allow for three single family homes, or secondly, and certainly in
acknowledgement of the traffic volumes on the abutting
roadways, which vary from the mid 20,000's to probably over
30,000, I think on a segment of Golden Gate Parkway, consider
conditional uses for the property as allowed in the estates. It's
non-commercial uses, non-residential uses. Your churches, child
care centers, nursing homes, sometimes thought of as quasi
commercial, quasi residential uses. Uses that are more tolerant
of high intensity uses nearby, such as the commercial to the
east, also tolerant of the traffic volumes, but yet, generally
speaking, are compatible with single family development such as
you have to the north and the east within the estates.
There have been -- two letters of objection were received,
one of which was from the Golden Gate Area Civic Association,
both of which specifically indicated traffic concerns for the
project.
That concludes the presentation. My understanding is, the
petitioner is going to make another change to the petition to
lessen the intensity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is a piece of property
that's going to be -- this is going to be right off the interstate
pretty soon, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it -- for the record, Rich
Yovanovich representing the petitioner. The interstate, I don't
know, it's got to be about a mile or two, I would think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I mean, it's going to be
coming off the interstate exchange.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is, and as Mr. Weeks had pointed out,
we, to show Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta how
we do work with the civic association and the surrounding
neighbors, I believe I'm correct in saying that we met with Mrs.
Cirrou (phonetic) and she has requested that we scale down our
proposal -- or has agreed to our scaling down the proposal to
eliminate the retail uses and just have office uses. And with
that, I believe we've taken care of the -- the property owner to
our immediate north and I believe we've -- and we would request
that our -- our petition -- it had asked for office uses in the past,
but also retail. We would eliminate the retail uses and just go
Page 119
March 13, 2001
forward with the office uses.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the Golden Gate Civic
Association, you met with them last --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I met with them last night, but this
proposal did not come up, the office uses. Their concern, again,
about traffic was the issue. They were pretty adamant in their
not wanting there to be retail uses there, but the -- the proposal
about offices did not come up. That came up after the meeting
when Mrs. Cirrou and I had an opportunity to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So they objected to the -- as it was
proposed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: As it was proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I give a clarification,
because I was there last night and the -- originally when Mr.
Yovanovich came out to speak to the association, the meeting
previous to that, they did not object to it and they did not -- they
weren't in favor of it because we needed to address the traffic
problems and the proposed entrance, egress and ingress off of
Santa Barbara.
It was misrepresented at the Planning Commission, and at
that time last night, because of the history of this piece of
property and the history of saying the civic association was in
favor of this, they were opposed to that, things of that nature, a
motion came out to deny it completely. I don't have a dog to
fight in this issue. I know that the property is not a -- conducive
to a single family home anymore, and I did stop by the Cirrous'
office this morning because they are the ones that are going to
be directly impacted from it. They're going to be a neighbor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's the house right to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING-' Their house is right there, and
we had a long discussion and I think that everybody except for
the civic association, and I'm going to go way out of the box
here, everybody's in favor of it except for the civic association at
this point. What I would like to see is no more than office, no
more than single -- or one story.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, that's -- that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' No access off of Santa Barbara,
and Iow intensity uses, because we do have a traffic issue at
that intersection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' No access off of Santa Barbara, you
Page 120
March 13, 2001
said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with the office use, there are
some offices that are used a lot and then some are -- they're just
professional offices. What I'm talking about is like the social
security office would have droves of traffic in, and if what they're
concerned about is traffic, would you ever be able to limit it to
normal traffic offices? I don't even know if that's possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can do that when it comes
back to us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be a rezoning
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have a question to Norm
Feder to find out how he feels about it with these changes. Will
this work, especially with the six laning of the Parkway?
MR. FEDER: Right now you've got four laning at Golden Gate
Parkway and the six laning coming out. I think your issue that
you said is that you don't have access off of Santa Barbara. You
come off the Parkway and you try to respond to the development
when it comes to the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we want the entrance far
away from the intersection, so --
MR. FEDER: Yes. The other thing that I will point out is that
this is probably in an area that's going to be part of your overlay
district that is being structured for the new interchange. You'll
probably have to go all the way to about Livingston.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will this change that overlay in any
way or --
MR. FEDER: It will be factored in if you take action here,
into what you're looking at in the overlay, but it will probably fall
in the overlay area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was thinking of the overlay
around the intersection. I think, in my opinion, this is removed
from the intersection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, I concur. It raised my eyebrow
for a moment, Commissioner, but I do understand that it is far
away and we want a green interchange and I wouldn't see this
affecting it one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. I'm sorry. ! misled people
Page 121
March 13, 2001
unintentionally, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right, Commissioner. And
thank you, Commissioner Henning, for being at that meeting.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wasn't at the meeting, but I do
have one other question. Do we have any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, you have two public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hopefully one of them from the
civic association, or you wouldn't know? MR. MCNEES: I believe so, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to public speakers and then
we can finish our discussion.
MR. MCNEES: Your two speakers are Telethia (phonetic)
Cirrou, followed by Sherry Barnett.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While she's coming up, Mr.
Weeks, I'd love to know if you can, off the cuff, tell us what your
recommendation -- staff's would have been to the proposal that's
in front of us now as opposed to what you had at the time, but
after the public speakers.
MR. WEEKS: I think I've been asked that twice now by the
Planning Commission and the petitioner and my response is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, David, after the public
speakers.
MR. WEEKS: Oh,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Miss Cirrou?
MS. CIRROU: I would kind of like to hear his response.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you would? I was just trying
to be courteous to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's have the question
answered and then we'll go to the --
MR. WEEKS: Still not supportive, but that is less
objectionable. One of our -- the staff issues, real quickly, the
concerns had to do with the change in the character of the area.
Granted, there's a lot of conditional uses on Golden Gate
Parkway, but there's also a lot of houses. It is still part of the
estates master plan, the estates development of Iow density,
semi-rural character.
The magnitude of the commercial that was originally
requested, particularly with retail uses, certainly is greater than
with just offices, so that's one reason it's less objectionable.
Page 122
March 13, 2001
And the other has to do with the traffic volumes that would be
attracted by the site, and office uses, as a general category,
generate -- or attract less traffic than your retail. We don't
support it, but that's less objectionable than your original
proposal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am?
MS. CIRROU: After hearing what -- for the record, my name's
Talethia Cirrou, and after listening to David Weeks and Mr.
Yovanovich, I would have to say that I agree with David Weeks
that I don't necessarily support this, but if I had to, I agree that it
would have less impact on the traffic and it's something that we,
our family could probably live with, provided we were given
ample buffers, and I would also like perhaps if we could get some
kind of guarantee that as much natural vegetation could be left
on the corner to help maintain the character of the estates so it's
not becoming a commercial corner, it's just allowing this
property to grow as it needs to, because as you said, obviously,
probably no one's gonna live there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, ma'am, we always listen to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, she said no one's going to
live there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. CIRROU: So I understand that, you know, the property
is -- is something that needs to be sold and -- and -- and done
something with, and I'm willing to compromise and say that I
would be able to live with a single story office building of some
kind with the least amount of impact to my family and to the
traffic situation for the people of Golden Gate and the estates,
and that's basically my position on that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. That could be
accomplished in the PUD, the things that you're concerned
about.
MS. CIRROU: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. MCNEES: Sherry Barnett.
MS. BARNETT: Hello, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Sherry Barnett and I am a member of the civic
association. However, I was not at the meeting last night, but I
do know what the objections were prior to that meeting, and
they were the traffic, they were the entrance on the Parkway --
Page 123
March 13, 2001
or not on the Parkway, on Santa Barbara, I'm sorry, excuse me.
Part of that was partially from my point of view because I
have to travel that road on two different occasions a day
because my daughter goes to NCA and I already sit through
about five lights going there and coming back. So we were
concerned that the traffic was already over extended.
I do believe that this group has met with the civic
association on a number of occasions. They have tried to
compromise to a point on a number of occasions, but we've had
things, like Mr. Henning pointed out, go back and forth. One
minute they're taken out, the next minute we find out it's put
back in, so we weren't sure if we could trust them. So as long as
this is put on the record that they will go with an office park and
that they will keep that Santa Barbara entrance closed, I don't
believe there would be as much of an objection to it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Sherry, I know that you're
not speaking for the civic association, you're just a member and !
might take some hits from that and I hope you're there to help
me out.
MS. BARNETT: I will, because in all honesty, Tom, I was one
of the people that was very objectionable to this project because
of the traffic and I think it's been a big compromise, and we were
also concerned that the Cirrous were going to be impacted with
a turn lane and that type of thing and that was part of our
concern, and if they're willing to accept the office park, then I
think we should be able to also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, congratulations
for a job well done. I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For -- for an office --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the office, as we -- with all
the changes that were made to it, with the Santa Barbara
entrance removed and for a Iow intensity office use.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, point of clarification, if I may.
The discussion is office uses only. What was originally proposed
by the petitioner, other than retail uses, was the C-1 zoning
district, which also allows personal services, for example, a
barber or beauty shop would be allowed in there. I didn't know if
Page 124
March 13, 2001
that was something the commission -- if you want to tailor it to
the C-1 zoning district, which is more defined, because we can
go right to the code and see what's allowed, or if you say offices
only.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, offices only.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I accept that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Motioner accepts that. We
have a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING-' Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion? All in favor, signify by
saying.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
(Brief Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Still working on 12-A-1.
MS. MOSCA.' For the record, my name is Michele Mosca,
Comprehensive Planning Staff. This last item before you is CP
2000-11. It is a staff amendment. Staff was directed by the
previous board to amend the Future Land Use Element to modify
the definition of direct principal access in the RC District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hear a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have a second?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Mac'Kie, all in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Chairman, I ask for motion
to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. So moved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also a motion and vote to adopt
the 2000 Comp Plan amendments where changes are made,
directed to staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 125
March 13, 2001
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Now we can move back the regular agenda. How are we
doing here, Commissioners? You want a stretch or do you want
to keep going?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to point out that we only
have 13 items to go before we start our afternoon agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We got some of them already.
Item #8A1
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.779, "PATTERSON
LAKE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY 70TM AVENUE N.E. RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE SOUTH BY
VACANT LOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST BY VACANT LOT
AND ON THE EAST BY VACANT LOT - APPROVED WITH
STIPULATIONS
MR. McNEES: I believe we're at item 8-A-1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excavation permit.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, Environmental Services Administrator,
interim. Before you -- I'll get to 8-A-1 first -- but I want to clarify
the topic a little bit.
Two weeks ago we discussed commercial excavations in
the Estates area and Ag area. The Board directed us to bring
back a list of items and some changes to that ordinance in the
future.
We anticipated bringing those back probably in the June
cycle of the LDC, maybe even after that. The two items you have
before you were actually in the current process, the application
process at that time. We pulled them off consent because we
wanted to bring it to your attention, that before I turn it over to
Stan Chrzanowski to discuss for Board direction, we wanted to
find out if the Board wanted to hear these items or, by any
chance afterwards, if they wanted to provide direction with
these applications or after these applications wanted to propose
Page 126
March 13, 2001
that we not accept anymore applications until we come back
with a new process.
Our staff recommendation right now is that these
applications were in the process and that we feel that by
ordinance they have met all the requirements and we are
recommending approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does our lawyer agree that we
are kind of stuck on these? Because I very much like the idea of
let's pause until we get the new rules in place. But if we are
stuck on these legally, then we are.
MR. WEIGEL: These are legally appropriately before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would we get in trouble if we
said send these back through?
MR. WEIGEL: Starting with me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I have no problem with handling
them right here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, take the lead. What Mr.
Dunnuck suggested to us as the Board and you agree this would
stop the process?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This would stop it, yes. This is
the last part of it.
MR. WEIGEL: I think our listening audience clearly needs to
understand this stops the process. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This particular one here, I'm not
going to make a motion until I can hear a presentation from
someone.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with the
Development Services. Commissioners, you have two very
similar applications in front of you.
One is an excavation called Patterson, the other is called
McDaniels. One is a little south of Immokalee Road and east of
Everglades Boulevard; the other is on a canal near Randall. The
canal sits halfway between Everglades and Desoto.
One is about 26,000 cubic yards and the other is about
32,000 cubic yards. It's similar to excavations all over Golden
Gate Estates. The reason they are in the northeast corner of the
Estates is that's where all the deep sand is. No blasting is
required.
An excavation of 30,000 cubic yards is probably going to
Page 127
March 13, 200t
mean 10 truck trips a day for a year, if it lasts a year. Actually, if
they dig the thing faster, there will be fewer truck trips per day.
They are both in the vicinity of that amount of impact on the
roads.
If you have any questions about impacts to a water table or
anything like that, I'll be glad to answer them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask one thing. I got
the impression that this was very Iow intensity compared to the
previous excavating that we've heard. No blasting at all, you
say, because the sand is right there, and only 10 truck trips a
day, you say?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If it runs for a year. If they finish it in
three months, the impact will be a lot more intense, but a lot less
spread out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be 40 trucks a day for
three months or 10 trucks a day for a year.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Which over a 10 hour day only four
trucks an hour. It's a truck every 15 minutes. It's not even
noticeable out there. There is trucks traveling all the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Separately, the one 70th
Avenue Northeast, is that a paved road or dirt road? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I need to know that before we
can go on.
MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson, Davidson Engineering.
It's not a paved road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is there other residents
on the road?
MR. DAVIDSON: I think there is one more that ! can think of
on that road. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What provisions are
you doing to make this road better than you found it before you
start this job and how are you going to maintain it?
MR. DAVIDSON: We don't have any plans to maintain, to my
knowledge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I recommend denial.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioner, we had a similar
excavation Jim Weeks did on one of the road out there in the
Estates. It was a limerock road and during the excavation,
naturally, when the truck tractor came out onto the limerock
road they tore up the road when they came in and out. You
Page 128
March 13, 2001
always will do that because you are traveling off the edge of the
limerock. There's no way to really prepare the shoulder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we had him go back in and totally
repair that stretch of road and it was not a problem. We have
bonding --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the same petition?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, this was a different, two or three
years ago. We have bonding in place to take care of that if that
becomes a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have bonding to take care
of restoration. You don't have bonding to take care of the road,
though, do you?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you do now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: $10,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought that was just for
restoration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was reading the ordinance and
the ordinance says something about we can --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we for sure on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Manalich, that's a biggie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what was mentioned at
the last one, they do have a bond.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They said they had the bond but
they had the bond for restoration.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's let the attorney answer the
question so you'll know what it clearly states. Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney. The
code does require that road work be undertaken by the applicant
should be mitigated for any adverse impacts. I would presume
that would be included within the bond which is required.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the bond amount adequate for
restoring the entire road?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Whatever the length is. I'll have to
defer to staff on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I question that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very uncomfortable with this
because I know people on Friendship Lane have been suffering
tremendously from damage done to their road.
Page 129
March 13, 200t
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, if the bond is in place
already for restoration of the road --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The restoration is what takes
place after-the-fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the end.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are you going to do in the
meantime? There is too much suffering. Unless there is some
sort of guarantee in place that that road is going to be
maintained on a daily basis, I can't go for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we could make Mr.
Manalich or somebody stop us if we go down a bad road here --
ha, no pun -- but maybe we can make a motion to approve
subject to regular maintenance of the roadway, and that that is
also a condition of the bond, and that the road be maintained on
a monthly basis, or something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be much more
acceptable.
MR. DAVIDSON: We can agree to that, normal maintenance
of the road to keep it in as good condition as it is now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As good?
MR. DAVIDSON: It's in good condition now and we can
agree to keep it as it is, if it's obvious that our truck traffic is
what caused the problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you know it's your truck
traffic? I mean, who's going to say that it's your trucks? I mean,
you could always say, it wasn't my trucks, it was the next guy's
trucks.
MR. DAVIDSON: I guess it could be. Since we're the only
excavation that I know of on that road, it would be pretty obvious
that it would be our trucks, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you would look after them per
week as Commissioner Coletta said, to make sure that these
people don't have to suffer the hardships while you make the
money?
MR. KANT: Commissioners, Edward Kant, Transportation
Operations Director. Just so you're aware, whenever these types
of operations come to us we try to go out there and make both a
visual inspection and a videotape of the existing conditions prior
to the beginning of their operations.
We also then go back, typically several times a year, to spot
Page 130
March 13, 2001
check it. I've got people on the road daily and when we get
complaints, we respond to them.
