BCC Minutes 03/27/2001 RMarch 27, 2001
REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2001
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in building "F" of the Government complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Tom Henning
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1
March 27, 2001
INVOCATION - Reverend Susan Diamond, First Christian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 27, 2001 Regular Meeting
March 2, 2001 Transportation Workshop
March 7, 2001 TDC Workshop
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation proclaiming the month of April 2001 as "Conservancy
Volunteer Month". To be accepted by Ms. Kathy Prosser, President and
CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
2)
Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Stormwater Department by
the South Florida Water Management District as the recipient of a
$49,000 funding award. To be accepted by John Boldt, Director of
Stormwater Management.
3)
Proclamation proclaiming April 4, 2001 as "KICK BUTTS DAY" in Collier
County. To be accepted by: Mr. Bob Troesch -"Students Working
Against Tobacco".
4)
Proclamation proclaiming March 30, 2001 as "Cleveland Clinic Florida
Hospital-Naples Grand Opening Day". To be accepted by Mr. Fielding
Epstein, Administrator, Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital-Naples.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
Reuben Marquez, Road and Bridge
Guy Hail, Domestic Animal Services
Bret Popma, Parks and Recreation
2
March 27, 2001
4) Marilyn Griffin, Parks and Recreation
Ten Year Attendees:
1) David Fitts, Wastewater
Fifteen Year Attendees:
2) Steve Ritter, Transportation
3) James Capps, Transportation
PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Robert DeCamp, Program Supervisor,
Parks and Recreation Department, as Employee of the Month for March
2001.
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) Adopt Resolution opposing House Bill 949 and any other Legislation
proposed to rescind the eminent domain authority of Collier County or to
otherwise restrict or limit Collier County jurisdiction over local water and
wastewater utilities.
2) Petition recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No.
AR-444 "Creative Homes III Commercial Excavation" located in Section
16, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, bounded on the north by vacant
lot, on the south by 35th Avenue N.W. right-of-way, on the west by vacant
lot, and on the east by vacant lot.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Review staff's progress report on the negotiations with Waste
Management, Inc, (WMI) and Immokalee Disposal Company (IDC), and
select the Board's preferred options, and then authorize staff to complete
3
March 27, 2001
Ow
E.
F.
G.
the negotiations with WMI and IDC.
2)
Update to the Board of County Commissioners on the capacity issues with
the North County Water Reclamation facility.
PUBLIC SERVICES
SUPPORT SERVICES
EMERGENCY SERVICES
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM 3114/01 BCC MEETING. Review of the
written and oral report of the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT - THESE ITEMS TO BE HEARD AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE REGULAR AGENDA
Aw
Report on status of settlement negotiations in Collier County v. Marshall, Case
No. 99-2009-CA-TB, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court (prescriptive
easement claim for Miller Boulevard Extension) and request for Board direction.
Request for Board direction regarding Section 163.3215, FLA. Stat., verified
complaint from Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association, Inc., Vanderbilt
Club Condominium Association, Inc., The Mansions Condominium Association,
Inc., Gulf Cove Condominium Association, Inc., and Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Association, Inc., challenging the County's approval of SDP-2000-108 for the
Vanderbilt Beachcomber Resort as inconsistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation, pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95-632, that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the office of the County Attorney and
the Risk Management Department to retain outside counsel to represent an
individual County employee sued in Ricketts v. Collier County, Case No. 2:01-
CV-76-FTM-29DNF, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
and waive the purchasing policy to the extent it applies to the selection of outside
counsel.
Closed attorney-client session pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., to
discuss settlement negotiations and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures
in Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District, a division of
Collier County, a local county government, Case No. 99-534-CIV-FTM-29DNF,
4
March 27, 2001
pending in the U.S. District Court, Middle District, Fort Myers Division.
THIS IS COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 9,D TO BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY
AFTER ITEM 9.D. Request for Board direction regarding settlement negotiations
and litigation expenditures in the case of Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of Capri Fire
and Rescue District, a division of Collier County, Case No. 99-534-CIV-FTM-
29DNF, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
Closed attorney-client session pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., to
discuss settlement negotiations and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures
in Maxie D. Holmes v. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, Case No. 2:00-CV-262-FTM-24D, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Middle District, Fort Myers Division.
THIS IS COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 9.F TO BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY
10.
11.
AFTER ITEM 9.F. Request for Board direction regarding settlement negotiations
and litigation expenditures in the case of Maxie D. Holmes v. Collier County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No. 2:00-CV-262-FTM-24D,
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Health Facilities Authority.
Discussion regarding shellfish farming in Everglades City. Commissioner
Coletta.
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1)
THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 1:00 P.M. Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency Board approve a resolution adopting
bylaws for the CRA and the local redevelopment advisory boards; appoint
the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency as the local
redevelopment advisory board for Immokalee; direct staff to advertise
positions for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Advisory Board to be
appointed by the CRA at a future meeting; and to elect a new Vice-
Chairperson.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
5
March 27, 2001
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
C. OTHER
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Execute satisfaction of lien established upon recording of an order
reducing fine/lien in Collier County v. Homer Betancourt.
2)
Request that the Board approve a resolution providing for the
establishment of an Advisory Committee to provide input and assist staff
with the restudy of The Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
3)
Petition CARNY-2001-AR-441, Peggy Ruby, Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department, requesting permit to conduct a carnival (Country
Jamboree) from April 6 through 7, 2001, on County-owned property at the
Vineyards Community Park site located on Arbor Boulevard.
6
March 27, 2001
aB
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1o)
11)
12)
13)
14)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Cedar Hammock Unit
Three" and approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve an additional
Senior Planner position in the Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning
Services Department, and the accompanying amendment to the adopted
FY 01 County Budget.
Execute Satisfaction of Lien arising out of order imposing fine/lien in Code
Enforcement Board case entitled Collier County v. William E. and Beverly
M. Murphy.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Naples Elks Lodge
#2010".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Tre Tierra" and approval
of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes Phase
I-A" and approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Glen Eagle cart barn.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Briarwood Unit Seven".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Briarwood Unit Nine"
and approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Briarwood Unit Ten" and
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the performance security.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 137 2001 MEETING.
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.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve funding of four new vehicles within the Transportation Services
Division and approve budget amendments to transfer funds for the new
vehicles.
7
March 27, 2001
2)
3)
Accept access and maintenance easements from the Fountains
Condominiums that will facilitate the County in maintaining an existing
drainage easement north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road.
Approve committee ranking of firms for contract negotiations for
Professional Engineering Services for Vanderbilt Beach Road. Collier
County Project No. 63051, CIE No. 24.
4)
Approve a policy allowing County employees to purchase monthly bus
passes through payroll deduction and that the County provide a 50%
match as an employee benefit.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve Work Order PUED-MS-29 to Mitchell & Stark Construction
Company, Inc. for Royal Palm Irrigation Pump Station Improvements,
Contract 00-3087, Project 73916.
2)
Approve re-appropriation budget amendments for the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant chemical feed piping replacement,
Project 70890.
3)
Accept a utility easement from Imperial Golf Club, Inc. that will facilitate
the County in upgrading and improving an existing reclaimed water main,
Project 74015.
4)
Approve budget amendment to recognize transfer of monies from Fund
001 - Parks and Recreation to Fund 195.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Award of Bid 00-3198 to Leo's Sod to renovate the ball fields at Golden
Gate Community Park.
2)
Authorize the Collier County Public Library to submit an application for a
Library Services and Technology Act Grant, and authorize the Chairman
of the BCC to sign certification for the grant.
3)
Approve a purchase agreement to allow for a walkway, bike path and
green space to be constructed for recreational purposes.
4)
Approve one easement agreement to allow for a walkway, bike path and
green space to be constructed for recreational purposes.
8
March 27, 2001
Ew
Fw
s)
6)
Approve a Limited Use License Agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
approving use of specified County-owned property for conducting a July
4th Fireworks Festival.