This type of a situation is not unusual. I was talking with
Mr. White and if the Board is more comfortable with a somewhat
higher bond, we can work out a bond figure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excellent suggestion, and I heard you
say "try" and I think you really meant hope you meant, that you
would inspect the road and videotape it before we allowed any
use at this site.
MR. KANT: I get your direction, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point, if I understand
Commissioner Coletta, because I really appreciate that you
brought this to our attention, because frankly, the fact that this
is not unusual is the bad news, not the good news here, and we
get tempted to go, well, it's the same thing we've been doing.
But if the practice has been that the road has to be restored
at the end of the excavation, then that's inadequate.
But this Petitioner has agreed that they'll maintain the road
to its current condition on at least a monthly basis during the life
of the excavation, and then we need somebody to advise us
whether or not the amount of the bond is adequate to do that
work if they should fail to do that work.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What are the dust problems in an
operation like this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you mind if I get that, an
answer to that bond question? Because my train of thought
won't hold on
MR. KANT: We can work that out between the Development
Services staff and the petitioner, unless you want to know what
that is before we start, and that could take some time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't we just say "adequate."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the questions -- I have
two -- the neighbor that lives on this road, is it past your site or
before your site, is it next to it, across from there?
MR. DAVIDSON: I haven't been out to this site in about a
year. When I was there, I think I remember a house under
construction and I think it was past our site. But I've done
probably 15 of these in the last year or two, and I don't know
specifically. I can't answer that directly.
Page 131
March t 3, 200t
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know, Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' I do not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' This has all been duly posted?
Of course, there's been no mailing done to the residents on the
street under our present ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we post the site for these?
No,
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, this was on the consent agenda
and thank God, staff pulled it off this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I mean, there was not a sign
in the yard, either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to short a man here
who has gone through the process and filed all the legal parts
that are required now. In the future, we'll have it a little bit
easier as far as having it spelled out, so you will better
understand it and when it gets to us, we'll be able to move it
right on through.
Forgive me for the third degree. I'm trying to cover what
isn't there.
MR. DAVIDSON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The dust problems, all that,
that's something that you're going to have to take care of, too,
especially if the house is nearby. The hours of operation have to
strictly be limited to the times that are posted.
Because I tell those people out there if they got a problem,
call me, and they do. They call me Saturday mornings and
Sunday mornings at 6 o'clock. I get hold of Code Enforcement
and usually it stops very shortly. So we're going to have to
adhere to the hours of operation.
You need to, on your own, go out and make contact with
your neighbor, and let him know that this has been approved, and
what you're going to be doing to make sure the road is restored,
anything else you can do to make his life liveable for that time
period that you are there.
MR. DAVIDSON: We agree to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Subject to those conditions, I'll
second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 132
March t3, 2001
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A2
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.778, 'MCDANIEL
LAKE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SECTIONS 20,
2t, 28, 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED ON
THE NORTH BY VACANT LOT, ON THE SOUTH BY RANDALL
BLVD. RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST BY OCCUPIED LOT AND ON
THE EAST BY VACANT LOT - CONTINUED TO 3/27/01
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The next one is also excavation.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, only this one's at the end
of a dead-end street by a canal, so you won't have the problem
with people downstream of the project.
I'm sorry -- that's Randall Boulevard. That road goes by
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks like.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They'll have to make some type of
hardening of the shoulder to get onto the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's part of the condition of
the application, or are you suggesting that this is what we need
to do, Stan?
MR. KANT: Yes. We need to make sure on this particular
section of Randall Boulevard which lies east of Everglades
Boulevard. It's the last dead end one-mile section east.
We have had some shoulder problems, we have had some
roadway issues that we've been working with, and I want to
make sure that any conditions that are attached to this
particular permit that will make the permittee liable for any
exacerbation of those conditions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your recommendation?
MR. KANT: Well, whatever it will take to bring the road back
to the condition.
As I said, we'll start out with a videotape and we'll keep an
eye on it, and if we see some deterioration that we can trace to
this operation we're going to hold them responsible for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like we did with Mr. Davidson,
Page 133
March 13, 2001
right?
MR, KANT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: To enter on and off the highway, he
has to obtain a right of way permit. When he goes for the right of
way permit, Bill Spencer will make him harden the road from the
edge of the pavement to the edge of the right-of-way. That will
eliminate any damage where he comes on and oft the edge of the
road. The other damage will be taken care of like Mr. Kant says.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there any blasting on this site or
is it the same?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Same scenario; it's all sand. You
won't see any Estates excavations with blasting because we
don't allow the blasting, and it becomes monetarily unprofitable
to go in there and try to do anything without blasting the rock
out,
So all the ones you'll see when we eventually pick up the
system again, if we do, all the ones that have been done are all
in the northeast.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there sufficient room on this road
for a 16-wheeler to go down and meet oncoming traffic and
maybe a 16-wheeler coming back the other way? Do they have
any pull-offs or what is the condition?
MR, KANT: There are better roads in the Estates. This
particular section Randall Boulevard, I believe, is about 22 feet
wide. Theoretically, two trucks could pass. It's going to be
close.
What I've observed on this road and a number of other roads
very similarly is that they do tend to pull off to allow one another
to pass when they have to. Passenger cars, SUVs, pickups, don't
have any problem
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I don't know how far it is from
this site to get onto a wider road to traverse their fill, and I don't
know if it's possible to have designated pull-off spots.
And when you see a 16-wheeler coming, one or the other
has to pull off in this area so the other can get by. I don't
know if that's practical, but if everybody knew that this is
happening, maybe they could treat each other with a little more
courtesy.
Page 134
March t3, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Coletta, if this had
the same conditions as the previous application, would you
support it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, too, I would like to
know about residents that live alongside there and behind there.
Is the petitioner here?
MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson, again. There is a residence I
believe adjacent to this excavation, but it's down the road from
this one. No trucks will go in front of this residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.- Okay. If you look at the map
there, which one of these numbers would it be going down the
road?
MR. DAVIDSON: It would be, I think it's 123. The lot fronts
Randall, the driveway would be onto Randall Boulevard. So there
is no travel anywhere except on Randall Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your neighbor's lot?
MR, DAVIDSON: I think it's on 123.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 123 is behind you?
MR. DAVIDSON: Behind, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' By any chance, the house pad
you're going to leave, you're not going to cut out?
MR. DAVIDSON: It's 185 feet deep fronting on Randall; 185
by 3, more than 300 feet wide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you talked to your
neighbor behind you?
MR. DAVIDSON: No, I haven't. I am the engineer for the
proiect. The owner's not here. I'm not sure if he's talked to the
neighbor or not, but probably so, because I think he's owned that
lot for about 15 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This one here I do have some
problems with. I don't know what this neighbor behind here is,
there is no notification that's been sent out. Is there some way
this could be continued until we research this to find out about
the neighbor?. Are we able to do this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can.
Mr. Manalich: Yes, I believe you can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For two weeks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it, if we can.
Page 135
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
Motion carries 5-0. Continued for two weeks.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioners, one last thing. There
is one more of these excavations in the mill. It was going to be
coming in in two weeks. It's Creative Homes. The topics you
brought up, I'll make sure they are covered at that one, unless
you don't want to hear that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I do want to hear it. I
want to give everybody their just due. Tell Mario to come in and
talk to me well before this, and I'm sure by the time we reach the
floor here, we'll reach an agreement.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Feder.
Item #8A3
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL
PLAT OF "PELICAN STRAND REPLAT I-A'- CONTINUED UNTIL
IMPACT FEES HAVE BEEN PAID
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: Are we going to do The Strand, item
8-A-37 Because I want to make a motion to deny item 8-A-3.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. I think that was, thank you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
MR. MANALICH: Before you go to that, Mr. Duane is here
representing The Strand. He would like to be heard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. DUANE-' For the record, Robert Duane from Hole,
Montes and Associates. I'm here requesting a continuance
today. I realize that my client had a deadline to get some
documents to the legal department yesterday. That was not
done. I cannot speak why, but I would like to put this over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the legal effect of a
continuance versus denial? If we deny it you have to go back
through the process?
MR. DUANE-' Well this is a conveyance of sewer and water
easements.
Page 136
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have to go back through it
anyway, because you got to do the retape on it and all that stuff.
MR. DUANE: Well, they've been inspected and the
Homeowners' Association is going to take the road over; the
county is going to take the sewer and water over. Normally,
these matters are ministerial matters. I became aware of this
issue today. I would like to try to resolve the issue with the
Attorney's office and I'd like to reschedule this item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, the way to resolve this
issue is going to be pay those impact fees.
MR. DUANE: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's why it's all been denied. I
don't know how you feel about that, but if in two weeks they
have done everything they need to do, that would remove the
objection, at least on this commissioner's mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would like to continue it until
once they are paid. Once they are paid, then you can bring it
forward, in my opinion. I'd like to make a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was the only motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I'd like to make motion
that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That we hear this again once the
petitioner has paid his impact fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counsel, you have a question in
regards to that or can we --
MS. ROBINSON: No. I'm just coming up to the podium in
case you have any questions, because I have discussed this with
this gentleman and our office has been working with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that motion okay?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, I think so. Jacqueline
Hubbard-Robinson, Assistant County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Jacqueline
Hubbard-Robinson.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 137
March 13, 200t
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 2001-82, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF AN
ORDINANCE TO REAUTHORIZE THE LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve item 8-B.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gas tax.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Gas tax. I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened with the Powell
thing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's next. I make a cheat
sheet, see, of the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Any discussion of the Board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approve the gas tax by
Commissioner Mac'kie, second by myself.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope we didn't have speakers
on that, did we, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, ma'am.
Item #8E1
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE TO
UTILIZE COUNTY PROPERTY FOR ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes us to item 8-E, Powell.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are there registered speakers on this
Page 138
March 13, 200t
item? Unless he's in opposition, I wanted to make a motion to
approve this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd second that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not in opposition.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One question for the lawyers. I
wondered why it was called a lease instead of a license, but it's
going to have the same legal effect because it's terminable at
will. What was the notice provision, 60 days?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think so.
MR. MANALICH: I believe that's correct
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 30 days; a short period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Short period. So I move
approval.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I second that. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8G1
ADOPTION OF FY 2002 BUDGET POLICY - PUBLIC HEARINGS TO
BE HELD 9/6/01 AND 9/19/01; 6/1/01 BUDGET SUBMISSION DATE
FOR SHERIFF, CLERK OF COURTS AND SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS - APPROVED
Let's move on to item G-l, Budget Policy. We've all been
waiting with bated breath for this one.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the staff in the control room, I'll be
using Power Point, so if you could change that over, I'd
appreciate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One thing I would recommend to the
Board this afternoon that Mike is going to make a presentation
and do the overview. Then he will give you section by section
and I think we could hold our questions until you go section by
section. That way, everybody will have an understanding and get
things addressed as we go.
Page 139
March 13, 2001
Thank you, Mike.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget
Director.
Prior to discussing the actual budget policies, the County
Manager had requested that I just take a brief moment to
demonstrate the new tools we've developed this year by a
project team for budget preparation.
The best way to demonstrate is simply a before and after
look at budget preparation documents and materials that we
used last year, and what we've developed for this year.
In the previous fiscal year for the current year budget we're
in, this is what we provided to the EMS department. It's a green
bar work sheet that has to be manually tabulated and, as you can
see, it's very lengthy. (Demonstrating.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Ronald Reagan, for that
visual.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: What we've developed this year with the
project team between the information technology staff and the
OMB staff, is integrated spreadsheets that provide the same
materials but also give you the benefit of automatic calculations
for what the budget requests are, any variances between the
adopted budget and the forecast, as well as the adopted budget
last year and the requested budget this year which will totally
manually tabulate all the revenues and expenses EMS will work,
with one simple spreadsheet to do their entire budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean instead of sitting here
with a crayon like you usually do, take that one off and add that
one on, you're going to actually have a spreadsheet?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Urn, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My goodness.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Out in the field, we've had a number of
training sessions with all the different staff in how to use these,
and we hope, obviously, that that will increase the productivity
side and take away some of the tedium out of the development of
the budget process this year.
With that, I'll turn to the matter at hand today, which is the
adoption of budget policy. We need direction from the Board of
County Commissioners on major budget policy issues that will
affect the preparation of the fiscal year 2002 budget.
Page 140
March 13, 2001
So the purpose of today's discussion is for the Board to
reach consensus on those policies upon which the budget will be
based. The Executive Summary itself is broken out into three
different elements, the first of which, consists of new budget
policies that are proposed on page 2, they require policy
direction from the Board.
The second component actually consists of standard budget
policies that the Board has endorsed for a number of fiscal years.
And the third element consists of a financial analysis that is
undertaken every year that allows us to look at what the fiscal
impact is of the proposed budget policy.
The Board will also need to establish public hearing dates in
September for adoption of the budget. On page 2, as we turn to
that, that's actually the first order of business. We have
proposed hearing dates for the adoption of the Collier County
2002 Budget.
There is a pecking order in Florida statutes that actually
allows the School Board the discretion for first choice in terms of
public hearing dates. They have selected September 18th for
their final hearing.
We are recommending Thursday, September 6th, for your
first hearing and September 19th, Wednesday, for your final
public hearing. And that will allow, by our setting those dates,
all the other districts that have to set meetings, they follow our
dates and can't have them on the same night, for the benefit of
the Rew commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The second date, Michael?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: September t9.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the staff
recommended budget schedule.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Schedule of times, you mean?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: September 6, 2001, September
19, 200t.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor signify
Page 141
March t3, 2001
by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The second date we'll need is to
establish budget submission dates for the Sheriff, Clerk of Courts
and Supervisor of Elections. The recommended date is June 1,
2001, pursuant to statute. In the past it had been May 1,
obviously given that the County Manager's budget, we didn't
want to force them into an early submittal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion for approval of June 1,
2001 for budget submission dates for the Sheriff, Clerk of Courts,
and Supervisor of Elections.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
Motion approved 5-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 4-0.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 4-0? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vacancy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Coletta, more
difficult one.
Mr. SMYKOWSKI: Salary administration, indeed. Staff is
requesting under salary administration that we provide a cost of
living adjustment equivalent to the percentage change in the CPI
for the Miami-Fort Lauderdale SMSA as of December 2000, as
well as provide funding for the Internal Equity Study that's being
developed currently by David M. Griffith, that's currently under
way.
That's an internal job classification to determine whether or
not jobs are appropriately classified and that people are in the
appropriate job classification based on the work they are
currently performing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you going to give us -- I
mean, I don't have any question about whether we go forward
with our salary adjustments based on classifications and internal
equity issues based on the study.
But the idea of having a cost of living adjustment isn't brand
new, actually going back to a very old concept for the Board of
County Commissioners that we specifically eliminated because
we didn't want to be in the business of there being this
Page 142
March t3, 2001
automatic 2 percent, automatic 3 percent, and then you start
talking about raises on top of that.
What's the reason that the staff is proposing this as a
budget policy this year?. It's a big change.
MR. SMYKOWSKI.' There's a three-pronged approach that
the County Manager has talked about in terms of both providing
for appropriate levels of staff, salary levels to aid in the
recruitment effort and retention of staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the second piece. What's
the first piece about KOLA. Why KOLA?
MR. McNEES: I'll field that. Because we believed all along
that one of the reasons we got into the position we were in two
years ago, where you had to make significant market level
adjustments was, because when you failed to give cost of living
increases over a period of whatever it was, five or six or seven
years, whatever raise then you do give is, the lion's share of that
is eaten up just by cost of living and you haven't done anything to
improve the basic standard of living of that county employee.
So it is our position that you need to attack this recruitment
and retention issue on three fronts, one being let someone at
least keep even from year to year based on cost of living. Let
them receive whatever adjustment they deserve based on the
marketplace value of their job, and then the third piece of that,
allow us to give them a reasonable merit increase to reward
superior performance, if it's there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hear you. It sounds like there's
a real valid point here that you're trying again to do better long
range planning than we've done in the past. To keep us from
having to do a 10 percent adjustment; you're going to ease us
into it.
MR. McNEES: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about inferior or less than
average performing employees? Will they automatically get a
cost of living raise?
MR, McNEES: Yes. Cost of living affects them, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just, I think that that should be
discretionary.