Authorization to combine two part-time positions to one permanent full-
time position.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Request to recognize additional revenue in Cost Center 100130 and
approve a budget amendment to transfer funds to Operating Expenses.
2)
Contract Amendment No. Two for RFP 97-2675, "Pre-Employment
Physicals and Drug Testing".
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approval to enter an agreement with the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for the development of a terrorism annex to the
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and conduct an exercise
to validate the annex.
2)
Approval of the amended collective bargaining agreement between the
Board of County Commissioners and the International Association of Fire
Fighters, Local 3670.
3)
Agreement approval and adoption of resolution authorizing the
acceptance of said agreement between the State of Florida, Department
of Community Affairs and Collier County for funds to be used for shelter
enhancement at Gulf Coast High School.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-205;
#01-213; #01-226; #01-229.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
9
March 27, 2001
17.
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Approve payment of medical costs associated with Kevin Saunders from
General Fund Reserves.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the settlement providing payment by the Defendants to Collier
County in a special assessment lien foreclosure action entitled Collier
County v. Christina Davenport, et al., Case No.: 96-2319-CA.
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.
An Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-03, the Collier
County Coastal Advisory Committee; amending Section Three, appointment and
composition, terms of office, attendance and filing of vacancies; providing for
conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances;
and providing for an effective date.
B. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUD-
2000-19, George L. Varnadoe, ESQ., of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and
Anderson, P.A., representing Antaramian Capital Partners, LLC, requesting a
rezone from "C-4" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Sandpiper Village PUD, for a maximum of 180 multi-family dwelling units and a
maximum of 45,000 commercial and general office uses, and recreational
amenities, for property located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41)
in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 14.99+/- acres.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. V-2000-
34, Don Kirby and Susan Young Kirby, of Construction Courier Services,
representing Handy Food Stores Incorporated, requesting a variance of 20 feet
10
March 27, 2001
from the required 50 foot front yard setback requirement for a gas station canopy
and fuel pumps to 30 feet for property located at 2902 Lake Trafford Road,
Immokalee.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
V-2000-36, Craig R. Stephens of Stephens Design Group representing Adco
Group requesting a 35 foot variance from the 50 foot rear yard requirement when
abutting a residential property, to 15 feet for a property located on Railhead
Boulevard and is further described as Lot 35, Railhead Industrial Park, Collier
County, Florida.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX BY
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
PUD-99-21, Mr. William Hoover of Hoover Planning, representing Lloyd G.
Sheehan, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural and "GC" Golf
Course to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Castlewood at
Imperial PUD allowing for 34 residential dwelling units for property located on the
north side of Imperial Golf Course Boulevard and approximately one-quarter mile
east of Tamiami Trail (US-41), in Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.16 acres more or less.
F. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Pud-98-
14(1), George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson,
P.A., representing Granada Shoppes Associates, Ltd., requesting a rezone from
"PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development having the effect of amending the
PUD document and PUD master plan to add a hotel as an authorized use and to
reduce authorized retail and office space in lieu of said 175-room hotel, for
property located on the southeast corner of U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road (S.R.
846) in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 39.23 +/- acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
11
March 27, 2001
March 27, 200t
Item #3
CONSENT, SUMMARY, AND REGULAR AGENDA-
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. We'll try that again.
Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting, Tuesday, March 27th.
If you all will loin me in the invocation led by Susan
Diamond, First Christian Church, followed by the pledge of
allegiance.
REVEREND DIAMOND: Let us pray. Loving and eternal God,
this day we begin by acknowledging the gifts of your creation
which we enjoy. The wonder of the land with its rich systems of
plant and animal life; for the splendor of the sea producing a
source of re-creation in body and spirit; for community where
people of different race, gender, age and perspective live and
work and play.
Oh, God, we begin this day with thanksgiving for all of the
possibilities that lay before us. You have placed each of us as
stewards of the gifts you have given. May we care for that which
you have placed in our trust.
And, oh, God, we especially today would pray for these, the
leaders of our County, whom have been entrusted with a
tremendous stewardship. They are to make important decisions
that will impact our community in significant ways for years to
come. Please give each of them a special portion of wisdom and
guidance that the decisions made today might reflect your will.
That the stewardship of the land and sea, for the care of the
people of this community, that together we might work for a
place that reflects your justice
and your mercy and your peace. Be with us this day, great God,
and bless us all with your spirit. Amen.
(Pledge of allegiance said in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody said, "Why are you so happy
this morning?"
I said, "We're going to get a good news report on the north
sewage treatment plant this morning." So that brings joy to this
commission.
Page 2
March 27, 2001
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF'- Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board members.
We have a brief number of changes to your agenda that I will
walk you through this morning.
The first is an addition to your consent agenda. It is Item
16(A)(15). It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the release of a lien for public nuisance.
It's Resolution 98-308. That is just a straightforward
satisfaction of lien item in the code enforcement section.
Moving Item 16(B)(3) from your consent agenda making that
8(B)(1). And that's approving some committee rankings for
professional engineering services for Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And I have asked Mr. Feder to go ahead and make a presentation
on that item for you this morning.
The next item is a continuance. It's continuing indefinitely.
Item 16(D), as in David, (4). And that is approving an easement
agreement for walkways, bike paths and green space. And that's
at the staff's request.
I need to make a note that under Item 8(A)(2) on your
agenda, which is the update on the wastewater, facility -- and I
need to go ahead and make this as an agenda change. That we
are going to include as part of that item two specific action
items in particular. One is a resolution which will authorize the
interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for the
interconnection. And the second item is a request that the
Board approve an agreement that will provide a hold harmless
and indemnification for the World Tennis Club, Incorporated,
which allows us to actually make that interconnection over the
canal along Airport Road.
Mr. Chairman, I think that's all the changes I have. But I
believe there were some changes -- some items coming off of the
consent agenda that weren't on our list. And maybe as we go
through, I'll just want to make sure that I've highlighted that.
And I think that Commissioner Henning was going to ask for a
couple of items and I just wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As we poll the Board this morning,
we'll find out where those are. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As
noted under the County Attorney agenda items, Item 9(B), which
Page 3
March 27, 2001
is the discussion of complaint from Vanderbilt Shores
Condominium Association and the Beachcomber is to be heard at
11:30.
And, again~ as this Board is aware and the public has been
noticed, there will be a closed session pursuant to the Sunshine
Law of the County Attorney agenda Items 9(D) and 9(F).
Subsequent to each closed session, the Board will come back
out into open session and take any formal action that it may
desire at that time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No change.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have none.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a request. I don't want to
pull Item 17(B) from the agenda -- from the summary agenda if
this is possible, but I would like to offer the Board and the public,
frankly, the opportunity to have just a very brief, five minute,
maybe, presentation on this. This is the Antaramian project.
The redevelopment.
Just because there has been so much public information
and some public misinformation about what is happening in the
redevelopment district, if the Board would indulge me to just
allow Mr. Varnadoe for five minutes or so for a presentation just
on the status of that. Wherever that would be appropriate to put
under -- on the agenda, I'd appreciate that.
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, we could probably go ahead and do
that right now and then you could approve your consent agenda,
agenda and summary agenda following Mr. Varnadoe's brief
presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be excellent, as far
as I'm concerned if he's here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, if I would first get the other
agenda changes.
Well, you want to do that first, Tom, and then we can
approve the agenda and get the change -- we have got to get
changes from Commissioner Henning.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll get the rest of the changes and then we
Page 4
March 27, 2001
Call --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. But one other thing is
-- it has just come to my attention, Mr. Weigel. I don't think we
have done this very thoroughly. On things that are on the
summary agenda that require ex parte disclosure, I have had
discussions with the petitioner and with a great number of
members of the public on Item 17(B). And I've also had
communication with members -- with the applicant on 17(F).
MR. WEIGEL: That's wonderful, Ms. Mac'Kie. In fact, you're
gilding the lily here. And there's no problem with that
whatsoever.
I have discussed this at various times with my staff because
these are items that otherwise if they move to the regular
hearing agenda would have a discussion by the Board members
and the disclosures, which you always make. By virtue of the
fact that there is no hearing with no speakers, it's not required
that you do so, but to do so is just fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Just worried me.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, then that says to me in that
eloquent legalese that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't have to do what I just
did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. You don't have to do what you
just did, but if you really want to be safe you do. So I have no
problem disclosing on one that involves -- I don't know what the
item is now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Granada Shoppes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Granada Shoppes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's (F}. 17(F}.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 17(F). I have met with the petitioner
on that -- on that item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have met with the petitioner on
the Antaramian.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. That's 17(D).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. I believe that's the
only one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disclosure, I have met with the
Page 5
March 27, 2001
petitioner on 17(F). And on the consent agenda, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to pull 16(A)(11) through 16(A)(13). Those are final
plats for the Briarwood community.
I think, as you all know, that I have been working with the
residents in that community to resolve some of the issues. And
there is a couple here that would like to tell the Board as a whole
of what some of the problems are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely. That would go where?
MR. OLLIFF: What would become Item -- 16(A)(11)would
become 8(A)(3). 16(A)(12) would become 8(A)(4). And 16(A)(13)
would become 8(A)(5).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am so sorry, Commissioner. I
forgot to mention this -- just as sort of a heads up for the Board,
it had occurred to me to add a resolution today urging the
legislature not to raid the P-2000 fund. But since our Chairman is
on his way to Tallahassee tomorrow and would be able to do
more research for us on that, we could -- we could -- I don't think
it is necessary to do it this week. But heads up on that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will give you a report as soon as I get
back on legislative day. I will be there. I understand that
Counsel Weigel will be there. And we are going to see what we
can find out what's going on that issue, Commissioner, and give
you a report when we get back.
And I agree with you. I'd hate to see it raided, but
legislatures do some funny things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we can hear from Mr.
Varnadoe. I really appreciate this indulgence from the Board
members because this is such an important project and the
redevelopment needs some publicity about what's really
happening out there. So I appreciate this few minutes.
MR. VARNADOE: Good morning. For the record, George
Varnadoe. And I also want to thank you for the opportunity to
talk to you about this neat little redevelopment project.
This property is located at the corner of U.S. 41 and
Sandpiper Drive on east U.S. 41. 41 being to the north and
Sandpiper to the west. This is the fairly ancient strip center
that's now been cleared. It's zoned C-4, 13 acres in the County,
two acres are in the City zoned R-3-12 allowing multifamily for 12
units per acre.
The dividing line is right where you see this notch. If you
Page 6
March 27, 2001
extend that line straight north, everything to the west is in the
City. Everything to the east is in the County. The County, as I
said, is zoned C-4, which allows fairly intensive commercial uses
and up to 100 feet in height.
It's 15 acres, as I said. The proposal is in response to your
recently adopted Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment
area, which allows some mixed use. That is, some residential
along with commercial in this redevelopment area. We are
proposing 180 residential units and 45,000 square feet of
commercial. We're trying to provide these uses in a mixed use
project with a very pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
If you will allow me, I will just start on the west side and
proceed to the east. On the west side we have a linear park
along Sandpiper with pedestrian access a minimum of 40 feet. In
most areas it is over 60 feet in width, which will be heavily
landscaped with a very, very Iow berm, three feet or so,
separating the private residential area from the public area.
Residential only along Sandpiper. Two units -- excuse me,
two levels of units, two-story, if you would, in this area with
private garages. Two-story with parking in this area. A
recreation facility is going to be at the apex in the north corner.
That will allow us to have a building with some architectural
features that you wouldn't normally see in either residential or
commercial building.
Proceeding to the east, these buildings in here are
residential only. And you will notice the vast green space here
that we are trying to build in as opposed to having a little yard --
a little green space. Everybody's postage stamped yard with this
traditional neighborhood development, you proved your green
space so it is more usable and more open, if you would. You will
also notice pedestrian access is all throughout the project.
Our access points are on Sandpiper. A full access
intersection, right in and right out, on U.S. 41 and a full
intersection on Frederick Street. Proceeding further east, if you
would, we come to what I call the feature or the concept of a
conditional neighborhood, a town square. Parking on all streets.
This unusual looking feature here is actually a pedestrian
walkway. It goes through the commercial buildings in kind of an
arcade-like feature so that you can -- you have that access
parking behind the buildings in all locations. You can see that
Page 7
March 27, 2001
we are trying to allow pedestrians -- I mean, pedestrian and
vehicular access from Sandpiper, but not make it easy to use
this as a cut-through to U.S. 41. That is certainly what we don't
-- that's not the intent.
This building here will probably be all commercial along the
U.S. 41 frontage and then blend into a mixed use along the east
side with commercial and office on the ground floor, residences
above. These buildings in this location and in this location will
all be mixed use buildings. Again, with commercial or office on
the first floor, residential above. The mixed use buildings are
limited by your growth management plan to four stories. The
residential only are limited to three stories, such as these back
in these locations.
As I told you, along Sandpiper we are holding it to two-story
to be more -- to be compatible with the neighborhood. We have
had great support from the Royal Harbor and Oyster Bay people.
They have been very supportive.
I won't take a lot more time. I did want to show you a
couple of elevations which I think are meaningful. This would be
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: George, if you will put it over --
MR. VARNADOE: I will in just a minute. This will be -- and
I'll put it in front of this. This will be this building here being
viewed looking to the west.
And you can see the shops and offices will be along the
ground floor and then you'll have your residential above it. And
you can actually see the arcade that I was talking about -- the
pass-through in this location here. So you're actually going to
have parking behind the buildings and have a covered walkway
into the town square concept.
I'm not going to go on much longer, but -- because I told Pam
I would not. But she was asking what we would look like from
U.S. 41. And this would be looking from U.S. 41 to the southeast
with your commercial only building in the front and then your
mixed use buildings behind.
So we think it's very exciting. We think it's going to really
jump-start that area. As you know, the site has been cleared. As
soon as you approve this, Jack will be underway with trying to
get his documents in order to start construction. We are looking
forward to the starting.
Page 8
March 27, 2001
I think one last point should be made. That is, I read in the
paper someone was asking about what it was going to do about
the traffic and those kinds of issues. This mixed use concept
will have about 35 percent less trips than if it was built out at
120,000 square feet, which on 15 acres is not a very high
intensity commercial project.
So your traffic will actually be less. We'll be providing
services for the neighborhood. We'll have a mixed use concept
with residential and commercial. We're looking forward to it and
thank you for the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one of the prettiest pictures,
frankly, that he didn't show you is that -- is the elevation of the
linear park that is just a wonderful amenity to the Oyster Bay and
Royal Harbor area.
Well, look at him. He has got it right there. It is really going
to be a wonderful project. It is the beginning of-- Donna, you
know, we're kicking off the revitalization of East Naples. I'm
really excited about it.
I appreciate your indulgence on this. And I will move
approval of the consent, summary and regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I will ask -- prior to that, do we
have any public comment on consent or summary agenda?
Seeing none, I accept the motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a first and a second. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. I think it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we do in other projects what they're
doing there, we have met the objectives of community character.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think this is the first time that
Jack Antaramian has ever built a village project, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the first that I know of. It's
going to be great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Great.
Let us move then to -
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 27, 2001
ADD: ITEM 16(A)15 - Recommendation that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners approve the Release of Purported Lien for Public Nuisance
- Resolution 98-308. (Staff request)
MOVE ITEM 16(B)3 TO 8(B)1: Approve committee ranking of firms for
contract negotiations for Professional Engineering Services for Vanderbilt
Beach Road. Collier County Project No. 63051, CIE No. 24. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE INDEFINITELY: ITEM 16(D)4: Approve one easement
agreement to allow for a walkway, bike path and green space to be
constructed for recreational purposes. (Staff request.)