MR. McNEES: Well, let me answer that a different way. An
inferior employee over time doesn't work here anymore. We have
a system for that. We think that system will take care of the
Page 143
March t3, 2001
inferior employee, and then we do it through an performance
evaluation and accountability system, and that's the way to
address that, not take cost of living away from employees who
come here and work hard every day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if you did -- let me just
make sure I understood the poor employee process -- if I worked
for you and I get an average evaluation this year, then all I'll get
would be my cost of living adjustment instead of a merit raise.
If next year I get below average, I'll still get my cost of living
adjustment, and then the next year if I'm below average --
MR. McNEES: If you get a below standard -- it's terminology
here because average is really irrelevant --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, let's stick with that.
MR, McNEES: -- the term doesn't apply here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Meaningless.
MR. McNEES.' If you get a below acceptable level of
evaluation where we are saying your work is not acceptable, you
receive at a specified time further, a second evaluation; it's
mandatory. If, after that follow up evaluation you continue to be
substandard employee, you don't work here anymore. A cost of
living is not an issue
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not a two or three year
process. It's a six or eight-month process. MR. McNEES: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would seriously question who
would want to stay in a job where you had a CPI driving your
salary increases. I mean, it's not that much. Collectively it
impacts and I think the private sector has more flexibility in
dealing with this in a regular pay for performance plans than we
do in government. Ours is a more structured process.
Therefore, so we don't get in trouble again, I would
recommend to the Board that we adopt that policy and try it. It
doesn't mean you live with it forever. At some point in time, if
you don't like it, you change it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would have to agree. I would
think it would be more easy for us to attract employees and keep
the good ones and probably easier to weed out the other ones,
knowing that we at least have an incentive to hire new people.
I would agree, Jim.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 144
March 13, 200t
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the only change in policy
from before?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Under salary administration I believe
so, isn't it?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Then on pages 3 through 7 are the
existing standard policies that the Board has used for at a
minimum of one year, but most of them from year to year and
how we treat grand fund positions being absorbed and operating
budgets.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless people have questions on
them, then --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I just want to make sure that I haven't
missed something here. We do have a new policy, I believe,
that's been proposed that affects divisions, and that's the Motor
Pool Capital Recovery Fund. This is where it is, Mike? Am I
understanding that or have I missed something?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically it's suggesting an
improvement to our new policy. We improved it a little bit last
year, but there's a greater improvement that should be.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. Let me, for the benefit of
Board members, I'll refresh your memory.
On October 24th, pursuant to questions raised during last
year's budget workshop and based on a staff study, we revised
the way we fund motor pool vehicles, the replacement thereof.
Typically, we were replacing them on a six year schedule.
We had set aside one-sixth of that money for six years. The cash
would be in the bank when the eventual time arrived to replace
that vehicle after its useful life was over.
It was recognized that there was a large reserve that had
accumulated as a result of that. We looked at a number of
options, one which was a purely cash basis system, which Mrs.
Vasey supports, that you would simply budget for the full cost of
replacement vehicles year by year without establishing any
sinking fund.
The staff concern with that was simply any spikes that there
would be in terms of fluctuation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would fluctuate?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The actual number of vehicles you may
replace in any given year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Why?
Page t45
March 13, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll share with you and the others, I
asked Mike that yesterday because I wanted a picture of what
happens here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do have peaks and valleys.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have peaks and valleys. And if you
go to a strict cash basis, then you end up with, in certain years,
really taking a hit on this process.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, the unspoken variable here
would be that if all of your vehicles were purchased from the
same funding source throughout the fleet, over time you would
have pretty much a level impact year in and year out. But
what you have is lots of different funding sources who purchase
everywhere from, you know, 100 vehicles a year every year to
three vehicles once every six years.
And so to just say in a blanket way, we will purchase all
vehicles with cash doesn't necessarily fit every situation. And
you'll see that you don't actually have a budget policy on this
specific item.
I think what we're probably saying, and Mike, correct me if
I'm wrong, we just want the flexibility to where that's a
legitimate recommendation, where we're better off just paying
cash every year, that's fine. But for those isolated situations
where people need to be banking because it's a big impact to
them, that they only replace vehicles every once in awhile, we
still want to have the ability to do that, as well.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. That wasn't in the policy
because we had received direction from the Board in that
Executive Summary, that that's how we were going to proceed
with funding fleet replacement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we use what you propose here and
that we approved once before, it says a year prior to whenever
you need to do replacement, if you do this then you have to
forecast that because you don't want to be caught in that next
year with having the pay out a lot of cash. MR, SMYKOWSKI.' That's true.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fundamentally what that means
is that in 2001, we tax people for the cars we're going to buy in
2002.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. What I liked about with the
Page 146
March 13, 2001
proposal is then we have the money from the reserve to meet
another need, and that was to address our maintenance facility.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. The one time savings
from going from our previous funding methodology to this
modified cash basis system provided a one time infusion of
approximately $1.7 million, to be used toward the eventual
development of a new maintenance facility or new county barn
facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know, that's basically
like being excited about getting your IRS refund. It's nice to get
the check, but it would have been better not to pay it in ahead of
time. You know, I'm glad we have got it, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm glad we've got it, too,
Commissioner, and I like the fact that we have given flexibility to
staff; and number two, we've addressed another very needed
part of our capital planning, and that is a new fleet maintenance
facility.
And if you have ever been out to the one that's there now, I
don't know how these people operate. I mean, they do a
magnificent job in less than ideal conditions.
MR. SMYKOWSKI.- As the county continues to grow that will
become a more pressing need, as well, just because there'll be
more people and more vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have speakers on this?
MR. McNEES.' You have one, Janet Vasey.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am. Unless you have more
than one issue to address with us.
MS. VASEY: No. Janet Vasey for the record. I read over the
report, too, and I take issue with the significant fluctuations year
to year. There's a report on here, part of the report shows that
for each fund what it is.
I think the largest fluctuation is like $200,000 and that's in
the general fund. And the general fund has so many millions of
dollars that that is a blip on the horizon. So I don't really think
that's an issue.
I think that, according to the plan that, the modified cash
plan, you would save a million eight. And according to the
straight cash plan you would save two million nine.
Now, I can't tell from the report how much of that is ad
valorem tax dollars, but I think looking at the funds that it's a
Page 147
March 13, 2001
significant amount. Because basically you're talking about the
general fund, 001, you're talking about the unincorporated
general fund, 111, and you're talking about road and bridge
operations, and that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Which is basically millage; right?
Don't leave us please, Mr. McNees. Because guys, I mean, the
translation here, this sounds like gobbledy-gook, but the
translation here is imagine you're sitting in the budget process
and somebody shows up and says, here, cut this million dollars
out of the budget and it won't hurt anything. It will just mean
that you tax this year for this year's cars instead of taxing this
year for next year's cars.
I like those, when I get a million bucks of savings.
MS. VASEY.' Exactly. And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the record, right? So that we
know what we need in advance.
MS. VASEY: Well, and the real significant thing, I think, is
that the Sheriff has more vehicles than we do. We don't have all
of our vehicles in this program, only about 300 of them, because
it does not include utilities, and those kinds of vehicles.
But the Sheriff has a whole lot of vehicles and they budget
for them as they need to buy them.
There's no reason -- I mean, there are a lot of reasons, as
much as I get excited about reserve funding and it being
excessive -- there is no reason for this kind of a reserve funding
where there is, in a lot of instances where you have contingency
funds, and those sorts of things.
But here, there is no reason. It can be done. You know, if
the Sheriff can do it, you can do it. I hope that came out right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we failed and if, in fact, it turns
out that we can't do it, how much money do we have in reserve?
How many millions of dollars do we have in reserves that would
be there for the purpose of absorbing this, should it turn out to be
a blip?
MR. McNEES: That would depend on whose vehicles you're
talking about, again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless --
MR. SMYKOWSKI.' That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it's a lot of money.
MR. DUNNUCK: To comment on Ms. Vasey's comments, the
Page 148
March 13, 200t
Sheriff does do that. There have been spikes up and down in his
budget and that impacts your current, your millage decision.
And 250,000 may seem like a small sum, but in June when
push comes to shove, we are oftentimes dealing with a 200,
$100,000 to balance the budget, what are we going to cut out.
Not only are we dealing with the millage fluctuation issue
from year to year, but also you're protecting the integrity of the
fleet. We never want to get to the position where the
replacement of vehicles is deferred to save on a one time basis,
and then you've saddled your fleet management department with
old, unreliable vehicles that they will be forced to maintain when
they are beyond their useful life.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the main reason I think,
really --
MR. DUNNUCK: That is a concern, as well.
MS. VASEY: But that is your decision.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. VASEY: I mean, you are the ones who ultimately make
that decision. And this is taking the flexibility out of your hands
to make that decision should you choose to do so. But you
probably, you know, being very intelligent, you probably won't
choose to do that.
But that's not, I don't think, a very good reason to have a
reserve like this, because you have the authority to make those
decisions.
If you think it's important to keep that fleet having their
vehicles replaced every so often, then fine, don't cut the money
out of that. That still doesn't mean you need a reserve to protect
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I make a motion to approve
the budget policy as proposed, except with the change in the
fleet described by Ms. Vasey in her correspondence to us?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean through page seven?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. She said the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There may be other questions and I
can't support that for the following reasons:
I do believe the modified cash plan gives us flexibility. Staff
could, could, use the cash process. Or when you get to the
Sheriff's budget, let me remind you how much that is that comes
Page t49
March 13, 200t
in here, and his needs are always itemized. And he says I need
this, I can't really perform without it,
and the day you sit here and have to make a decision on his
budget because he has got a system that they use with the
replacement costs are up here, that is not going to make his
operations expenses and safety concerns go away. He's going to
tell you, I have to have that plus, and if I don't get this, I'm not
going to be able to do my job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This does not apply to the Sheriff's
budget; right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This doesn't apply to the Sheriff's
budget.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know it doesn't apply to the Sheriff's
budget. I'm just sharing with you that when that's used as a
comparison, I just can't agree with that.
I see, if you read page 2 of the Executive Summary that was
in front of us and approved 10/17/00 which us new Board
members didn't have a chance to approve, that this Capital
Recovery Fund is substantially reduced. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it meets both objectives by
using the modified cash plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We saved a million, we could
save two million.
And it's the last thing I'll say on it because I can count is,
yes, you're absolutely right. Staff may not have to spend that
money, but it's too late for our taxpayers because we've already
taken it out of their pockets. They may not spend it, but if we've
taxed for it, it's spent at home. It just might not be spent at the
county
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In all due respect, Commissioner, I
value that point, and in the next year when you have a spike and
we have to increase the millage rate to accommodate it, then
they're going to say, why did the millage rate go up when it was
here last year and what caused that?
Well, we had to buy new vehicles. Well, can't you squeeze
another year out of them? Blah, blah, blah, and now you increase
maintenance, then you do ail things I think of negative
repercussions of this.
While I value all the inputs made here, I, frankly, I'm going to
Page 150
March 13, 2001
support staff's recommendation on this, and thank Ms. Vasey for
bringing that item to our attention so we can be where we are
today with staff's recommendation.
MR. McNEES.' And Mr. Chairman, we're asking you to
approve that middle ground --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. McNEES: -- that we think is the best.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE; We already approved the middle
ground.
MR. McNEES-' We worked very hard over a period of years to
develop a professional and scientific fleet management program
where we take vehicles out of service when it costs more to run
them than it does to buy a new one. And we try to get our
departments to be fiscally responsible and plan ahead so the
money's available for a vehicle when it's needed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe we're on the same page there,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. I was the only one to support the
modified plan as we had approved in October last year~ which
then set in motion staff's, I think, thinking and how they would
deal with this year's budget.
MR. McNEES: The thing that makes me nervous that was
said and I think I'd kind of like to correct it. I've been -- this will
be my 17th county budget. It's scary to think that, but from the
back room to the front room I've been in the middle of this thing.
And there is no riper fruit come September when you try to
cut some bucks out of a budget, than a truck here and a truck
there, and you end up running one that costs you more than the
new one would have over time.
So we would like to see you not just abandon the plan
ahead part, but rather take that middle ground.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, and thank you, Mrs.
Vasey.
MS. VASEY: I haven't finished.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MS. VASEY: I'm sorry. There were two issues.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you on that item.
MS. VASEY-' There are two issues on that item. One is the
one about, you know, collecting the full 2.9 million. The other is
how the reserves that have been reaped here are used.
The plan is to hold them for this maintenance facility and I
Page 151
March 13, 2001
strongly object to that. I think that the funds that are collected
here, these funds that aren't needed at this point in time should
go back into the respective funds, the general fund, the
unincorporated fund, the road and bridge, and let that money
then be used for today's requirements.
You can either reduce the millage this year, you can do
more things this year. I don't even expect that you should give it
back as a tax cut, but use it this year; don't hold it.
Then let that maintenance facility compete on a normal
schedule with all other capital projects. It'll compete and it'll get
funded when it's required, when it's reached a high enough
priority within the funding levels.
So don't just hold it. You have just taken it from one holding
area and put it in another holding area. Use it now and then tax
when you need to have it. Now I'm done.
MR. McNEES: We have a fundamental disagreement there.
But it has done this issue in the past. Staff simply will not and
would not recommend use of a one time revenue source to
reduce your millage. Pure and simple.
Those are -- talk about things in the past and the things that
have been done to hold the millage down in the past, those are
some of the things, types of examples of things, that have been
done to keep the millage Iow. And obviously, then, the one time
revenue dries up, you have an automatic increase in the
subsequent year.
On the issue of the fleet management facility, I think when
you look at ail of the capital needs in this county, when push
comes to shove and there's a new county barn facility, on the
pecking order that falls off the table first and foremost, simply
because well, there is more pressing need, we can defer that a
year.
Well, we've been talking about building that new facility for
probably six years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least since I've been here.
MR. McNEES: And there is no initial seed money to get that
process kicked off. And that's why all of these users of the fleet
management system paid into that. That's an appropriate use of
that money. It's also one time money and it's an appropriate use
to make use of that for a one time capital expense.
Page 152
March t 3, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Janet, as much as I agree with
you in theory, that just like the federal government, we'd like
them very much please to send us on the tax cut when they over
collected.
In this case, I disagree because this is related to the use
and it's frankly money that we undertaxed in other funds.
We should have already done this county barn facility and
we didn't have the political guts to tax for it and build it when it
was needed. So now, here is this related money that is
appropriate I think to spend on it. Because it's more like where
it should have been spent in the past years, instead of for
collection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Like roads. Like roads.
MR. McNEES: I think we're all agreeing here, because what
Janet said was let this facility compete, and when it's important
enough, we'll pay for it. We're telling you that time is now.
And the appropriate funding source is this money that's
been collected proportionally from all the people who drive
vehicles.
There could be no fairer source for a facility like this, so we
just think that time is now and we'd just as soon use this money
for that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Ms. Vasey, as always.
Back to your motion, but Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had another question on
another question, so I'm just going to withdraw it. People had
other questions on budget policy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions on any other topics.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so. They've been
answered. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Her questions have been
answered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the
budget policy as proposed by staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed, by same motion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Mike.
Page 153
March 13, 2001
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That completes that item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We need to take 10 minutes
for people to stretch in the room, our court reporter, members of
the Board. We will resume at 4 p.m. Thank you.
(Recess take from 3:50 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.)
Item #8G2
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REVIEW THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS
OF THE ADVISORY BORADS SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW IN 2001 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 86-41 - PRESENTED;
BAYSHORE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT CONTINUED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Back in session. Board report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would it be that we would
accept these reports we reviewed them. I make a motion that
we accept the committee reports in item 82.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
I want to thank the advisory boards for your tremendous
contribution to this community. And I know a lot of you were
here to speak to us and waited around most of the day to do that.
And we never know if there are questions, we never know if
somebody raises an issue.
So we want to thank you again for your unselfish community
service and the value you are to Collier County, and thank God,
we have you.
MR. McNEES: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
MR. McNEES: All those that registered to speak were the
chair people of these groups and they have all left, to my
knowledge. I'm not sure about Matt Hudson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Matt's here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Want to speak, Matt?
Page 154
March 13, 2001
MR. HUDSON: Please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. HUDSON: For the record, Matt Hudson. I'm
vice-chairman of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee,
and a couple of things I wanted to bring to your attention.
First of all, in the summary that was presented to you, one
of the statements at the back page of that was incorrect. We do
not meet monthly, we meet every other month, in order to try to
reduce expenses.
Second of all, I wanted you to be aware of a couple of
projects that are ongoing with our group. We allocated 12,500
for the purchase of equipment for the Golden Gate Fire
Department Serve program, of which I happen to volunteer. We
allocated $50,000 for the design and engineering of Big
Corkscrew Island Fire Department Station 12, which will be on
Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard where that dead
ends.
We also put forth $50,000 for the purchase of fitness
equipment for Max Hasse Park when it's completed. They have
broken ground.
One thing I'd like to add, Commissioner Carter, thank you for
your comments about Advisory Board members. As an Advisory
Board member, I took off work today to come here. It's a
thankless job; I have absolutely no problem with that. I do that
for my community and I do that for you as a commission as a
whole.
But it strikes me if you have an agenda you should follow it.
Have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much for that
comment. When you have mixed needs, you try to deal with
them on an agenda. You don't often do everything you would like
to do, but I know the County Manager is coming back to us with
a revised approach to how we deal with our agenda so that we
are more efficient.
And I think at that time, we'll certainly try and eliminate
causing you to sit here all day, not out of disrespect, moving an
agenda item without allowing you ample time to speak. And
thank you for serving our community.
It's duly noted by me, and we'll do every thing in the future
to make sure you don't have to sit here all day, and lose a day's
Page 155
March 13, 2001
work. It's like penalizing you for giving to the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING-' I would like to recognize Matt.
He was a nomination last year for citizen of the -- Golden Gate
Citizen of the Year. He is very much involved in the community.
Not just helping us out with the Land Trust Committee, but
involved in softball for kids and so forth. So he truly is a model
citizen for our community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'd also like to make a
comment. If it wasn't for the Land Trust Committee donating the
money to the Max Hasse Center, we would be another two, three
years -- is that about right -- before we would see it come about.
It was their intervention in making it happen sooner.
Now I'm going to come to him and ask him about the median
going down Golden Gate Boulevard, so don't get too comfortable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Never end of requests.
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE A SETTLEMENT
IN PAUL LASHBROOK V. COLLIER COUNTY, NOW PENDING IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 2000-CV-122-FTM-29D.
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move to approve the County
Attorney's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you, Commissioners. I know you're in a
rush, but I did have some information I think one of the
commissioners would be interested in to add to this. We'll be
negotiating a term and a settlement that the fees will be 25
percent. The costs will be under $30,000, which is actually
somewhat in line with our costs which I think I said are around
Page 156
March 13, 2001
21,800.
And also, there will be some steps taken to direct claimants
to financial advisors about ways to place this money in such a
way that it can be invested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I think the reason I
didn't bring it up, I made that request before. I didn't know if it
would prejudice our case in any way, so I didn't ask that question
in the meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner. In all due
respect, Counselor, you did brief all of us and I think we had a
pretty good understanding. We in no way ever discount your
work. We are just saying when we approve it that quick, we are
with you.
MR. PETTIT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Interestingly enough, I asked the
same question you did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We were concerned about how
the money was going to be paid to this family in Guatemala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was afraid somebody was going to
gyp them out of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's great that we covered that. I've
still not figured out how somebody could have two bullet holes
and not be able to figure out that they were not bleeding and not
need to go to a hospital. Maybe I'll never figure that out.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2001-83 APPOINTING ALFRED GAL, JR., MICHAEL
COE, LARRY STONE, AND CHESTER SOLING TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
All right. Let's move to item 10-A, EAC appointments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to move the
reappointment of Alfred Gal and Mickey Coe. Unless somebody
has strong feelings, I'd like to also include Larry Stone because
of his technical expertise, and Chester Stalling (phonetic}
because of his governmental experience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had those same ones highlighted.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So did I.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just have one different, but I
Page 157
March 13, 2001
think I'm probably outvoted, was Ty Agostin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to stick with my four.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, that's a motion. Do we have a
second for your four?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
MS. FILSON: Those terms will be set at their first meeting.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2001-84, APPOINTING THOMAS CASALE, THOMAS
GROOTEMAAT, JAMES HORNER AND JEAN ROSS-FRANKLIN TO
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next item. I'm going to move for
approval on this to appoint members to the County Government
Productivity Committee, per the committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Comments? All in favor signify by
saying aye.
Motion approved 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2001-85 APPOINTING DR. KEITH RILEY AND JANE
S. DUNN TO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE PLANNING AND
FINANCE COMMITTEE
That takes us to --
MS. FILSON: On this next one, if I may interject, we need to
change -- I put the member as ex-officio members. In fact, at the
last meeting on February 27, you passed a resolution designating
these as advisers and expert consultants, so they're not under
the Sunshine Law. So I need to indicate for the record these are
advisors.
Page 158
March 13, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly noted for the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So noted.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor. Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2001-86, STATING THAT CURRENT STATE
ACQUISITION PROJECTS IN COLLIER COUNTY DESERVE THE
HIGHEST OF PRIORITIES UNDER FLORIDA FOREVER AND
SHOULD BE FULLY FUNDED UNDER FLORIDA FOREVER; AND
THAT STATE FUNDING REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR COMPLETION
OF STATE ACQUISITION PROJECTS THAT ARE OVER 90%
ACQUIRED - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion on the next item,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Florida First.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion? All in favor signify by
saying aye.
Motion approved 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We just need to be sure we get
that delivered in a timely way, because I think that decision is
being made in the next couple days. I realize there's a registered
speaker, but are you willing to waive since we've already passed
it?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Item #10G
DUMPING FEES WAIVED FOR NAPLES MANOR COMMUNITY
CLEAN AND SWEEP UP DAY ON SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 2001
FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes us to 12 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: G and H.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: G and H. Oh, the Manor cleanup.
Excuse me, Commissioner Mac'kie.
Page t59
March t3, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve G
and H, and to apologize to Commissioner Fiala for having to bring
them before us. These are exactly the kind of thing County
Commissioners ought to be doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I second it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can second it and any comment
you would like to make.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for your
support. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. McNEES: For future reference, I call your attention to
the fact I've been informed by Mr. Mudd that the last change you
made to this policy was to give him the administrative discretion
to deal with these small type of waivers, and he has the authority
to actually do these, if you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From here on in we can just ask
him.
Item #10H
PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DESIGN FLYERS FOR DISTRIBUTION
TO RESIDENTS OF NAPLES MANOR FOR CLEAN-UP EFFORTS
AND A TOWN HALL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY,
MARCH 29, 2001 AT THE LELY HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA -
APPROVED
For those of you listening, I'll just let you know that we're
planning a community awakening, if you will, community cleanup
in the Naples Manor area.
We were hoping to -- and with this approval, we'll put out a
notification to everyone who lives in the Manor, as well as
property owners for the Manor, to invite them, first of all, to the
Town Hall meeting at which we'll have the Sheriff's office come
in and talk about crime and prevention of crime in that area.
Also, we'll have Code Enforcement in there to advise some
of these people who -- especially renters, who are not aware of
what our codes are -- and what they can do to improve the
Page 160
March 13, 2001
appearance of their neighborhood.
Lastly, we'll have waste management and our own team in
there talking about days of garbage removal, what can be done,
so forth.
Then we're going to have an actual cleanup on the 21st of
April where we're going to try and encourage all groups, not only
in East Naples but around the county, to assist us in cleaning up
that area and making it look good. That's it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. Is there a
neighborhood association?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Actually, at the March 29th
meeting we're hoping to encourage people to begin a
neighborhood association. That's one of our goals coming out of
that meeting, and I have a few names on a list already that are
going to be approached that evening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2001-13, CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes care of all those issues.
I'm going to move now to advertised public hearings, move back
to that and deal with item 12-A. We did that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12-C-1, impact fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we'll move to impact fees.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, my name's John Dunnuck,
Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator. I'm here today to present to you a Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance.
Currently there are seven impact fee ordinances. Roads,
libraries, parks, water and sewer, EMS, educational and
correctional, and fire facilities that have been amended
numerous times, creating a total of 24 different ordinances.
Specifically, these ordinances have been drafted by several
different consultants.
The goal of this consolidation is two-fold. The first is to
Page 16t
March t3, 2001
make the working definitions of the ordinance consistent. For
example, the definition of building permit did not clearly apply to
certain land uses, so it was not clear when the fees should have
been collected. This allowed the developer to only pay a portion
of the impact fees at the initial permit stage, with the other to be
collected later.
Without mentioning golf courses as an example, this made it
very difficult for staff to keep track of. Additionally, we have
removed the exemption of medical facilities from road impact
fees. For one reason, it's difficult to define the scope of medical
facilities and who qualifies.
In a survey in several other counties, we found that medical
facilities were not exempted. It is still important to note, though,
that medical facilities will still be eligible for the alternative
impact fee calculation, and I believe that we will discuss this
matter a little bit later.
The other goal of this ordinance is to tighten up areas
where, frankly, we have learned from past experience. Without
detailing every item in my presentation, let me take this
opportunity to highlight several significant improvements in this
ordinance consolidation.
First of all, we have upgraded the administrative provisions
relating to impact fee credits and developer contribution
agreements.
This ordinance proposes that staff utilize the five-year
capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan as the
primary criteria for the issuance of impact fee credits. The
dedicated land shall be an integral part of a necessary
accommodation to contemplate off-site improvements related to
the documented needs of the county.
That requirements regarding date of evaluation currently in
the Land Development Code and the ordinance so that the date
of contribution commencement of construction land dedication
or development order approval, whichever occurs first, is the
controlling document.
Road impact fee credits shall be limited to a threshold
amount available each fiscal year and will be determined by the
Transportation Division and approved by the Board as an annual
budget line item. This is a very important change and one we
discussed in the transportation workshop.
Page 162
March 13, 2001
More requirements regarding the identification of owners
and opinions and titles have been added.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before you go past that very
important part, at the transportation workshop was the only
question I had for today is, have you -- does the Board have the
option to go above that threshold if it chooses to?
If somebody comes in with the world's best deal for Collier
County, I don't want us to have to turn it down because we've
already spent our $2 million in impact fee credits that year.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. But it will be budget driven and
it will also be driven by the cost feasible standard and the CIE.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what that means is the way
that we would have to approve the world's greatest deal would
be with the budget amendment. Is that what that means, it
would require a budget amendment? MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just so we have the way.
MR. DUNNUCK.' Finally, impact fee credits shall not be
assigned or transferred except by written agreement executed
by the county while meeting the new criteria of the ordinance.
To sum up these changes, the county is taking better
control of development contributions at the staff level and
financially through the budget process.
A project will be eligible if it is in the cost feasible plan, or
developers will be able to receive a reimbursement if they desire
to accelerate a project during the five-year capital plan, during
the year that that project is budgeted.
This is a fairly significant change, of which I'll allow
Jacqueline Robinson of the County Attorney's office to further
discuss in a moment as she answers any of the Board's
questions.
Before I turn it over to her and the rest of the staff that we
have here, I also want to kind of outline a little bit of the process
we've gone through. We've taken this to the Development
Services Advisory Committee, to the subcommittee, outlining the
issues on two occasions.
Then we took it for the third occasion through a Power Point
presentation to Development Services Advisory Committee a
month ago, and finally we brought the actual ordinance to them
last Wednesday.
Page 163
March 13, 2001
They did -- and I want to put this on the record -- they did opt
not to make a recommendation one way or the other because
they wanted to look at the technical language, of which Bruce
Anderson is here, I believe, to speak on the issue.
But we have been working with the Land Use attorneys and
we actually went ahead and had a meeting with them last Friday
to work out any significant language changes. And I think
Jacqueline will address that, as far as amendments to the
ordinance that you have in your package.
They're minor language changes, but I believe ones we have
reached consensus with the development community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I assume Bruce is registered to
speak on this item. Do we have other speakers? MR. McNEES: Yes, we have three total.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, I don't want to get into
the debate on the legal language. We've told you what -- as far
as I'm concerned, what you just outlined is the policy we
discussed, and I don't want to draft it from the dais. I'm sure
Jackie did do that.
MR. DUNNUCK: I believe after Jacqueline reads a few
things into the record, we'll probably have a consensus from
them. But I will let them confirm once we do that.
In addition, I believe you have one other speaker who is
going to speak on the issue of the medical exemptions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I imagine so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll take those comments as soon as
we hear from legal counsel. Is Mr. Anderson the first speaker?
MR. McNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you a question? Is it
appropriate to be Mrs. Hubbard or Robinson?
MS. ROBINSON: It's both. I use Hubbard-Robinson, but
Robinson is fine without the Hubbard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can do both.
MS, ROBINSON: Okay. Good afternoon again. There are
three items that I discussed with several of the counsel that
represent developers generally, Bruce Anderson and Richard
Yovanovich, and I indicated I would go on the record with this.
These three items, I think, are important in understanding
the focus of this ordinance. This ordinance solely deals with
impact fees, the imposition of impact fees, the collection of
Page 164
March t3, 2001
impact fees and the allocation of credits. That's all it speaks to.
It doesn't speak to every conceivable method by which the
county can compensate a property owner for any type of
contribution, donation or dedication of land that the property
owner may give to the county.
It is our intention, it was our intention, it remains our
intention, that the ordinance be interpreted to state that existing
developer contribution agreements will not be affected by the
ordinance. The ordinance is to go forward prospectively and not
retroactively.
Secondly, the existing PUD ordinances will be unchanged in
terms of the type of compensation that may have been
guaranteed to the property owner within that ordinance. The
ordinance specifically states that property owners will be
compensated either in cash or impact fee credits or in some
other method that is worked out between the property owner and
the county.
There is an errata sheet that Phil Tindall has. I delivered
one to your offices yesterday afternoon. We've been in constant
discussions, and so there are a few minor changes that are
contained in the second errata sheet which should become also
part of the record.
I'm available for any other questions that you may have or if
you have any questions at all regarding anything that's contained
within the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got a question of a couple of
them here. One more time, explain why we are exempting
medical facilities and why aren't we doing anything for social
service agencies such as the Red Cross and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the flip side. We've always
exempted medical facilities and now we are not going to.
MS ROBINSON: The ordinance as currently drafted does not
exempt medical facilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask then, what's going to
happen? I know Neighborhood Health Clinic is planning on
building something. They provide the health care for the
uninsured, hard working employees who earn a very Iow wage.
They must be working and so they give all of this stuff away,
including medication.
Page 165
March t3, 2001
How are they ever going to be able to pay this? What
provision is there for people or for agencies like that or for
Hospice to build a facility? I think Hospice is going to be
expanding and they provide free care for people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, to draw the analogy to
affordable housing where we waive impact fees, what literally
happens, we call it a motion to waive impact fees. But what
actually happens is, it gets paid out of the general fund. And I
guess in fairness, that's appropriate, because what we're saying
is that the general community benefits enough from this
Neighborhood Health Clinic that we should not charge the
Neighborhood Health Clinic.
But at the same time, if we don't assess the impact fee,
then the real impacts of that clinic are not paid for in the capital
program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we pay ourselves from our
own fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Exactly. And what this does is set a
policy not taking away your right to waive situationally, and it
doesn't send a message that because you are providing health
care services that you don't impact the road system. And if
you're Anchor Health Care Centers, you do a great ]ob.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can agree with that. But do
we have a provision in there for places such as Red Cross, just
built a new facility and paid out $70,000 in impact fees. What
about these people?
I think it's deplorable that so much happens within this
county without our aid, and now we're taxing these entities to
the point that their programs are in jeopardy. Do we have that
ability by our impact fee law to be able to take care of that, too,
or is it just limited to medical facilities?
MS. ROBINSON: Commissioner Coletta, let me try to say
this again. There are no exemptions currently in the proposed
ordinance. So not only is the Red Cross not exempt, no other
facility is exempt.
The exemptions do not exist in this proposed ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we want to waive, do we
have the ability to waive based on the social value of the
proposal?
Page 166
March 13, 2001
not.
MS. ROBINSON: Currently, in the proposed ordinance you do
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I want to have that.
MR. McNEES: You have the ability to pay them out of your
general fund at any time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, where does it say that?
Because these different agencies never approached us because
they were understanding that they weren't eligible.
MS. ROBINSON: Right. Let me introduce the other members
of the team, and Phil Tindall has done a little study of
neighboring counties regarding this issue. He can give you some
more information about it.
Also let me introduce the consultants, William Merrill from
Icog, Merrill in Sarasota, and Steve Tindale from Tindale-Oliver.
They also helped us in drafting this ordinance
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before performing a giant
presentation on this, it sounds to me like what the Board is
interested in is equal treatment for all entities, and the ability to
pay from the general fund on a case-by-case basis, based on the
value, the social value, of the service provided. MS. ROBINSON: Which you could do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't think we need a whole
big presentation.