March 27, 2001
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001;
TRANPORTATION WORKSHOP OF MARCH 2, 2001; AND TDC
WORKSHOP OF MARCH 7, 2001 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move approval of the minutes
of February 27, 2001, March 2nd and March 7th, 2001.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.}
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2001 AS
"CONSERVANCY VOLUNTEER MONTH" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, we move to proclamations and
service awards. First proclamation is by Jim Coletta. And it's
The Conservancy Volunteer month. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Doctor Carter.
May I call up Ms. Kathy Prosser and the volunteers from The
Conservancy, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you've got on a turquoise shirt,
you belong up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, this is beautiful.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we'll let you up here, too,
Michael. We know you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. The marching of the green.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mike, you're doing a great job in
leading this group. I'll tell you. Just follow Mike here. You've
got a great leader.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the most impressive
constituencies
of volunteers that we have in this County. These guys do a lot of
really important work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a wonderful thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Turn around and face TV land, folks.
Page 10
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
the floor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
photo opt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
here. This is wonderful.
I'll read the proclamation from
Get yourself organized for a
We have got the whole gang
WHEREAS, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is the
region's
leading non-profit environmental organization; and,
WHEREAS, The Conservancy has helped protect nearly
800,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land since 1964,
including Fakahatchee Strand, Belle Meade, South Golden Gate
Estates, Rookery Bay and Big Cypress Preserve; and,
WHEREAS, The Conservancy actively assists the State and
Federal land acquisitions, restoration programs in the greater
Everglades ecosystem, and more than 500 -- 5,500 members
support The Conservancy of Southwest Florida; and more than
700 volunteers generously donate their time and experience to
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida; and,
WHEREAS, The Conservancy helps shape environmental
policies in South Florida by participating and monitoring more
than 120 Southwest Florida environmental issues annually; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to playing a key role in environmental
advocacy and protection, The Conservancy operates in support
of its mission the Naples Nature Center, the Briggs Nature
Center, the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, and the Sea Turtle
Monitoring and Protection Project; and,
WHEREAS, The Conservancy provides environmental
education programs reaching thousands of adults and students
every year; and,
WHEREAS, over 700 volunteers assist in the daily function of
The Conservancy as museum helpers, informational desk
volunteers, store sales personnel, wildlife caregivers, special
events volunteers, dock masters, boat captains, mailers,
volunteer coordinators, office helpers, couriers, carpenters, and
horticultural assistants; and,
WHEREAS, local business professionals, including
veterinarians, medical staff and business leaders also donate
their time and services; and,
WHEREAS, in financial year 1999 volunteers donated more
Page 11
March 27, 2001
than 50,000 hours to The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida that this month of
April 2000 be designated as Conservancy Volunteer Month.
And I congratulate you all.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I had a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you again, Conservancy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Madam President.
MS. PROSSER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission. I just want to say thank you on behalf of The
Conservancy and its wonderful volunteer corps. We are very
proud to receive this proclamation and we are honored by it.
If I may just say to our volunteers, thank you. We at The
Conservancy are so proud of the work that you do for us and we
just could not fulfill our mission without you. So thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
STORMWATER DEPARTMENT BY THE SFWMD AS A RECIPIENT
OF A $49,000 FUNDING AWARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Second proclamation this
morning is being read by Commissioner Fiala in regards to South
Florida Water Management District as a recipient of a $49,000
funding award to be accepted by John Boldt, director of
stormwater management.
Good morning, John.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Good morning, John.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning.
Page 12
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Clarence Tiers is here, too, and
he's got the check.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Clarence has got the check, boy. You
step right up here, Clarence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We like seeing you, Clarence.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can turn around and face TV land
and show them the big check.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is really an exciting
proclamation.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Stormwater Management
Department had submitted an application for the Big Cypress
Basin Cooperative Water Resources Projects; and,
WHEREAS, the South Florida Water Management District has
evaluated all responses in accordance with the criteria specified
in this solicitation; and,
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of Collier County's
application and written proposal, the South Florida Water
Management District's review committee has selected Collier
County as one of eight projects for funding in fiscal year 2001;
and,
WHEREAS, South Florida Water Management District is
presenting Collier County with a check in the amount of $49,000
for funding of the Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvements
project.
NOW THEREFORE -- good for you, Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed
by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
that the Collier County Stormwater Department is being
recognized by the South Florida Water Management District as
the recipient of a $49,000 funding award.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 27th day of March, 2001.
Congratulations, guys.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved. Thanks, Clarence.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, go build something with it,
Page 13
March 27, 2001
John.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
don't think.
You don't have to tell him that twice I
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING APRIL 4, 2001 AS "KICK BUTTS
DAY" - ADOPTED
All right. Proclamation by Commissioner Mac'Kie on Kick
Butts Day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love that. Kick Butts Day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I am not going to touch that. You go
for it, girl.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bob Troesch, if you would come
down and bring your butt kickers with you. You guys just line up
right here, if you would, so we can read this proclamation.
WHEREAS, teen smoking -- unbelievably -- is on the rise
nationally and has been reduced in the State of Florida due to the
Truth campaign; and,
WHEREAS, more than 4 million kids age 12 to 17 are current
smokers and 3,000 young people become regular smokers each
day; and,
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control predicts that
more than 5 million young people under the age of 18 alive today
will die prematurely from smoking-related diseases, unless
current rates are reversed; and,
WHEREAS, smoking-related illnesses already kill more than
400,000 Americans each year, representing more deaths than
from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs and
fires combined; and,
WHEREAS, many of these deaths could be prevented; and,
WHEREAS, the youth of Collier County will no longer tolerate
the tobacco industry's efforts to manipulate them into buying
lethal and addictive products through insidious advertising
campaigns; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Collier County Commissioners wish
to stand up with the youth of this County, our students working
against tobacco, in opposition to the advertising and marketing
of tobacco products to children.
Page 14
March 27, 2001
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 4th, 2001 be
designated as Kick Butts Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 27th day of March, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Carter,
Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got Kick Butt pins. I love it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're on board to Tallahassee. I can
use that. Thank you so much.
MR. TROESCH: If I can just add briefly to what was said.
Can you all hear me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. TROESCH: Okay. This program has been going for
three years now. And in the recorded time, which is only two
years, we have seen a reduction in the use of tobacco among
middle school students in the State of Florida by 40 percent and
18 percent reduction by high school students.
The reason it has been effective is because of the people
who are standing directly in front of you right now. The young
people are doing it. This is their program. And I'm done talking.
Morgan.
MS. SHAW: Good morning. I'm Morgan Shaw and I'm a
senior at Naples High School. I'm the Collier County
representative on the Board of Directors for the State of Florida.
SWAT is Governor Chile's brain child. We are his babies. We
are his children. He created us in order to save us. He created
SWAT in order to save the youth of not only Florida, but the youth
of the nation.
He gave us total control. He gave us all the money and all
the power. And today I stand here as part of the largest and the
most powerful youth-led organization in the world. We are only
so successful because of people like you who have let us be so
successful.
Without people like you, we will not be able to continue our
Page 15
March 27, 2001
SO productive and incredibly difficult fight against one of the
most powerful industries in the world. The tobacco industry has
more money and more power than any industry ever known to
man. And that includes Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and all of those
other tyrants. We just want to thank you so much for recognizing
us today. We cannot tell you how much we appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't even tell you how much
we appreciate what you're doing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're doing a wonderful job.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's the only industry that I know that
we subsidize, tax and then sue. Go ahead.
MS. CASHIA: I'm Danielle Cashia from East Naples Middle
School.
MS. CRUZ: My name is Diana Cruz and I am from East
Naples Middle School.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. You guys are doing a
great job.
MR. TROESCH: And very quickly, these are two of the 15
SWAT units in Collier County. We have every high school, four
middle schools, three alternative programs, and one juvenile
justice facility with SWAT teams now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We only wish we could be
anywhere close to as productive as they are in accomplishing
their goals.