MS. ROBINSON: Right. That's just not part of this
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you're telling us today that if
we adopt the changes proposed, we have the right to pay, waive,
pay from the general fund, okay.
Because I'll tell you this now, guys, I want to be careful
because with the former Board there was a lot of fussing about
whether or not we had the right to waive impact fees for
affordable housing, and as a matter of fact, we were really just
paying them out of general fund. But there was a lot of fussing
about whether or not we were allowed to do that. MS. ROBINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Under this ordinance, if we
wanted to waive impact fees for the Red Cross, that would mean
we pay them from the general fund, but we can do that.
MS. ROBINSON: In this ordinance there is no such provision.
This ordinance does not speak to a waiver.
Page 167
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not asking you about this
ordinance. I'm asking you about the rules that apply to the
County Commission. Can we or can we not waive impact fees
and pay them from the general fund for a public purpose?
MR. McNEES: Commissioner, all we're trying to do is get
you to quit using that word "waive." Philosophically, we're
saying the impact fees should be based on one and only one
issue, impact. If you want to have a different conversation with
a particular social service agency, Board of County
Commissioners, will you pay for us, will you give us five, six or
$8,000 to pay our impact fee, that is completely within your
discretion to say, yes, we will or no, we won't.
MS. ROBINSON: That is a separate issue.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to perhaps make a statement and a
question here so that the Board recognizes the procedure to get
where they may want to go with any particular entity that
provides social service.
Under this ordinance with the -- call it the medical
exemption for impact fees removed, any entity coming forward
looking to have a building permit, et cetera, and they pay their
fee at an early point in time prior to construction. Typically, they
would need to either pay the fee or go through an alternate
impact fee procedure, which comes before the Board of County
Commissioners.
MS. ROBINSON: That's right.
MR, WEIGEL: But in the case of a social service agency or
medical facility that would be asking the Board to make the
health, public interest, public citizens interest-type of
determination for the Board to pay the fee for them, when would
they come to the Board to do that, before they go to apply for a
building permit or not?
MS. ROBINSON: It would have to be before then or they
would ask for some type of reimbursement afterwards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' In that, I guess, let's go ahead
and put the question out there. How much time, if the Red Cross
paid their fee in the last 18 months, can they come in and seek a
reimbursement or seek that the general fund pay, refund that fee
to them? What's the time limit?
MR. WEIGEL: Remember, we're working under the old
ordinance.
Page 168
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to go there.
MR. WEIGEL: This has prospective application and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you said that any time we
ever wanted to, we could take -- the general fund would pay
somebody else's impact fee.
MR, McNEES: I think what Ms. Robinson is saying, that
question has nothing to do with the ordinance you're adopting
today. They can come and ask whenever they want to come and
ask.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm asking a different question
and I apologize that it doesn't have anything to do with the
ordinance in front of us, but it's related, and I want to know the
answer to it.
MR. WEIGEL: It would appear, theoretically, you could go
back a significant point in time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Commissioner Coletta, you
might want to talk to the Red Cross.
MR. WEIGEL: I would want to talk to the Clerk, too, just to
make sure, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, could we go to
public speakers?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would certainly like to do that,
Commissioner Henning. Thank you. Public speakers.
And thank you, Ms. Robinson, for your clarification of
keeping us to the agenda item that is in front of us today.
MR, McNEES: You have three: Bruce Anderson, followed by
Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is Rich still here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's right there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I didn't see you.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, for the record my name is
Bruce Anderson. I want to publicly thank Mrs.
Hubbard-Robinson, Ms. Wolfe, Mr. White, and Mr. Dunnuck for
working with us and trying to iron out really some technical
glitches. I'm not sure that we've caught them all, so please keep
in mind that you may have to revisit this ordinance in six months
to do some housekeeping. But we've all worked very diligently
and in a good faith effort.
I have two questions that I need to ask to make part of the
record for the legislative history of this ordinance. Number one,
Page 169
March 13, 2001
it is my understanding -- and I'd like to have it confirmed on the
record -- that developer contribution agreements that are already
in the pipeline will be unaffected by this new ordinance and will
be processed under the old provisions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Define "pipeline" in the pipeline
you --
MR. ANDERSON: Submitted to the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: My understanding, and I spoke to Mr.
Anderson about this earlier today, is that this ordinance speaks
prospectively. If there is a developer contribution agreement
that has been agreed to and entered into by the county with the
developer, then that will be honored.
I believe his question is, if there is a developer contribution
agreement that is being negotiated currently, whether or not that
also will be considered to be grandfathered in under the old
ordinance provisions. And my understanding is that if there has
been an agreement, even a verbal agreement with county staff,
then the old ordinance would apply.
However, as I spoke -- told to Mr. Anderson earlier, there are
agreements in which -- that's not an answer that I can give
because that would depend upon, for instance, the
Transportation Department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we want to do that?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm concerned about people that have
acted in good faith and have expended money in reliance on
proceeding under the old ordinance, which did not have the
five-year CIE limitation, did not have the annual budget threshold
limitation imposed on it.
And those people that have worked in good faith -- and in
one case, I've got a client who's completed a roadway and we
submitted the agreement two years ago, and it just kind of
gathered dust, and all of a sudden, this impact fee ordinance
appeared really kind of out of nowhere.
And I just want to make sure that that client will be able to
proceed under the old ordinance, because I'm not sure that
roadway will meet your five-year CIE requirement. But the
county did request that he go ahead and construct it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Substantial performance would
certainly be an element. I want to be sure if somebody can't
Page 170
March 13, 200t
come up and say, "1 talked to Dawn on Monday and she said it's
looking pretty good," and that means they are grandfathered in,
and I don't want that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: With all due respect, I don't believe it
came out of nowhere. I believe it was under discussion for
almost a year. With all due respect, Counselor.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we did not learn of the
five-year CIE part or the threshold limitation until just a month
ago at the Development Services Committee meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As you so aptly expressed before, it's
not a perfect ordinance, and even though the baby is pretty ugly
sometimes, we have a tendency to throw it all out, than
amending and correcting as we move along. So that's duly noted by me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On Mr. Anderson's question,
then, I don't think there's a good answer on the record yet. But
my position would be that if there's been substantial compliance,
substantial negotiation, that that's a judgment call that staff can
make.
But if they have any question about whether or not it is
substantial, then bring it to the Board to decide. We don't want
to get back into another one of those impact fee messes with
staff being discretionary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: My last question is with regard to the
errata sheet, page 36, an item that was added pertains to
section 74-205-K of the ordinance, and it says:
"If road impact fee credits are not available at the time of
request, the county shall otherwise compensate and may award
a cash reimbursement, subject to conformity to all other
requirements for credit eligibility and subject to the following
additional conditions:"
I just want to confirm on the record that the phrase that is
added "shall otherwise compensate" is not subject to the
following additional conditions and the rest of that sentence.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be silly if it did, but I
can see your point in wanting to confirm it.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Anderson about this
phrase, also. This phrase was inserted to ensure the developers
and the developer's council that the county's intention was to
Page 171
March 13, 2001
compensate for any type of property in which compensation was
owed.
And so the county -- that gives the county the flexibility to
compensate them either through cash or some other means, but
definitely puts in the ordinance that they will be compensated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Otherwise, we just might pass an
ordinance that does away with the Constitution. I mean, we
can't do that anyway, but okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Yovanovich, who will be followed by
Edward Morton.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I do
also have a couple of things that need clarified on the record.
First of all, to your question, Commissioner Mac'Kie, about
an example of a road impact fee agreement, the Whippoorwill
Lane agreement is a perfect example of where it's not in the
five-year CIE, but impact credits were agreed to by the Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We beat that road out of you, so
it would be kind of ironic.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's one of the examples. There are a
couple of others that would meet your criteria of being
substantially negotiated.
I think there is one wording change that could be made to
page -- first, one thing we need to clarify on the record is there is
an apparent conflict between your Land Development Code and
your Impact Fee Ordinance.
Currently under your Land Development Code when we go
through a rezoning process, the Board can exact from a property
owner, nonsite-related roads. For instance, you can require us to
set aside a right of way for Livingston Road.
In the LDC, you say you'll give us impact fee credits
pursuant to the terms of a developer contribution agreement.
One thing we needed to clarify is the LDC will be revised to
say that for nonsite-related exactions, the county will fully
compensate the property owner either by a combination of
credits and cash or either of the two.
And I believe that staff has agreed that they'll go through
and revise the Land Development Code to reflect that.
MS. ROBINSON: Right. It is our intention to make sure that
the Land Development Code corresponds and comports with this
Page 172
March t 3, 2001
one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the Constitution of the
United States.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The reason that comes up, frankly,
sometimes when we go through the rezoning process, I have
attempted to have the PUD read in those instances where the
value of the land donated is less than the road impact fees
generated from the project, that there would be a cash
reimbursement for the difference. That would be the full
compensation. Sometimes there's been a reluctance to do that
because it's not clearly set forth in the ordinance.
On page 40 of your agenda materials, page 36 of the actual
ordinance under paragraph P, I think in the fourth line -- actually,
it's line number 6 -- the word "may" should be changed to "shall."
That's what I'm talking about.
This paragraph deals with those situations where the road
impacts are less than the value of the donation and contribution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If somebody wants to give it to
us, they want to give, donate it, we don't need to say we shall
pay them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It needs to be the property owners'
discretion to make a donation. They always have that right to
say, I'll give it to you for nothing.
That's the only suggested change I would make to the
ordinance, other than what was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which line is that, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was line number 6.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: See where it should say "may",
Commissioner?.
MS. ROBINSON: We have had these discussions with
counsel regarding the use of the terms "may" and changing it to
"shall," and it is staff's concerted opinion that the word "may"
remain.
We feel that the Board and the county needs to have as
much discretion as possible to fashion any type of solution that
may come before it; and unless "shall" is really mandated, we
prefer that we use the "may."
MR. YOVANOVICH: And with the clarification we've had on
the record that there will be full compensation, I guess we can
Page 173
March 13, 2001
live with the "may."
And I, too, want to thank your staff for meeting with Bruce
and I on Friday and listening to our comments and incorporating
a vast majority of them.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you for these comments, and also
the other attorneys who were present in that meeting. It was a
very helpful to that meeting.
MR. McNEES: Edward Morton is your final registered
speaker.
MR. MORTON: For the record, Edward Morton, Chief
Executive Officer of the NCH Health Care System.
I probably don't have as well prepared remarks because we
didn't find out about this proposal until 4:55 last evening. And it
also would have been nice to have been given the opportunity to
have a reasonable amount of dialogue with, I think, the county,
with which we have worked and struggled mightily over the past
year over a number of, I think, very difficult issues, and we've
always been able to find ways to work them out.
I find myself here tonight with a minimal amount of
presentation, other than a couple of comments. I am on the
Board of Neighborhood Clinic and I will tell you that my
interpretation of this is it would impact the Neighborhood Clinic.
I'm also associated indirectly with Hospice. This will impact
Hospice.
Much of health care is contraintuitive. The implications that
a hospital and health care system and health care facilities are
constructed and growth is then created is a notion that I would
like to suggest that health care facilities many times are
infrastructure that is laid in after the growth has already
occurred.
There is also a contraintuitive aspect in some of the health
care facilities, and I would suggest that the operations of a
health care facility in Immokalee might have a lessening impact
on the number of visits and the number of required transit cases
from patients having to go up and down Immokalee Road,
because there are health facilities in Immokalee. And, in fact,
the impact might be less on Immokalee Road because those
facilities are there.
The same with North Collier Hospital. The fact that there's
an emergency room there which could be expanded would
Page 174
March 13, 2001
probably result in less traffic having to come down 41.
The fact we have expanded facilities on Marco might result
in fewer people on Marco Island having to travel 30, 40 miles
round trip. But, in fact, those services are provided there on the
island. So I think there are very contraintuitive things.
I think the suggestion ! would like to make is if we aren't
given time other than the last 24 hours to compose our thoughts,
that we would have the opportunity to come back at some point
and reengage in a meaningful dialogue on these particular -- on
this particular aspect of the ordinance.
And I would suspect that we would find that we would have
the Neighborhood Clinic and the Blood Bank and the Hospice and
a lot of other people that are going to be impacted by it.
So I would ask your indulgence to give whatever
consideration you could to evaluating -- I know Mike has
indicated the word "waiver" has certain connotations. But
consideration extended to those facilities that are operated
under 501(C)(3), public charities.
I know I represent an organization whose medical staff in
the hospital provided a considerable amount of charitable care
last year and we are working in partnership with the county on a
number of endeavors. I think that spirit would indicate that that
might be a helpful thing to do.
Lastly, I would ask also there be some unambiguous or clear
definition of what this recalculated ability to come back in and
say that -- I forget what Mr. Weigel indicated what the terms are,
that there were some words of art there -- that one might be able
to go back in and reapply under some certain set of
circumstances.
I would like that to be as unambiguous as possible so the
health care providers and people who are public charities, which
is what a 501(C)(3) is, could have that opportunity.
I'd be happy to respond to questions from anybody in the
room.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to apologize. I don't
know how that ball was dropped, whatever analogy we want to
use. I know that I had discussion about people being sure that
the hospital knew that this significant change in the policy as it
affects the hospital, that you in particular, were contacted. I
apologize that that didn't happen and I hope that we'll continue
Page 175
March 13, 2001
MR. MORTON: Well, I suspected just this is not a hospital
issue. This is a public charity issue that impacts every public
charity in medicine in this entire county. It affects the Cleveland
Clinic, it affects our hospital, it affects Hospice, it affects the
Neighborhood Clinic, it affects the Blood Bank. It affects a host
and myriad of other programs that I could expand on here today.
So it has far-reaching implications well beyond the hospital.
This is not a hospital issue. This is an issue of equity, and
an issue, I think, of judgment as respects valuing the benefits to
society on the one hand versus the impact fees. And that would
ignore, perhaps, the supposition that health care organizations
are not causing the growth but are, in fact, reacting to it.
MS. ROBINSON: Commissioners, if I may speak to that. Mr.
Morton, with all due respect, at the meeting on Friday afternoon
there was an attorney by the name of C. Lane Wood who
indicated to us that he represented the hospital, and we did
discuss most of the provisions of the ordinance with him.
MR. MORTON: That name is unknown to me. I have never
heard that name before in my life.
MS. ROBINSON: From the firm of Quarles & Brady?
MR. MORTON: That individual doesn't represent -- has never
worked with me and to the best of my knowledge, has never
worked with the hospital.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Was he representing Cleveland Clinic?
MS. ROBINSON: I thought he was representing your
hospital, but perhaps he was representing the other one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it doesn't matter, here we
are today.
MR. MORTON: I do, in fact, apologize, if he in fact in any
way was representing us. I'm unaware of him. I've never dealt
with that name.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like he didn't
communicate with his client if you didn't know about it.
MR. MORTON: I have never heard that name. But this did
come up last night because we were reviewing the agenda and it
was brought to my attention.
MR. McNEES: I would answer the other question Mr. Morton
raised, which was sort of a lay explanation of alternative impact
fee calculation, a term of art.
Page 176
March 13, 2001
That means if you're building a facility that actually takes
trips off the road, and staff under the ordinance has assessed an
impact fee, that's your opportunity to show the true impact and
the true impact is different than that was assigned by the
ordinance, in which case the fee is appropriate to the actual
impact.
So that would cover that type of situation.
MR. MORTON: Could I position that as a hypothetical? If I
were to pose to you that we were building a facility in Immokalee
in which the ambulance was stopping there, we could at least
present that argument that it was lessening the impact on the
road because people were not having to come back and forth
between Immokalee--
MR. McNEES: That's how the process works. It's an
engineering question, but that's exactly how that works.
MR. MORTON: Same with Marco and the same with North
Collier?.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You just have to have a traffic
engineer to prove it. There's a very specific formula for how you
do it, but you have to go through those steps. But absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whatever is brought forward in the
process, then, you have a right, I think within 30 days, to appeal
for a review of that impact fee and come up with an alternate
calculation.
MR. MORTON: I would suspect then that -- I certainly can't
speak for the other charities, but listening to some of the
comments from some of the other commissioners, I don't know if
you would consider some language that would allow for some
consideration on the part of this commission to pass judgment as
respects the clinical or the social efficacy of projects.
And if that, in fact, is something that you would consider,
then I think those individual organizations would then have to
come before you and could then justify those clinical and social
issues which they would, in their opinion, think cause that issue
to be waived.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If I understand, legal counsel has said
that could be brought back and addressed under this ordinance,
which currently isn't being addressed, and brought back to the
Board for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the Board to pay the fee out
Page 177
March t3, 2001
of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To see that exact language
brought back to us so that we could have it in there. What is in
there may be modified so it's more user friendly, if you might say.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean so that people know to
ask?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right; exactly. The Red Cross
really believed they had no choice, that was it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you referred to as an
alternate impact fee procedure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that's a different one.
MS. ROBINSON: No, that's a different procedure. There is a
section in the ordinance that speaks to exemptions, it's very
limited -- there's a large section in the ordinance that speaks to
exemptions for affordable housing.
But in terms of exemptions for 501(C)(3)s or any other
charitable organization, that does not currently exist in this
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Well, we want exemption
language in the ordinance so people know to ask for it. Doesn't
mean they get it, but they know it means to ask the County
Commission to pay it out of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a separate -- are you asking
it to be put in here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, because it's in here for
affordable housing. It's in here for -- what else did you say?. A
very limited exemption section. If you could refer us to it for
page number, that would be useful.
But it sounds like if exemptions are mentioned at all in the
ordinance, if I weren't on the list I would presume I was excluded
by omission. But if--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we direct staff to look at
that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We certainly can.
MS, ROBINSON: The affordable housing section is a
separate part of the ordinance. It is not a part of an exemption
section. It's a totally separate section that speaks to affordable
housing.
The idea of including language that would speak to
particular exemptions to put in that kind of general language --
Page 178
March 13, 2001
the exemptions that we have now, by the way, are on page 19 of
the line that you have -- and these exemptions -- yes. 201(d) on
page 19, Section D.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a second; let me catch up.
Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: These exemptions, we are attempting in
the ordinance to consolidate the ordinance to make it as simple
a document as possible so that it is easy to administer. And so
the exemptions that are currently set forth really pertain to
simple structures such as building alterations, the construction
of buildings, alteration of buildings, the replacement of buildings.
It simply does not speak to types of entities.
And it would be very difficult to simply insert a provision in
the ordinance that did so. Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a suggestion. Why can't
we add under (d), we've got six listed exemptions. Why can't
number seven be an exemption from impact fee -- parentheses,
S, so it's one or all of them -- may be applied for and approved by
the Board of County Commissioners based on social-something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Benefits to the community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Community benefits.
MR. OLLIFF: As much as I hate to lump in, you gave me
some carte blanche two weeks ago. My name for the record is
Tom Olliff, the County Manager, and I'm going to remind you of it,
that you told me to tell you when --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we were doing something
dumb.
MR. OLLIFF: Even when you probably don't agree. In this
case, I think clearly my recommendation is strongly to you not to
do this, because I will tell you if you start offering carte blanche
exemption opportunity for 501(C)(3) not for profit corporations,
it's going to put this Board of County Commissioners in the
position of trying to decide who deserves and who doesn't
deserve an impact fee waiver. And I'm telling you that there
are probably over 350 501(C)(3) corporations in this town, and
every single one of them who has a capital building project is
going to be standing before this podium asking for an exemption
from their impact fees.
If you want to talk about which of these 501(C)(3)
not-for-profit social service-type agencies need some funding
Page 179
March 13, 2001
assistance, that's another issue. That has nothing to do with
whether or not you ought to waive the fee that is associated --
and there is a rational nexus for the transportation impact, the
sewer impact that they have on the public facilities.
Remember, when we're talking about impact fees, you're
talking about a capital campaign. This social service agency is
already in the position of building a brand new facility or
structure. You're talking about a very minuscule portion of that
construction project that is associated with the impact fees that
are due to this county. They do have an impact on your system
and you are going to be required to pay that in some form or
fashion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does every church in this county
-- would that be a 50t(C)(3)?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. You're going to decide whether
the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the First Baptist Church, or
Naples Community Hospital is deserving.
And I promise you, you cannot afford to pay from the general
fund for all the impact fee waivers that are going to be lined up
at the podium.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff, I totally concur with that.
You have reminded us all one more time, quit trying to draft
changes from the dais and go with what's there. There is a
mechanism for changes in any ordinance and one of these days I
hope it all sinks in for all of us that that is the process.
And every time you micromanage, pardon me, you have
damaged the process and you have damaged the staff and what
they are trying to accomplish to help us get our job done. I
thank you for that, Tom.
One more time, let's either agree or disagree on this
ordinance and quit trying to do things that none of us -- well,
there is one attorney here, but I'm not -- and I'm not going to do
that. I'm not going to do it to the public, I'm not going to do it to
my constituents.
And that's how I feel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make a motion
to adopt the consolidated impact fee ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that motion. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I disagree wholeheartedly
with what you just said, Jim. I think if there was ever a time to
Page t80
March t3, 2001
bring this up it's now. Whether it's resolved now or not is not the
time -- maybe not the right place to do it.
But I tell you I've been asking this question over and over
again and I have never got an answer. And this was my chance
to do it from this position, from this chair, to try to get something
moving that way so I can get an answer.
I do not think it's inappropriate. I think it's totally
appropriate, and I will do it again. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, with all due
respect, I'm not saying you could not bring up the issue. I'd
never get in the way of that. If I felt that way, I would sit here
and you could talk about this until midnight.
But it is my obligation as Chair to review these with all of
you and then at some point make some statements to try to bring
this to closure.
I'm seconding the motion of another commissioner and
everyone has the opportunity to bring this up for discussion.
My point was, I simply don't agree with crafting changes to
a ma]or ordinance from the dais without taking it back and ask
them to reconsider those items and bring them back to us with
language that we all have an opportunity to review. That's my
point.
I don't say that out of any disrespect for you, Commissioner,
but I have been here for a couple years and every time we try to
do this, it creates a monster.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I definitely do not want to
create a monster, and I duly respect you for the time you've
spent here and the knowledge you've picked up and are willing to
share with me.
I do want to exercise my ability to get these thoughts
across. I will vote for the motion, but I do want us to start
thinking about how we're going to fill this need.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner
Coletta wasn't out of order, I was out of order, in proposing some
language.
And to tell you the truth, I just got so excited with the idea
that somebody was going to care about a social service issue in
this county that I jumped up and started to draft language. And
you're right, that's not my job. Getting the issue on the floor is.
Page 181
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call for the motion. Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I iust wanted to make sure I
understood Jackie. There are provisions available if indeed we
want to address something like a neighborhood health clinic; is
that correct?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, that is correct. The motion should
encompass the amendments that we put before you as they were
discussed today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Duly noted.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly noted. Again, I would never limit
anybody's input to express how they feel on a subject. I'm just
trying to remind everybody -- not picking on a commissioner here
-- there is a time and place for us to make our input and not try to
craft it from the dais, and give direction to staff that we want it
reviewed and brought back.
MR. OLLIFF: Just in closing, clearly, I think your staff has
gotten the message loud and clear that this Board wants to do
more in social services agency funding. So don't take this as
some indication we are trying to stand in your way in that regard,
but I think there is probably a better opportunity as you go
through your budget workshop to be able to address it this year.
And in a policy nature, I think that we've talked to each of
you individually about some policy changes that you might want
to consider for next budget year. And we have an opportunity to
make some ma]or steps away from where I think previous boards
have been in that regard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Olliff, because we do
have the health care group coming back to us who is going to be
sharing with us, here's how you fix the problems.
And I don't want to do anything until I've got the big picture
again of everything, all the input, so that we can really
adequately address this, in all fairness to a community that we're
really struggling with a lot of issues, and thank God, this Board is
willing to address things that were never addressed before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jackie has one more.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Jackie.
MS. ROBINSON: Actually, I can address this after your vote,
if it's okay, regarding the pipeline.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd rather hear that first.
Page 182
March 13, 2001
MS. ROBINSON: There are currently, we believe, four
agreements in progress, and if we could just put those on the
record. We're seeking only these four and it doesn't indicate the
agreements are finished or will be finished. Nevertheless, that's
Whippoorwill, Orange Blossom, Tarpon Bay and Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions, Commissioners? The
request is to call the motion. I honored that request.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you all for bringing this to us and thank you,
Commissioners, for all your comments.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 2001-87, SUPPORTING THE IMMOKALEE
MULTICULTURAL MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION
AGENCY, INC. EFFORTS TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR
OF FLORIDA AS THE ELIGIBLE ENTITY TO SERVE COLLIER
COUNTY
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I move approval of item
12-C, the Immokalee Agency Designation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion to approve and at
least three seconds on that motion. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries five to zero.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2001-88, RE PETITION V-2000-33, FREEDOM
SCREENING CORPORATION, REPRESENTING CURTIS
CHANDLER, REQUESTING A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED t0 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES TO 8 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 225
Page 183
March t3, 200t
BAYFRONT DRIVE-ADOPTED
That takes us now to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To do some swearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- do some swearing. Board of Zoning
Appeals. We move to public hearing, that is item A-1. That's
V-2000-33, Freedom Screening Corporation representing Curtis
Chandler, requesting a two-foot variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked with nobody if we have
to have disclosure.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
receiving anything.
MAC'KIE: None.
COLETTA: None.
FIALA: Yes, I received mail on that.
COLETTA: I have no knowledge of
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I haven't received anything.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm like you, I don't think I've received
anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have mail, it's in the file.
Is anybody speaking on behalf of the petitioner? If you are,
you need to stand up and raise your right hand and be sworn.
(All speakers were sworn.)
MR. REICHL: Fred Reichl, Planning Services. This is a
request for a variance for a screen enclosure for an existing pool
within Lely Barefoot Beach Subdivision.
On the visualizer you can see the location, Bonita Beach
Road at the top of the screen and you can see the location of the
parcel right here.
Let me zoom in and get you the configuration, which is
important in the consideration of this. You can see the
configuration of the lot in relation to adjoining lots.
Now let me switch to the house itself. Orient you here, the
road over here, this is the house and this is Little Hickory Bay.
This is an existing pool. You can see the lip of the pool here,
which is 10 feet from the rear property line, which is the way it
was permitted and it follows code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there objections to this or is
it on the regular agenda because the staff was constrained and
had to recommend denial?
MR. REICHL: That is correct, and the Planning Commission
Page 184
March 13, 2001
recommended approval six to zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to move approval of
this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I am, too. Will this remove the fence?
MR. CHANDLER: Not necessarily. The fence could remain
there, but it would be sort of redundant to have a fence and
screen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Petitioner, do you have any reason
that you would keep the fence?
MS. WALKER: Debra Walker, and no, they do not want to
keep the fence if they can have the enclosure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAH CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie,
seconded by Commissioner Henning to approve. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #13A2
PETITION CU-2000-20, JEFF L. DAVIDSON OF DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING B.C. EXCAVATING OF
NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTH
MINING ACTIVITY ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED 'A'
AGRICULTURAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF FRIENDSHIP LANE APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4.4 ACRES
- DENIED
Now, move to petition CU-2000-20. Jeff Davidson of
Davidson Engineering. All need to stand and be sworn. (All speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't spoken to anybody on
this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nor have I.
Page 185
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Nor have I.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I went all the way out there, which
took me forever, and also spoke with Mr. Jesse Hardy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're on a fish farm; we're not there
yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. Wrong. Oh, there it is.
No,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just spoke to some people in
the audience a little while ago, and that's it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For the record, Chahram Badamtchian,
Planning Services staff. This is an earth mining activity request.
The applicant owns 4.4 acres and they're proposing to build a
lake, 1.85 acres, in the area. This property is located on
Friendship Lane.
Staff reviewed this petition. They are in compliance with
Growth Management Plan. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission forward this to the Board of County Commissioners
for approval subject to all stipulations, which included a turn
lane on Immokalee Road.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant did not
agree with the staff's stipulations and, therefore, the Planning
Commission recommended denial of this.
Staff still recommends approval if they agreed to all the
staff stipulations, otherwise the staff cannot agree with this
request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that still their position, to your
knowledge?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I talked to them. They still don't want
to comply with the staff stipulations. I believe it is going to cost
them more money to build the turn lane than they are going to
make from sale of the dirt from the property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is petitioner here to speak to this
issue?
MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson from Davidson Engineering,
and I just wanted to clarify what Chahram just said, and he's
correct.
We agreed with all the stipulations in the staff report, but
we could not agree with the stipulation of a turn lane because of
economic reasons, and we are still in that position.
Page t 86
March 13, 200t
The concern I had at the Planning Commission was the
reason we should put the turn lane in. Usually on a turn lane, the
requirement for a turn lane is over a certain Level Of Service C,
and we're only going to have about between 15 and 20 two-way
trips per day on this project.
It's a small lake; it's a little over two acres and it probably
will last between six months and a year to a year and a half,
depending on the market for fill.
And we see it as a temporary use, and to spend $80,000 on a
turn lane is not feasible and, in my opinion, should not be
required. Of course, a turn lane would be nice to have and it
would be a safer roadway if a turn lane was installed.
But I've never seen a project before that required a turn lane
on a small project like this. That's really all we have to say. The
rest of the stipulations were fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I understand if I just took 200
days a year, they were using this times 30 trips a day, that's
6,000 trips, no turn lane, and you admitted on the public record
that it would improve the safety during that period of operation.
Therefore, I am going to make a motion for denial and leave
that up to a second. Then there is people who want to continue
to speak. We have a motion and a second. Thank you.
But before I do that, I have to ask, knowing what we're
going to do, are any other people here to speak who want to talk
us out of that?
MR. OLLIFF: Let me go ahead and call them. Patricia
Reeves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She waived.
MR. OLLIFF: Julie Askey, waived. Milli Ball.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's gone.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I move we close the public
hearings, except the petitioner was on his feet.
MR. DAVIDSON: Is there a possibility -- we spoke to staff
before this hearing and we know that we're in the process of
having the rules changed for excavations in the Estates, and also
possibly in agriculturally zoned property, for conditional uses.
If we could, we would like to continue this until we get some
of those rules and find out what the new rules are and what
we're up against.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can continue it if you would
Page 187
March 13, 2001
agree that you are going to comply with the new rules after they
are in place. But I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The turn lane would still be
required.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. DAVIDSON: One thing we can do, though, this is a
thought. We all agree it would be nice to have a turn lane at any
location on that section of Immokalee Road. There's a
possibility that there could be some cost sharing with other
developers in the area. I know there was an excavation
approved south.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that that might be your
job to find that out. I don't think staff's time would be directed in
that way right at this time.
MR. DAVIDSON: We could do that; we could spend our time
doing that. I guess what I'm asking is if we can get a
continuance with that in mind, have some cost sharing
opportunity with other excavators in the area in the next month
or so, or whatever suits your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: We don't have any problem with that but I
don't have to create an expectation that we're going to have this
back in a month. This is going to take some time for the Land
Development Code to make those changes. You're talking June
at the earliest.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you get denied today you can
continue as long as you want, or if you continue today we're not
going to be looking at these issues again until the summer. And
frankly, the odds of it being before budget cycle's over are
probably slim.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're looking at the fall, realistically.
MR. DAVIDSON: That would be fine, if that's what we have
to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully, why don't you just
reapply under the new rules? Is the fee really high?
MR. DAVIDSON.- It was my understanding that we had to
wait six months. Maybe Chahram, how long do we have to wait
before we can reapply?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Six months, I believe.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counselor?.
Page 188
March 13, 2001
MR. DAVIDSON: Would we pay the fee? Would the fee be --
if we got continued, would we be able to save the fee?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You would be able to save the fee, you
pay for the advertising.
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney.
It's been established by policy -- the code's silent put it's been
established by policy on these types of things, I believe, at six
months. There are specifics on rezones in the code but on these
other two, it's just been a matter of policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's for the motion makers.
MR. DUNNUCK: I would like to add one other thing for the
record. One of the proposed things we brought back a couple of
weeks ago was a minimum 20 acres for a site. This is much
smaller than that, so under what we had proposed to you two
weeks ago, we would still be denying it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We might as well just deny this.
It's not going to be able to make it under the new criteria.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there any thoughts by the second?
COMMISSIONER COI. ETTA: I made the second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I made the motion. I just want to
make sure my second is in place.
MR. MANALICH: If you could state the basic reason for the
motion for denial.
MS. STUDENT: Based on the four criteria.
MR. MANALICH.' I believe you're referring to the
ingress-egress being inadequate because of lack of a turn lane.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for putting that in there.