MR. TROESCH: Youth power is wonderful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're very fortunate that we've
got Bob Troesch working with us on this. Early on I worked with
Bob on this particular project.
Bob, you've done a marvelous job of organizing it and
bringing out the hidden talents from these young people.
(Applause.)
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MARCH 30, 2001 AS
"CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA HOSPITAL-NAPLES GRAND
OPENING DAY" - ADOPTED
Page16
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, we are
celebrating Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital-Naples Grand
Opening Day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I believe that Mr. Fielding
Epstein is here to accept this proclamation this morning. Thank
you.
WHEREAS, the Cleveland Clinic of Florida Hospital-Naples,
one of the newest hospitals in Florida, is setting the new
standard in patient care. Our hospital blends state-of-the-art
technology with hotel-like accommodations and, of course,
world-class healthcare to the people in Southwest Florida; and,
WHEREAS, we call the philosophy Healing Hospitality, this
revolutionary approach to care puts into practice our beliefs that
patient's physical comfort and satisfaction facilitate the healing
process; and,
WHEREAS, Cleveland Clinic Florida-Naples incorporates a
progressive approach of healing at a single medical campus and
includes an extensive array of health resources at one site; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to our hospital, Cleveland Clinic
Florida-Naples is part of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, one of
the oldest and most respected healthcare organizations in the
country. Each Cleveland Clinic facility is governed by the
Cleveland Clinic's own strict quality control standards.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be proclaimed that the Board of
Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that
March 30th, 2001 be designated as the Cleveland Clinic Florida
Hospital-Naples Grand Opening Day and that the gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the hospital employees, volunteers,
Collier County residents and the community leaders who value
and support exceptional healthcare services.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 27th day of March, 2001. Signed
by our Chairman, Commissioner James Carter.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Page 17
March 27, 2001
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Mr. Olliff, we have awards.
Commissioners, if you will move down to the floor, we will
congratulate these deserving employees of Collier County as Mr.
Olliff takes us through who has been here and for what period of
time.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to call up your
five-year award recipients this morning. And those this morning
would include Marilyn Griffin from parks and recreation, Reuben
Marquez from road and bridge, and Brett Popma from parks and
recreation.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, this morning we also have a
ten-year award to give out to David Fitts from your wastewater
collections department. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, our big award this morning goes
to James Capps from road and bridge who's been an employee of
Collier County for 15 years. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that concludes our service
awards this morning. Thank you very much.
Item #5C1
ROBERT DECAMP, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR, PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR MARCH 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: At this time it is my pleasure to call to
the dais a gentleman who is receiving the employee of the month
award. And this is Robert DeCamp, who is a program supervisor
of the parks and recreation department.
If you will step forward, Robert. Robert is in charge of the
fitness center over at our park at Santa Barbara in Golden Gate.
He is going to -- look at this guy. He is the one who keeps
everybody
Page 18
March 27, 2001
fit. And he has been so helpful. All kinds of really great
comments from your fellow workers and from our customers who
really appreciate what you do to help us each and every day.
It is my pleasure to present to you the employee of the
month, which can be proudly displayed, which you've richly
deserved and earned, and also a check as a token of our
appreciation for your service to Collier County. So, Robert
DeCamp, we welcome you and we thank you for the excellent job
that you have done. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That moves us to Item 8(A) or
is it 6(A)? Analysis of changes to reserves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
Item #8A1
RESOLUTION 2001-95 OPPOSING HOUSE BILL 949 AND ANY
OTHER LEGISLATION PROPOSED TO RESCIND THE EMINENT
DOMAIN AUTHORITY OF COLIER COUNTY OR TO OTHERWISE
RESTRICT OR LIMIT COLLIER COUNTY JURISDICTION OVER
LOCAL WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES - ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: 8(A)(1).
GHAIRMAN GARTER: Okay. That moves to us 8(A),
community development environmental services.
GOMMI$SIONER MAG'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the
resolution opposing House Bill 949 and the resolution as it
appears in our packet.
GOMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
GHAIRMAN GARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Bleu, for your wonderful presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Bleu.
Item #8A2
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. AR-444 "CREATIVE
HOMES III COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SECTION
Page 19
March 27, 2001
16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY VACANT LOT, ON THE SOUTH BY 35TM AVENUE N.W.
RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST BY VACANT LOT, AND ON THE
EAST BY VACANT LOT - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That moves us to 8(B}, a petition
recommending to approve commercial excavation Permit
Number AR-444, Creative Homes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with community development and environmental
services division.
This -- if you'll remember over the last few meetings, we
have had some discussion about whether or not to permit
excavations in Golden Gate Estates. Towards that end, we have
set up a meeting with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association
for May 16th, Karen Acward (phonetic}.
The excavation ordinance as it exists has been rewritten
and is in typing and will be sent around to staff members and
other entities for their comment. Prior to that meeting, at the
meeting we will get the public comments from the civic
association.
This petition is the one I mentioned last week as being the
last one in the system. Other than -- you'll remember, you're
recycling the McDaniel excavation because you disapproved -- or
you continued it last week. So you will see one more and that
will be the one you saw at the last session.
This petition is Creative Homes. It had been in the system
since before the discussion about whether or not to approve
other excavations in the Estates. It's a 32,000 cubic yard
excavation. The petitioner met with Commissioner Coletta. I
have a list of letters from neighboring homeowners.
And if you'd like a really long presentation, I can give you
one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to defer to Commissioner
Goletta.
How do you feel about this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, on this particular one I feel
fairly secure. But I would like to hear from the petitioner, Mr.
Marlo Valle, from Creative Homes. And if I may point out to you,
he has no one representing him. He is here by himself. So if
Page 20
March 27, 2001
we'd might grant him just a few minutes extra for his
presentation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. VALLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mario
Valle with Creative Homes.
Creative Homes is basically a first-time home building
operation. We've built homes for the first-time home buyers in
the Golden Gate Estates. The reason why we try to secure
five-acre parcels and develop lakes on them is to secure the
septic sand, which becomes extremely costly and extremely rare
at points in time.
What we're trying to do is keep the price of the septic sand
lower for that first-time home buyer. It's very important for me to
express to you that this commercial excavation operation will
not be a for sale to outside entities. We'll use the fill and the
septic sand strictly for homes of ours.
We've built approximately 100 homes a year within the
Golden Gate Estates and the Golden Gate city area. So when we
have to truck loads of fill in, it will only be on a sporadic period of
time. It will not be a daily issue. So the large number of trucks
and the large number of vehicles will be diminished quite
regularly.
Also, we have selected a route. This particular site is on
35th Avenue Northwest, west of Wilson. The route that we have
selected to use is to take 35th Avenue east to Wilson, then head
north to 45th Avenue Northeast, and then travel eastbound on
Shady Hollow Way to Immokalee Road. That provides us turn
lanes both on the way out and coming into that site.
It also affects the least amount of homeowners in that area,
which we have all contacted to have given us verbal okay. They
did not feel comfortable signing anything. The rest of
homeowners gave us written approvals. We received the last
two yesterday afternoon at approximately 5:00.
So all of the homeowners have given us our blessing, as far
as we know, and have expressed it either in writing or verbally.
Those letters, except for the last two that we've received late
afternoon, have been turned in to County staff.
All of the -- we have -- we are in the process of completing
one project that's under production right now. We are also -- we
have also completed two other projects, both of which -- and
Page 21
March 27, 2001
including this last one will all have developable property in front
of it.
As you can see by the schematic that I've brought in, we
have left 255 feet from the right-of-way to the canal bank. We
have placed one of our larger homes in the area there along with
the drainfield and a proposed turn lane so that we can produce a
home on the site.
In addition to that -- and this particular lake we're going to
install large rubble riprap for fish habitats, which we have
introduced in one of the other lakes. But we feel that with the
riprap rock we'll have a better fish habitat for that. So we are
trying to produce something that is both aesthetically pleasing
and will produce a higher better use for the property.