Yes. That would be my reason for that, and it would be a
safety issue which is always of ultimate concern.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is criteria B, "Ingress and
egress for property and proposed structures thereon with
particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe due to the inadequacy of that condition."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Counselor. Therefore, I
bring -- did we close the public hearing? Therefore, I would
entertain to call the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Call.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
Page 189
March 13, 2001
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion defeated 5-0. Thank you.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 2001-89~ RE PETITION CU-2000-16~ JEFF L.
DAVIDSON OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING~ INC.~ REPRESENTING
JESSE HARDY~ REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTH
MINING ACTIVITY ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "A'
AGRICULTURAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE "HOLE-IN-
THE-DONUT" WITHIN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES~
APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 1-75 AND
ONE AND ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF EVERGLADES
BOULEVARD~ CONSISTING OF 160 ACRES - ADOPTED
All right. That takes us to 13-A-3. Dr. Badamtchian, are you
continuing for us?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As far as disclosure, I think that
there has been quite a bit of correspondence on this matter. I
have not met with any individuals, but I have letters and e-mails
that will be available in the file.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with the petitioner and
representatives and the other correspondence is in the file.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I, too, met with the petitioner, and any
correspondence with regard to this issue is in my file, and his
representative.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have also met with the petitioner
and with Jeff Davidson, and I've gone to see the property and I
also have mail, and that is in my file.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The same with me. In addition
to that, I also talked to Nancy Payton early on about this, from
the Wildlife Federation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Thank you. Dr. Badamtchian,
will you have the people sworn in, please. (All speakers were sworn.)
MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, it's late in the day.
The last motion to deny was passed?
Page 190
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR, MANALICH: You might have mentioned "defeated," but
it was passed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion to deny was passed.
MR. McNEES: Denied the question, yes.
MR. MANALICH: It passed; it was not defeated.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Counsel, for keeping me
straight up here.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from Planning
Services. This request is for an earth mining.
The property is located in an area commonly known as the
"Hole-in-the-donut" in southern Golden Gate Estates area.
Mr. Jesse Hardy owns 460 acres and is proposing to have a
fish farm.
His original request still is for four lakes which will occupy
approximately 80 acres. He is proposing to take this in four
different phases, and this conditional use is only for Phase I,
basically the first lake.
He will have three years to dig the first lake and stock with
fish, and if everything goes according to plan, he may apply for
another conditional use for lake two. And at that time, the staff
will approve the rest of the project one lake at a time.
This project is located within the Natural Resource
Protection Overlay and also in the Southern Golden Gate Estates
area. Our Growth Management Plan prohibits from improving the
roads in the area so we cannot pave the roads. We can maintain
it, but we cannot improve those roads.
This petition was reviewed by the EAC and in a vote of five
to one they recommended denial. They stated that the property
in question is located in NRPA, which is intended to maintain
habitat for wildlife, and there is no past history of fish farming in
the area. Also, they said that the area in question is slated for
conservation and restoration. That's why they recommended
denial.
Planning Commission recommended by a vote of five to one
the approval of the first phase with the first lake, and only one
commissioner at the Planning Commission opposed this, saying
that he does not believe the true intention in here is fish farming;
he believes it's earth mining.
As I said, we are reviewing the first phase, first lake, and it's
Page 191
March 13, 2001
not a 30-year project. In part, it may take up to 30 years, but we
are reviewing the first lake and a time limit of three years.
I also believe that I actually saw Mr. Hardy's license for fish
farming. So he has obtained license from the Department of
Agriculture for fish farming.
At the Planning Commission there were several groups
speaking against this, and I have some letters attached to the
back of the Executive Summary. However, I also received e-mail
from Nancy Payton yesterday. I believe you were all copied on it.
Actually, I received a copy and it was intended for you.
Saying she does not oppose the Phase I, the first lake, and after
the first lake is done in place, she will review, or the group will
review, and decide if they are proposing any expansion.
However, she states that she's only in favor of two lakes,
not four.
That concludes my presentation, if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions of staff by the commission?
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' I do have a question. With the
NRPA being in that area, I realize we are only talking about one
hole, one lake at a time, but wouldn't that interfere with the goal
of the NRPA in order to allow sheetflow again to move through
that area, which is supposed to be established what, in two
years?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. This land is high compared to
surrounding area. Doesn't really have any wetlands. It's a high
and dry land. The sheetflow will not flow over this land; it will
flow around it. But this parcel of land is real high compared to
the rest of the area.
I also should add that we talked to the Department of
Community Affairs, DCA, to make sure that the final order of
governing cabinet didn't prohibit them from earth mining in
NRPA, and the response was since the intended use is for fish
farming, then it's okay for them to have earth mining in the area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You already read to the group,
though, the Environmental Advisory Council's recommendation?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that answers your
question, Commissioner Fiala. They voted five to one to deny
because the property is in NRPA, which is intended to maintain
Page 192
March 13, 2001
habitat for wildlife.
So the fact that it's high ground -- the only NRPA -- the only
value the Natural Resource Protection Area has is not when it's
wet. It also has uplands value, particularly for panthers, who
don't swim. When it's uplands area, and even setting aside the
other points, the area is slated for conservation and restoration.
I just really strongly feel this is totally inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in another direction, if I may.
First of all, we know there is nothing in the NRPA to limit this
type of operation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a gentleman that's
invested in this property 20 or 30 years ago. He has been there
continuously; this has been his dream for as long as he's been
there. Why should we deny him the right to act accordingly?
He's not going to impact the environment where he is.
I can't see where there is a negative to this, unless it's the
neighbors around there that might have opposition to this. I also
want to know about the roads around there, who is going to pay
for them and maintain them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This sounds kind of corny, but
the neighbors in the area that this affects are the wildlife
neighbors, it's not the human neighbors. It's the upland habitat
and the wildlife value of the land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know where you're coming from
because I went out there. There is a boy, this is a way for him to
leave something for his child and everything. I understand that.
But he has a 30-year permit on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? He's asking for 30 years, but it
has to be renewed every three years?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It does not have to be renewed
every three years. What they are recommending approval for is
three years. After three years, if he wishes to, he can apply for
another conditional use. But this one is three years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the 30 years business in here --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 30-year business, that would be what
they were hoping in the application. They said we'll dig four
lakes, which will take approximately 30 years.
Page 193
March 13, 2001
That's not what staff is recommending. Staff
recommendation is only three years, and they have agreed to
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' And they have agreed to that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they have agreed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' And a person who I greatly
respect, Nancy Payton with the Wildlife Federation, has been
very careful with recommendations and is reserving final
decision until after the first lake is built.
Whatever goes in there will be a positive for wildlife. If it
doesn't work out past that point and they do take the land over,
they're going to have a water basin in there that will be suitable
for fish, obviously, because that's what it's built for.
If you look at the construction of it, the way it slopes and
everything, that's the one thing that's being built for, is fish
farming. It's not a ploy to be able to take fill out and make the
money.
I've done quite a bit of research and soul searching on this
one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a straight forward,
honest application. I think the design shows this is intended to
be a fish farm, not an excavation just to sell the fill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to know if Mr. Hardy has
done any earth mining before and if not, does he know who's
going to do that for him.
And also, will he be living on the property while they are
blasting in there?
MR. OLLIFF: That's probably a good segue to get the
petitioner to make his presentation.
MR. KARL: Good afternoon. My name's James Karl. I'm an
attorney representing Mr. Hardy in this application. Thank you
for the time.
Right to your questions. First of all, Mr. Hardy will be, as he
has for the last 24 years, living on the property throughout the
process. I want to reiterate that this particular application here
has been reduced to a three-year approval, which we have
agreed to, with the coming back to you on a new application in
three years to see where we are.
As far as whether he has had any experience doing this, he
has under -- I want to clarify this point. He can actually dig the
Page 194
March 13, 2001
ponds on his property. The permit that's required here is to
actually transport the material, okay. So which actually -- and
our environmental engineer can clarify, if you need more detail.
But actually, the environment and habitat and the concern
about habitat through the property, is actually made beneficial
by the removal of the fill, obviously, rather than have these big
piles.
There is a small pond right now on the property that Mr.
Hardy had, under a prior permit several years ago, begun. So
he's had some experience in doing that, and he's also had
contact with professional people to actually dig and transport
the fill. So this would be an extension of that. But that was
many years ago.
I'll be here to answer any questions that you have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shall we get a public speaker,
Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: First is Pat Humphries, followed by Kathleen
Avalone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ask the second speaker to be on
deck if she's here. We'd appreciate it to keep things moving.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Good evening. My name is Patricia
Humphries. I have been a resident of Collier County for 23 years.
For the past nine years, I have resided in Golden Gate Estates
and during that time have been active in civic organizations and
community projects.
Today I am speaking for myself. I have known Mr. Hardy for
almost 40 years and have babysat for his five-year old son,
Tommy, just about every weekend since he was two years old.
I think aquaculture on his land is an excellent idea. The
request before you today is to remove and sell fill that is needed
to render the site aesthetically and environmentally sound. The
owner will take the responsibility of improving the canal road to
facilitate the removal of the fill.
Mr. Hardy has lived there since 1977, long before it was
declared an environmental project. He has worked hard to
maintain his land, has been a good environmental caretaker and
has earned the right to use it the way he wants.
He has paid taxes and has been provided with minimal or no
services. Nevertheless, he has been steadfast about remaining
on his land.
Page 195
March 13, 2001
This property is designated in the willing buyer-willing seller
category, and Mr. Hardy does not wish to sell at this time.
I see no harm in what he plans to do. It conforms with the
surroundings environmentally, it does not disturb the neighbors,
and it provides a source of livelihood for his family and will
provide security for his son's future. It does not interfere with
the hydrologic restoration planned for that area. In fact,
rehydrating will reduce the threat of fire to his property and has
the blessing of the state Department of Agriculture.
The only footprints he will leave behind are two ponds in a
park-like setting. Concessions have been made in the past. One
such example is in 1992, the DEP allowed the operator of an
aquaculture to remain on property within North Key Largo or
New Mahogany Hammock.
This aquaculture, known as Seacritters, is a thriving
business to this day. Above ground agriculture is diminishing in
Collier County. Commercial fishing is being restricted, net
fishing's banned. Here we have a method of farming that
conserves a prototype for an alternative industry in Collier
County; an $86 million a year business presently monopolized by
four other states.
We are very excited about this project. Several concerned
individuals have visited this site and are enthusiastic about the
planned project. Any involved agency that has qualms about it
could probably receive an okay from Mr. Hardy to inspect the
property.
When completed, the aquaculture will also be open for
educational purposes, such as field trips with school children. In
fact, Mr. Hardy could probably tell them quite a few things about
Southern Golden Gate Estates that they don't know. After all, it
has been his home for 25 years. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Next and last speaker is Kathleen Avalone.
MS. AVALONE: Kathleen Avalone, Citizens for Protection of
Animals. The Collier County Audubon Society, along with the
Florida Wildlife Federation, at Mr. Hardy's request, visited his
property to view his plans for aquaculture.
At our suggestion, Mr. Hardy agreed to the following: To
reduce his original plan from four lakes to two lakes and to allow
Page 196
March 13, 2001
us to view and monitor the environmental and wildlife issues
after the first pond is excavated before proceeding with the
second pond.
If these stipulations are met, we will not oppose his request.
But I'm kind of confused right now whether you are agreeing to
two ponds or four.
MR. HARDY: That was Mr. Chahram. I said four, I agreed
with you people.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me, sir. You'll have to come to
the microphone and be part of the public record to respond to
that, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You might let your lawyer do that
on your behalf.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, your lawyer can do that on your
behalf, as long as he identifies himself for the record.
MR. KARL: James Karl. With regard to -- it's really one pond
over three years that's being requested here. At the end of the
three-year period, we will -- assuming everything is going as
expected, we will come back in and file a new application, pay a
new application fee and then ask you for an additional pond. So
really it's not four, it's not two, it's one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One pond for three years. And I
apologize to you, Mr. Hardy, because this is your land and we
shouldn't be talking about how you can use your land, and, you
know. I know that you're a good steward of it.
But what I'm hearing here is that Mr. Hardy has agreed that
he with allow monitoring of the use and allow people on his
property to see, just so we can get advice back from
environmental organizations in three years.
MR. KARL: Not only is he going to do that, he has done that
to show his good faith already.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he'll agree to continue to do
that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
record.
That's correct.
Let that be duly noted for the public
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I find myself persuaded
to give it a shot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question, if I may. In
here, we had a letter also from The Conservancy. I can't find it
Page 197
March 13, 200t
right this minute, but anyway, The Conservancy said that they
were opposed to it and gave one of the reasons as the lake being
20 feet deep. And they said for this type of fish they only needed
10-foot depth, 12 at the most -- thank you -- and so they were
concerned that this was going to be so deep that then when they
did try and do something with the NRPA, it would make it difficult
for them.
Do you have a response to 10 feet over 20 feet?
MR. KARL: Actually, I think I would like to refer to Jeff
Davidson, who did the engineering work. But these ponds were
designed with the idea of maximizing the aquacultural business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They said it was bad for the fish.
MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson, for the record. The lake
depth is a little deceptive on the plan. Because the depth on the
plan is measured from natural ground and in the aquacultural
business, what we have to deal with is the water table elevation.
During the dry season right now, you can look at the shallow
end of that lake. If it was constructed at t2 feet like it's shown
on the plan, you would probably have about 6 feet of water in it.
It's 6 feet on the shallow end and it's probably, when we do
this, we're going to slope the bottom, and it will be 20 feet from
natural ground on the other end. So it will be six feet, seven feet
deeper on the other end.
The reason it's designed the way it is, is to meet the
aquacultural requirements, as well as meet the Collier County
Land Development Code for commercial excavation.
And we have shelving, lateral planting, above and beyond
what is required by the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of these four lakes on our screen,
which one are you going to start with?
MR. DAVIDSON: The closest one to the canal, which is the
one to the left on that screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you show us, Chahram?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand those concerns, but I
know that if you make it too shallow, those fish up there, that's
certainly got to be a high time for the bird life.
MR. DAVIDSON: That's right. The way it is now, it's about
where it needs to be, according to aquacultural requirements
during the dry season.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you say aquaculture
Page 198
March 13, 2001
requirements, you mean are there standards somewhere that you
use, as an engineer?
MR. DAVIDSON.' Not so much in as an engineer. I've learned
a lot in the last couple of months about aquaculture.
Marco Espinar, an environmental consultant, actually has
been the keeper of the information that Jesse Hardy has
provided and we've gotten from the state of Florida and other
sources. Stan Chrzanowski had a good book on aquaculture that
I read recently.
What we're doing here is in conformance with most of those
requirements.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all your public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, move to close --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' There's a gentleman here from South
Florida Water Management District. He did not sign up to speak,
and he just passed me this note saying that the property is on
their eminent domain procedure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have that in writing, sir?.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's have the gentleman address it
and state for the record what's developing here.
MR. NATH: I'm Ananta Nath, and I'm an engineer with South
Florida Water Management District, and I'm the project manager
for South Golden Gate Estates.
And I just want to remind you that the area, southern Golden
Gate Estates, has been under public acquisition by Department
of Environmental Protection and almost 80 percent of the land
has been acquired, and the last 20 percent will be acquired
under eminent domain process by Governor and Cabinet in
January 23.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' That shouldn't be a surprise to
anybody, because we all read in the paper that the Governor and
Cabinet had approved using eminent domain for Southern Golden
Gate Estates.
But frankly, that's the last thing I want to do is consider that
as a factor when are making this decision. Margie, you're shaking your head.
MS. STUDENT: I need to address that for everybody's
benefit. That is not a consideration for the grant or condition --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you are?
MS. STUDENT: I'm Marjorie Student, Assistant County
Page t99
March 13, 2001
Attorney. You're to be guided by the four criteria in the code.
There is case law also about local government imposing
restrictions, or, if you will, impliedly downzoning property when
it's under eminent domain, thus reducing the price that is paid to
the property owner. The courts don't allow that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Besides that, it would just be
wrong and we're not going to do that. I know this Board will not
consider the fact that it's under eminent domain, possibly to be
acquired. We iust wouldn't do that. If we think this is the right
use and valid use for the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to approve.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, one more thing. Mr.
Nath wasn't sworn in, so --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you please swear him in for the
public record?
THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you have given
was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. NATH: I do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, we may proceed. Close the
public hearing.