So with that, I will conclude my comments. Thank you very
much for your time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add, Creative Homes
has way exceeded what we were expecting anyone to do out
there. I mean, going to the extreme of mapping out a route that
they would carry out their fill out from and talking to people
along that route to try to dispense any kind of fears from them.
These routes are already traveled by truck traffic as it is.
If you can take a look at the lake they have up there, it's a
masterpiece of design and it will be a credit to anyone's
neighborhood. Their impact is very Iow to their surrounding
neighbors. They have done all of the research that has been
required or ever be required by a new ordinance.
And because of that -- Mario, just for the heck of it, can you
just show us a couple of pictures on the viewer? Indulge me for
just a moment. I want to get the point across what we're looking
for out there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand that we have public
speakers, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We would like to see those. I
think this is great, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just touching on it for a
moment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you pull that out some?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is really good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can see the work that goes
Page 22
March 27, 2001
into their project. And this is not something that they have just
started doing. They have been doing it right along.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And first-time home buyers, isn't
that wonderful?
MR. VALLE: The top photograph is a view of the first lake
that we did on 14th Avenue Northeast off of 47th Avenue. That's
the remaining vegetation that we left on the site. Left
approximately the same number of feet front road frontage.
The bottom portion is a view of the lake on the side that we
have a two and a half acre lake in the back portion of that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could we go to public speakers,
please?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Your only registered speaker outside
of the petitioner is Rebecca Winans.
MS. WINANS: Good morning, Commissioners. I am very
happy to
hear about that. The only thing I had to complain about is what
was supposed to be Randall brought up today. So I took off of
work to be here according to the newspaper.
But I live with a lake on my property. And every day -- this is
pepper pushes from your robins. Every day I go out and i pick
this many off of my lake. And, you know, these ones that are
being dug and not maintained -- if I pick this many every day for a
month, how many is growing out there that is not getting any
attention? So we are going to be overran by exotics.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As if we weren't already. That's
a real good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good point.
MS. WINANS: And another point is on 29th off of DeSoto,
they have already pulled out a car out of that one lake that
they've put in there. So it is going to be a good place. Plus, they
are up to -- they went into the aquifer because their water level
is high compared to mine.
Mine is ground level water only, which I am very Iow on
water. But these new lakes they're putting in, they're going into
20 feet and deeper. So they are going into your aquifer. So when
you get cars dropped into these aquifers, you're going to be
ruining our water system. Because you have got the battery
acid; you've got the
brake fluid; you've got the gasoline; you've got all the oils. And it
Page 23
March 27, 2001
is all going to go into our water supplies. And without fencing
and everything, you're going to lose our water.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, hopefully, we're going to
address all of these in the new ordinance. And this is one of the
reasons why we are bringing this up and we're making some
people very
uncomfortable. I think you see the direction we are trying to go.
MS. WINANS: Yes, I do. And I'm very --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because we are very concerned
about the residents out there.
MS. WINANS: And I am very pleased with it. I just thought
that today was Randall. And I had the letter from the lady beside
of him. And she said that she did not want it, unless the people
was going to put a house there.
Because at the Randall one it was supposed to be a house
right beside a house. And I went to the lady and she wrote a
letter for me to present to you. And she said unless somebody
was living there, she didn't want it put on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff, is there something from
Randall we should be knowing about today?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The only other excavation is the one
that I told you was coming up in another couple weeks. The one
that you turned down two weeks ago for recycling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you make a point to make
sure that this lady is notified when that is going to be coming up
so that she can be here for that?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate you taking off from
work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I would rather--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Make sure we don't confuse the dates.
I mean, I understand how that happens. I think that's what
happened here.
MS. WINANS: Yeah. The Naples Daily News said today was
the day. So I had applied two weeks ago when I seen it to be
here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe some representatives of the
news would like to take note of that and go back and talk to the
newspaper.
MS. WINANS: I know that, but I was trying. I have to give
Page 24
March 27, 200t
two week's notice to get off of work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Coletta --
because we appreciate you taking the time off from work today,
if you wanted to just leave a letter or something as opposed to
taking off another day --
MS. WINANS: Well, I have a letter that I made five copies for
each of you people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we could ask that to be
included with our agenda packet information when that item
comes before us. So you haven't wasted your day off.
MR. OLLIFF: If I could just ask the petitioner to get with
Stan Chrzanowski out in the hallway. We could probably make
sure that that letter gets included in your backup package for
when that item gets included in your packet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that sounds great to me.
Could we entertain a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would make such a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta. We have a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very
much.
MS. WINANS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
Item #8A3, 8A5, & 8A6
FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD UNIT SEVEN, UNIT NINE, AND
UNIT TEN" - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS AND STAFF TO
WORK WITH DEVELOPER AND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN THIRTY DAYS WITH A
REPORT
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That would take to us to 8(A)(3), if I'm
correct in following the schedule.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the Briarwood plat.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Briarwood. Can we take all of those at
Page 25
March 27, 2001
once?
MR. OLLIFF: I would suggest that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like to do that.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
services director.
I believe, Commissioner Henning, you perhaps had some
questions for the applicant. I know that there was some issues.
Just to sort of give the Board some education, there are some
issues that the residents of Briarwood have relative to some
commitments that the developer has made, which are largely
separate and apart from these plats, but, nevertheless, are
concerns that the residents have.
And I know that tomorrow we have a meeting with the
residents and the County Attorney's office with the planning
staff. I believe that's why Commissioner Henning pulled these
items off the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I would hope -- there also
is some things that are not in accordance to the PUD document.
And we might hopefully do some horse trading for whatever is
acceptable. I think that possibly we can make out some
compromises there.
And just some of the things that I would like to -- what I
know of that's broken in in the Briarwood community -- one is the
gate. It is a gated community. That gate has been broken for
months, maybe up to a year now.
The lack of participation from the developer in a noise
abatement wall on Livingston Road. Our transportation
department put up a noise abatement wall. And because of the
preserve areas in that neighborhood, in order to extend that
noise abatement we would have to go into the development. And
the developer is not willing to participate in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we -- I mean, are we
suggesting that these are items that will be appropriate to
require on their plat?
I mean, if there is some -- if there's some berm that should
be in as a part of a noise abatement issue, maybe that should
hold up the approval of their plat until that's done.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I have not had the
opportunity to know all of the specifics issues, nor to research
those issues to find out if they are a violation of the PUD or if
Page 26
March 27, 2001
there was a specific time frame within which those issues would
have to be addressed.
I certainly have no objection to a continuation for two
weeks. We are meeting with them tomorrow. I don't know if
there is a representative for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That seems very logical to me that you
can work through all of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a representative of the
petitioner here though that could probably --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have the --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion would be that you
listen to the petitioner if he's here and then you have got two
registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's go there so we can get it
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The petitioner.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I am not registered. As a
matter fact, I wasn't here on this item, but Mr. Spinelli is a client
of our law firm.
Our position with regard to the plats, as Mr. Mulhere
indicated, is that these items are not directly related to the plat
approvals. We understand that there is a meeting. I called Ms.
Student. She said there's a meeting tomorrow with one or more
of the residents
that I think Commissioner Henning is aware of. I told her that I
would like to meet with her as well after that meeting and talk to
her about whatever issues the residents have concerns about or
the County has concerns about.
You have mechanisms, other than plat approvals, to do what
you need to with regard to developments if someone is not in
compliance with their PUD documents. We would request --
frankly, I don't think
that the plat and these issues are related. From what I
understand, they are not.
If we could go ahead and get the approvals on these, we are
still willing to meet with County representatives and talk about
these items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't want to do anything --
you know, the last thing we need to do is get in trouble with sort
of blackmailing people with their plats.
Page 27
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that isn't what I'm
suggesting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can tell you that there are
some things in the document that directly related to the plat.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then we ought to postpone
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that you can hear
that from some of the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Can we hear the other public
speakers, please?