Now we may proceed with the motion
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion for approval, we
have a second motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Henning had his
hand up to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I just have a comment.
Commissioner Coletta, you raised a while ago on how
excavating affects these shallow wells. I understood it when
they met with Mr. Hardy --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This wasn't designed as an
excavation; this is a fish farm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know that, but it's the
same principle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I agree.
Page 200
March 13, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that shallow wells
are affected by digging a hole in the ground.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If there was anyone else who
lived there, I would say there was some validity to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did the motion pass?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I haven't called the motion yet.
MR. MANALICH: That's what I wanted to clarify, because
this s super majority requirement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I need a majority of four.
MR. OLLIFF: Just for staff's sake, I just want to clarify that
this is with the amendments that you discussed already, which
includes a single lake with a three-year provision and access to
the environmental agencies, in particular the Florida Wildlife
Federation, in order to provide some information should the
property owner want to apply for a conditional use again three
years from now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And maintain the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll incorporate it in your motion.
Is that all incorporated in your motion, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: One last clarification, Mr. Chairman.
Chahram, is it also within this motion the conditions of approval
that were in the agenda package that was agreed to?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He agreed to all the conditions, which
also includes maintaining the road.
MR. MANALICH: That's found at page 21 and 22, if you want
to reference that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, 2t and 22 are
incorporated by the motioner and the seconder.
Duly noted. Those are all there. Any other advice for us,
Counselor?
All right. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An example of the public hearing
process working. I learned a lot at this hearing. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Certainly did. More about fishing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good luck.
Page 201
March 13, 2001
Item #14A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GROWTH MANAGEMENT
WORKSHOP TO BE HELD FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That brings us down to staff
communications, and --
MR. OLLIFF: Just a couple items. One, a reminder that the
Board's got a growth management workshop on Friday.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Folks, we do need to have you exit
quietly, please.
MR. OLLIFF: If you have -- especially for some of the veteran
commissioners here, having gone through the Growth
Management Plan, the AUIR process, it is going to be primarily
an educational opportunity. But if there are some things about
this planning process, take some time between now and Friday
to jot down a little list of those, because I want to make sure
that as we go through the things that we're going to recommend,
that we cover everything on your list, as well.
Item #14B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEALTH CARE FINANCE
COMMITTEE WORKSHOP TO BE HELD AFTER THE REGULAR
MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2001
Second issue, I want to make the Board aware that the
county's Health Planning Committee, the Finance Committee
that you created, has requested a brief time after your meeting
on April 24 to hold a workshop.
That's sort of a continuation of what we were talking about
earlier, in terms of the need for this Board to be able to do some
policy type discussion on not just indigent, but health care
issues in this community.
So on April 24 at the conclusion of your County Commission
meeting, we will have about one and a half hours set aside for
the Health Care Committee to talk with you about where they are
with their findings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You'll send us a memo on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: April 24th.
Page 202
March 13, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: April 24th, and that should be duly
noted in all our planning and everything that is on that agenda,
along with the commissioners that have any requests.
We have now asked for a two-week notice to do that and
please keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: No. I indicated to make sure it was on the
calendar.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Briefly, just that Mr. Pettit, one of our
litigation counsel, wanted me to mention to you we may be
working with Mr. Olliff and with you to potentially have an
executive session, a litigation item for next week. One of the
lawsuits the county is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two weeks from now?
MR. WEIGEL: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it inappropriate to mention
which lawsuit?
MR. WEIGEL: No, but I don't know the name of it right now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will be duly noted and planned in
our commission meeting so that we are not disruptive to the flow
process. In all probability, I recommend we do that at the end,
when we've completed all the other business. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just looking forward to
tomorrow night.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What happens tomorrow night?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's personal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: May be an annual event for him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think so. This is once in
a lifetime.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that really piques my interest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're blushing, so that piques
it more.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sounds like the guy's going to do
something and commit himself to the future. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing. Thank you.
Page 203
March t3, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to make a brief comment
about Rock Road. I want you to know whatever you may have
heard, the Sheriff's Department seems to be working very well
with the residents down there at this time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's in regards to the safety issue?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Safety issue, and I didn't
become a prisoner down there like I thought I was going to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought you were going to camp out
down there.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing, great meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a couple closing comments on my
part.
At any time in this meeting or future meetings, you all think I
am not dutifully listening to you, I want to be reminded of that.
That would never have been my intention to cut off any
discussion, but only try to guide us and stay with agenda items.
I would like to say in closing there was a question raised by
Commissioner Henning this morning why we had a Town Hall
meeting on the Pelican Bay issue. That was at the request of
Commissioner Fiala, and that was brought to us, and I always try
to honor each commissioner's request on an issue that we have
in front of us for discussion.
The comments about the "will of the people," I think we
always need to keep in mind that in a community or in any
situation, "will of the people" may be split in I don't know how
many different directions. And we have to keep in mind that that
will needs to be addressed and how we got to where we were on
any issue, and ask ourselves, at some point in time, if any group
of people disagree with whatever we've done, are they coming in
front of us to look for solutions to the problem, or are they using
a single issue that I don't like it, and therefore, don't move
forward.
For those who did not go to the Town Hall meeting at
Pelican Bay on Sunday afternoon, I always will remember that
experience because if due process had been followed and
everybody treated everybody else like ladies and gentlemen, I
certainly wouldn't have had the concerns about it that I did.
Unfortunately, those who didn't agree with what the
Page 204
March t3, 2001
direction was going, in my judgment, conducted themselves in
the meeting which really upset a lot of people in Pelican Bay.
Whether they were for or against that issue, they were deeply
disturbed by behavior.
Where the mediator was ignored, he was told by one
presenter for those disagreeing that he would stand there and
talk as long as he wanted, and that was a violation of the
meeting agenda and the process that was established up front.
So in the future, all of us, please, as those things come to us
do some soul-searching and ask yourself, every time this
happens, are there workable solutions to the situation, rather
than stepping back and discounting an enormous amount of work
that may have been done by any group prior to that coming back
and being revisited.
I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your
indulgence. You're a great Board. It's my pleasure to serve as
your Chair for this year and I know that we'll continue forward.
No other comments on my part. If there are none from
anyone else, we stand adjourned.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala, and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved
and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES, UNIT SEVEN" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2 - Continued to March 27, 2001
FINAL PLAT OF "JUBILATION" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2001-72, RE PETITION VAC-00-025, MICHAEL J.
DELATE, P.E, OF Q. GRADY MINOR 8, ASSOCIATES, P.A. AGENT
Page 205
March 13, 2001
FOR THE PETITIONERS, PR VI L.L.C. AND PR VII L.L.C,
REQUESTING THE VACATION OF VARIOUS 30' WIDE ROAD
RIGHTS OF WAY, LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2001-73, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB PHASE TWO-A"
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2001-74, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE~ WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB PHASE TWO-B"
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2001-75, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY~ DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB PHASE ONE"
Item #16A7 - Moved to Item #8A3
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2001-76, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF 'CANDLEWOOD THREE"
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2001-77, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY~ DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MARKER LAKE VILLAS"
Page 206
March t3, 200t
Item #16A10
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
ACCOUNT DUE TO NON-RECEIPT OF ANTICIPATED GRANT
MONIES
Item #16A11
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
ACCOUNT DUE TO NON-RECEIPT OF ANTICIPATED GRANT
MONIES
Item #16B1
CONTRACT WITH MITIGATION CREDIT SALES FOR THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT WETLAND IMPACTS - IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $8057000
Item #16B2
SELECTION OF NINE FIRMS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY PROJECTS - SUBJECT TO $5,0007000
MAXIMUM INITIAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PER FIRM
Item #16Cl
WELLFIELD AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBERTSON'S, INC. AND
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, PROJECT NO.
74039 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $45~000
Item #16C2
SOLE-SOURCE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL
ODOR MONITORS FROM ARIZONA INSTRUMENT COMPANY TO
EXPAND THE LANDFILL ODOR MONITORING PROGRAM
Item #16C3
Page 207
March 13, 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-78, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A UTILITY WORK AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
THE WIDENING OF U.S. 41 BETWEEN RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
ROAD AND BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT WITH TOBY KEITH FOR A PERFORMANCE AT THE
COUNTRY JAM CONCERT ON APRIL 6TM, & ?TH! 2001, TO BE HELD
AT THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$45,000
Added - Item #16D2
TRAVEL REQUEST FOR TWO MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE PLANNING AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE TO ATTEND THE "PROJECT ACCESS" COMMUNITY
EVENT
Item #16E1
PAYMENT OF THE COUNTY'S PRO-RATA SHARE OF REPAIR
COSTS TO THE EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT'S
STATION #21 (EAST TRAIL) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $577251.92
Item #16E2
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
FOR A POSITION ON THE COUNTY-OWNED COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER AT THE COUNTY BARN FACILITY ON COUNTY BARN
ROAD
Item #16E3
AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE LEASE WITH PRIMESITE
CONSULTING GROUP, INC. AND AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE
LEASE WITH FLORIDA ROCK AND SAND COMPANY, INC.
Page 208
March 13, 2001
Item #16E4
WORK ORDER VL-00-06 UNDER THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL
ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACTS FOR VICTOR J. LATAVISH,
TO DESIGN A SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION AT THE GOLDEN GATE
GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX - IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,900
Item #16E5
EXPENDITURE OF OVER $25,000 FOR PURCHASES BASED ON
QUOTES ON BID #99-2958 - SPRINKLER PARTS AND RELATED
ITEMS
Item #16E6
EXPENDITURE OF OVER $25,000 TO AACTION MULCH OF SW FL,
INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF GRADE A EUCALYPTUS MULCH
FOR ROADWAY MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION AND COUNTY
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
Item #16E7
BID #00-3175 AWARDED TO ADVANCED AIR REFRIGERATION
INC. AND CONDITIONED AIR INC. AS PRIMARY AND MODERN AIR
CONDITIONING AS SECONDARY FOR THE PURCHASE, REPAIR,
MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF AIR-CONDITIONING
EQUIPMENT
Item #16F1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND
APPROPRIATE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY
MEDICAL TECHNICIANS "PROVIDER OF THE YEAR" $1,000
DONATION FOR THE EMS ANNIVERSARY/AWARD CELEBRATION
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 01-184 AND 01-197
Item #16J1
Page 209
March 13, 2001
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Item #16J2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 210
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 13, 2001
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos..' 91-3678-MMA;
91-3679-MMA and 89-2152-CFA - RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted tbr public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners
for the period:
1) Disbursements for the period January 24, 2001 through January 30, 2001
2) Disbursements for the period January31,2001 through February 6, 2001
3) Disbursements for the period February 7, 2001 through February 13, 2001
4) Disbursements for the period February 14,2001 through February 20,
2001
5) Disbursements for the period February 21, 2001 through February 27,
2001
B. Districts:
1) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board - Minutes of December 4,
2000 meeting
2) Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District -
Minutes of the January 26, 2001 meeting and Agenda for January 26, 2001
meeting
C. Minutes:
l) The Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee -Notice of January
17, January 31 and February 14, 2001 meetings, Minutes of November 8,
November 29 and December 13, 2000 meetings
2) Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 7, 2001
meeting and Minutes of January 3,2001
H:Data/Format
3) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January
12, 2001 and February 8,200l meetings and Minutes of December 8, 2000
and January 12, 2001 meetings
4) Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for January 24, 2001
meeting and Minutes of December 6, 2000 meeting
5) Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 7, 200 l
meeting
6) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 20,
2001 and Minutes of January 9, 2001 meeting
7) Select Committee on Community Character and Design Notice of February
6, 2001 meeting
8) Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee - Notice of February 2,2001
meeting
9) Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for January 19, 2001
meeting and Minutes of January 19, 2001 meeting
l 0) Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee - Notice of
joint meeting for January 24, 2001
11) Collier County Housing Authority -
a. Annual Financial Report for FYE 9/30/00
b. Approved budget for FY 2000-2001
c. Registered Office and Agent
d. Schedule of Regular Meetings for 2000-2001
e. Description of Outstanding Bonds for FYE 9/30/00
f. Public Facilities Report
g. Audit & Management Letter FYE 9/30/00
12) Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - Agenda for January 24, 2001
meeting
13) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting - Agenda for January 27, 2001
meeting, Minutes of December 20, 2000 meeting
H:Data/Format
14) Affordable Housing Advisory Committee - Notice of December 14, 2000
meeting
15) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of July 24, 2000
meeting
16) Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Notice of January 22,
2001 meeting, Agenda for January 22, 2001 meeting, and Minutes of
November 20, 2000 meeting
17) Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee to the
Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Minutes of January 23,
2001 meeting
18) Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - Notice for January
17, 2001 meeting and Agenda for January 17, 2001
19) The Select Committee on Community Character and Design - Notice of
January 16, 2001 meeting
20) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Notice and Agenda of
January 25, 2001 meeting
2 l)The Collier County Productivity Committee - Notice of January 17,2001
meeting
22) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of
December 4, 2000 meeting
23) City/County Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee - Notice of
January 11,2001 meeting
24) Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda of January 3,2001 meeting and
Minutes of December 6, 2000 meeting
Other:
1)
2)
Development Services Advisory Committee's Utility Code Subcommittee -
Notice of January 25, 2001 meeting
The Growth Management Subcommittee of the Environmental Advisory
Council - Notice of January 17, 200 l meeting
3) The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council - Minutes
of January 25, 2001 Governing Board meeting
H:Data/Format
March 13, 2001
Item #16K1
SHERIFF'S OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
COPS MORE 2001 TECHNOLOGY/EQUIPMENT GRANT
APPLICATION
Item #16L1
NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR TAX DEED
APPLICATIONS FOR ALL COUNTY-OWNED 1998 TAX
CERTIFICATES AND 1997 TAX CERTIFICATES AND ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16L2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES TO SEWELL,
VALENTICH, TILLIS & ASSOCIATES, RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 107-T IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN B. FASSETT, TRUSTEE OF
THE ANNE M. FASSETT TRUST DATED JUNE 5, 1986, ET
CASE NO. 99-3040-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65041)
- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $7,520 INTO THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT
Item #16L3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES TO CARROLL &
CARROLL AND WILCOX APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC. WITH
RESPECT TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 41-T
AND t3-45 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOHN B. FASSETT, TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE M. FASSETT TRUST
DATED JUNE 5, 1986, ET AL., CASE NO. 99-3040-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65041} - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$10,562.50 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2001-79, RE PETITION PE-2000-05, TOM MASTERS,
P.E., DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, REQUESTING A PARKING EXEMPTION FOR A
Page 211
March 13, 2001
SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN VINEYARDS
DEVELOPMENT AND THE LUTGERT COMPANIES, ON OUTPARCEL
6 OF THE CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER IN THE VINEYARDS,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VINEYARDS BOULEVARD TO
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2001-80, RE PETITION CU-2000-17, HERB RESSING,
OF VOICESTREAM WIRELESS, REPRESENTING BIG CORKSCREW
ISLAND FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL
USE FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER ON A PARCEL OF LAND
ZONED "E", ESTATES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, WEST OF RANDALL BOULEVARD,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES AND CONTAINS
THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT FIRE
STATION - WITH STIPULATION
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2001-81, RE PETITION VAC-00-021, AGNOLI,
BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., AS AGENT FOR THE
PETITIONER, BAY COLONY GATEWAY, REQUESTING THE
VACATION OF A PORTION OF A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
IN TRACT 4 AND 5, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF '~NIGGINS BAY
PHASE I', LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST
Item #17D
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE CASE OF WALDEN OAKS OF
NAPLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL VS. COLLIER
COUNTY AND BIC'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION, CASE NO. 98-
2540-CA AND CASE NO. 98-3t35-CA
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2001-10, RE PETITION PUD-00-16, ROBERT DUANE
OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING RALPH
ABERICA, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A' AGRICULTURE TO
Page 212
March 13, 2001
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
COLLIER BOULEVARD MIXED USE COMMERCE CENTER PUD,
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF 1-75 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2001-11, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY
CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JAME~~Chairpers°n
ATTEST: '~'
DWIG~T~E' BROCK' CLERK
Attest as to Ch41rla~'s
stg~ature only.
minutes approved by the Board on ~z. l~ ~(~0 I
These
as presented
or as corrected
Page 213
March t3, 2001
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY:
Elizabeth Brooks, Heather Casassa, Kaye Gray
Page 214