MR. OLLIFF'. You have two registered speakers. The first is
Richard Knott, followed by JoAnne Irene.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're on deck, we'd appreciate
that.
Good morning.
MR. KNOTT: Good morning. Would you just like me to say
the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: State your name for the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: State your name for the record and the
points that you would like to bring to the commission, sir.
MR. KNOTT: Richard Knott. We have some items here that
we would like to make known that are deficient in the
community and that we've been unable to correct and have had
no cooperation from the developer with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I would ask is if you know if
any of them are related to these plats. That's what's relevant to
me for today. You may well have, you know, a fight that the
County is a party to with your developer, but I want to be sure
that if we delay a plat it's related to a plat to be fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's not addressed by the
public speakers, I will be happy to address that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you would, sir, just read into the
record your points. We'd appreciate it.
MR. KNOTT: We have an inoperative gate at the main
entrance that hasn't worked since last July. We have guards
sitting in a guardhouse daily that have nothing to guard because
the gate is open
and traffic simply goes through. We estimate that so far
approximately $80,000 has been wasted because the guard
Page 28
March 27, 2001
service was not suspended.
We have a swimming pool that has had no heat until
December
20th. And since that time it's had heat in it for about 20 days
only. It seems it has heat two days and then it's off totally for an
entire week.
We have a lake around which two condominiums are built --
two separate communities -- and it is stifled with weeds. We
have a main entry that has a yellow line that has not been
painted in so many years that it no longer exists. The yellow
line, that is, in the center. And we feel it's a safety hazard.
Briarwood Boulevard, our main entryway, also has a dip in
the southbound lane which has existed for at least three years
measuring 20 inches in width, approximately five inches in
depth, and takes across the entire southbound lane. We have
construction entrances on Briarwood Boulevard that are not
maintained. And whenever it rains, it spews mud into the
streets. They are not used very regularly at all.
We have a shabby entrance, dirty gutters with haphazard
maintenance and misdirected sprinklers that are spraying rust on
signs, sidewalks and wherever they spray. We have a
management company that is stifled in their ability to perform as
they can do nothing until the developer authorizes it.
We have an annual budget that -- for which each unit owner
contributes $480 per year. And it is solely subsidized by the
community, yet we have no say with any direction that we should
take with, say, for instance, having guards there which everyone
disapproves of.
And we have no sum, yet we pay the entire amount of money
for
the association's existence. And the lion's share of our
contributions every year goes for this guard service that is not
wanted, not necessary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. Next
speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is JoAnne Irene. Ms. Irene is
your last speaker.
MS. IRENE: Good morning. I'm here to discuss the fact of
broken promises and how it has caused the residents in the
community all kinds of concerns. Mostly safety and security. We
Page 29
March 27, 2001
are supposed to have a gated community. As Richard said, it has
been broken for nine months.
In order to maintain security, in my mind's eye, we should
have this gate operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
There are trucks and cars and people moving around the
community all hours of the day and night. We do have guards
that are -- make their presence known from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
in the morning and it is costing us
now approximately $61,000 in our annual budget. They do not
come out and check any cars that are coming in. They have
been caught sleeping. And they have just not done their job.
We have a community that involves many, many children.
And my husband is in charge of the neighborhood watch and in
which case he receives from Sheriff Hunter's office faxes that
are stipulating that there are children who are being accosted by
strangers, so on and so forth. And we're in a gated community.
You would expect that your
children going to the bus stop would be somewhat safe. But that
is a concern, again, simply because of the guards and the gate.
The yellow lines are a terrible hazard because -- if anyone
has come into Briarwood, you know that we have an S-shaped
curve, which is a blind. And if you're driving and there are no
yellow lines, you don't know which side of the road you should be
on or if you're on too much of one side or the other. Another
accident waiting to happen.
We have dangerous dip holes especially on Briarwood
Boulevard. And they have gone unchallenged for two years now
and they just keep getting larger and larger. And then there is
one also on Coldstream Court, but only the people that live in
that area are subject to that one.
We have an unused construction area that has cracked
sidewalks, broken gutters. And we have a lot of people in the
community that walk. These are, again, a hazard. Our swimming
pool hasn't had a heater that has worked properly in so long.
Many of our residents use the pool twice a week to do their
water aerobics. Well, this year we had to give up our water
aerobics half the time because the pool heater wasn't working
and in which case it was red tagged on January 5th because of a
chemical imbalance and debris that was in the pool.
Our clubhouse, which Mr. Spinelli had promised us and
Page 30
March 27, 2001
showed us plans for -- well, our existing clubhouse is a
screened-in building. And he had promised us and showed us
plans in November of 1999 for a new enclosed air-conditioned
clubhouse. And we were all very enthused and excited.
Well, that clubhouse has not come to fruition. And what has
happened is that Mr. Spinelli was so enthused with his plan that
he salaried an activities director in the year 2000, which, again,
went on our annual budget to the tune of $25,000. Well, here we
are in 2001 and we still don't have a clubhouse, but for two years
we have been paying $25,000 to an activities director.
These are just some of our concerns. And we really don't
know how to get Mr. Spinelli to just do what he has promised.
Nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that conclude public speakers,
Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to need to -- I sure
sympathize with the problems that you're having, but it's in my
greater duty to the County in general -- we have to be so careful
that we don't get involved in private civil court matters. Because
we can subject the County to liability for, you know, interference
with contracts and interference of business relationships.
If there is a plat-related issue in those, then I will happily
vote to continue these plat hearings. If there is not, I would just
advise the Board to please tread carefully over getting involved
in private civil court matters.
So please help us, Commissioner Henning. If there is a plat
issue there, I'm ready to support it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great. I am looking
forward to your support.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You'll get it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So here it goes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's hear it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The entryway to Briarwood is
supposed to be a four-lane entryway for so many feet. That's not
the way it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Is that a portion of the plat for
That is in the plat.
Is that related to this plat?
Page 31
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is in the document. And
we are accepting the plat's -- the individual phases of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is: Is that
entryway a portion of any of the plats that we have before us
today?
I'm wanting to help, but we have to know that.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think that entryway is a portion of
any of the plats that are before you. It is, however, an existing
platted entryway that is platted, as Commissioner Henning has
said before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that would be an enforcement
issue, but not relevant to these plats. I'm going to hush.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what I'm saying -- let me
continue, please, and then I can address some of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The width of the sidewalks is
not the width that it is in the document. The road striping is not
there and there are some dips. Those are safety things --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- within the community. And
these plats are going to be using those roads, those sidewalks,
those entryways. And, you know, we spoke about water
retention with the lakes, mud on the streets is -- I mean, you
know, some of those things.
You've heard some of the promises from the residents -- to
the residents in there. Things have not been done. So if we
accept these plats today, are these other things going to be
done?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's the question. That's the
question I have to have answered from legal -- a PUD is a legal
document. If it has, in fact, not been carried through and
followed through as stated in that document, I can support
holding up anything. But --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- if -- well, if it has not met the legal
document, I have to find that out from counsel. Then I think that
weighs heavily on my mind this morning. So I need some
answers.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, may I just add a couple of
comments while the County Attorney is preparing to speak? Two
Page 32
March 27, 2001
things. I don't think the staff has -- has conducted the kind of
research that would be necessary to find out are there truly
violations with the
PUD or not. There very well may be and we want to resolve
those. And that's partly why we are meeting with the members
of the community and the developer.
Second thing is this is a very legitimate issue on the part of
the residents, as you have indicated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. MULHERE: And it's an issue that goes beyond just this
community. Where you have a period of time where residents
who live in the community are paying a fee, but do not have
control over how that money is spent. And that's part of the --
one of the issues that I will bring forward to you during the
development review workshop -- I have some ideas that I think
can resolve that matter. I'll tell you that as an aside. I'm not
prepared to deal with that issue today as part of this discussion.
MR. CUYLER: Just very briefly. We really don't want to get
into a ruckus with Commissioner Henning. We understand that
he is trying to be responsive to the residents in the community.
I haven't heard one item from either of the speakers that has
to do with the plat approval that is on your agenda. And I haven't
heard anything from Commissioner Henning that has to do with
the plat approval that is on your agenda.
If there are things that have been accepted by the County
that the County is now saying is not according to plat
requirements for plats that have already been accepted, we'll be
happy to defend our position in an appropriate forum. But this is
not the appropriate forum for that.
And basically we do have some responses, but trying to
respond to the neighbors at a plat approval hearing, in my
opinion, is just not appropriate. These -- and with all due respect
to the residents -- and, believe me, I have worked where I have
heard residents' concerns and complaints for a number of years.
And with all due respect to the commission, if you're going
to involve those private complaints in these types of approvals,
you're going to have to set two or three more days for your
agenda each week because everybody in the community has got
problems, you know, with their development. We'll be happy to
sit down with the residents and talk to them, but this is not the
Page 33
March 27, 2001
time. And we really don't want to be held hostage for these
issues.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to hear from our own counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I
took note of the various issues that the speakers mentioned
here. And what jumped out at me -- and I think Mr. Cuyler has
responded to it and I will ask him to respond more specifically
for us all -- is that the three items concerning Briarwood today
are approval of Plat Unit 7, 9 and 10. With Units 9 and 10 also is
included the construction security agreement.
And correct me if I am wrong, either counselor or my staff,
but at that point what that indicates is if you're approving the
construction security agreement at that point in time, that is yet
to be done, yet to be created and taken care of, and it's the
responsibility of the developer -- developer/owner. So if
Briarwood Boulevard where there are the dangerous dip holes or
Coldstream Court are not a part of these proposed plat
approvals, Units 7, 9 and 10, it would appear to me that we may
have code enforcement issues. We may have even housing code
violation issues potentially.
And certainly development services staff may need to look
in regard to the maintenance requirement that exists with the
developer for plats already approved over which road, water,
sewer and those facilities which are put in by the developer are
the developer's responsibility. The County doesn't take sign off
on those things until after a year. And they must, of course, be
copacetic. They must meet the County code requirements at
that point in time.
I don't -- if Mr. Cuyler would come back to the record and
indicate that -- and should indicate that the Briarwood Boulevard
dangerous dip hole allegations, as well as Coldstream Court, are
not part of these plats before you today, I don't see -- I don't see
that
I would advise you that these plats would be continued on the
discussion had so far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel -- before you start Mr.
Cuyler -- if the new developers or the new housing owners in
those plats are going to be using those roadways, wouldn't that
be part of the plat?
Page 34
March 27, 2001
Would the sidewalks within the PUD document -- would that
be part of these plats that we're seeing today?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the plats that you have before you today
indeed, of course, have sidewalks, roads, water, sewer, all the
layout that a plat would have, as well as the breaking out into
the lots. But that's yet to be developed at this point in time.
Most compelling in your discussion was, of course, the idea
that to get to the future lots to be broken out, if these plats are
approved, is that you have to go across the already approved
plats that may be non-conforming in various aspects based on
allegations made today. And so the ultimate question is: Does
the Board have the public health, safety, welfare power to not
approve the plats today based upon the requirements that may or
may not have been met concerning the construction on plats
previously approved?
Tough question. I tend to think that the County could bring
to bear all the other resources that I mentioned as opposed to
engaging in the non-approval of these plats today or the
continuation of them, unless there are other factors brought
forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a lot of sticks that we
can beat this developer with. And we should do that. This is just
not one of those sticks.
MR. WEIGEL: If the allegations are true, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. It's -- and I empathize with the
community. Commissioner Henning, I empathize of where you
are trying to go with this. I am deeply disturbed if what has been
presented this morning -- I am not knowledgeable enough to
comment, but if I was in a developer's position -- all I can say is
you have a challenge. You have an opportunity to repair some
bad feelings in that community. And I would challenge you to
take every action and cooperate with our staff to do it.
Yes, we have the sticks to go after him on code
enforcement and everything else, but I don't think you want to be
there if you are a responsible developer and you will come to us
again at some point in time and want something. I would say
this would be a lessen well learned in this process. Please, work
with this community and help them.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, in these kinds of cases there are
usually three separate type issues. There are issues that are
Page 35
March 27, 2001
included in the PUD that are requirements of the developer.
There are plat-related issues and then there are issues that the
County
really has nothing to do with. And whether the pool is heated or
not is probably one of those type of issues.
My suggestion to you would be that -- from this morning, I
would probably agree that we've probably not heard anything
that is plat related. However, you've heard a lot of things that
may be either PUD or previously approved plat related where the
developer had infrastructure obligations to provide.
My suggestion would be that if you're satisfied with the plat
information in front of you that you go ahead and approve that,
but that you direct your staff to go back and work with both the
developer and homeowners' association to bring back a report
within 30 days about -- reviewing those issues that have been
raised, trying to determine which of those are actually PUD
obligations, which of those are infrastructure commitments on
the part of the developer, and provide you with some sort of a
report back that indicates what we are going to do to try and
make sure that those obligations are met on the part of the
developer where the County has an obligation to enforce.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve
what Mr. Olliff has just outlined.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And before we do that, I think
that Mr. Dunnuck has something to say. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. DUNNUCK: I couldn't have said it better than Tom just
said it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I will make that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a second by Commissioner
Henning.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would apply to all three of
those plats.
Page 36
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's certainly a shame though that
these people had to go this far to seek help being that they have
been meeting with the developer and nobody has done anything
to correct these problems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And there's some things
that we can't even do, like Mr. Olliff said. And I think Bob
Mulhere is going to address that.
And I can tell you in this community that we have a lot of
great people that's willing to work with residents. Some of the
things residents are asking are not reasonable, but I see some
reasonable stuff in this community that should be done. And we,
as a Board, approved these communities and we should have
more of an enforcement to make sure things happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree with that. We really do
need more of an enforcement mechanism.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think that we have given staff
direction here this morning and in the upcoming workshop we
are going to get some more insight. And, again, that just gives
us an opportunity to get better at this process and add the
necessary guidelines or hammers, whatever you want to call
them, so that we keep things in a reasonable format.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys have a real advocate in
Commissioner Henning. He's not going to let this go by. He's
going to beat it to death. And we'll stand by and help him do that
every place we can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's correct. We all have
similar situations and we're all looking for help.
Item #8B1
CH2MHILL, WILSONMILLER, INC., AND STANLEY CONSULTANT,
INC. RANKED AS THE TOP THREE FIRMS AND STAFF TO
NEGOTIATE WITH CH2MHILL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051,
CIE NO. 24.- APPROVED
All right. Thank you. Let us move to Item (C)(1), if I am
right. Did I miss anything at all?
Page 37
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have Vanderbilt Beach Road,
don't we?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. I am sorry. We have got
Vanderbilt Beach.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
What we're asking for is the Board's action to approve the
committee ranking for contract negotiations for professional
services for design for Vanderbilt Beach Road, six laning from
Airport over to Logan, and four laning Logan to County Road 951.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wasn't this on consent? Why
was this pulled?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I requested that because I was
concerned that when we have two engineering groups that are
Florida based, one in Tampa, one in Naples, that work statewide,
perform the same services, and they're one point apart -- and we
keep talking about economic diversification. We keep talking
about high wage ]obs. We keep talking about what we want to
do in those areas.
It seemed to me that when it is that close we should be
giving the opportunity to the home-based company that operates
statewide versus giving it to a Tampa-based company that does
the similar things. And, after all, the home-based company is the
one that adopted that road and goes out there and picks up the
beer bottles and trash cans and everything else. So I just felt
that it was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jim, I agree with you. I had it
down on my list to be pulled before you did it. Every dollar we
take into this community circulates seven times before it leaves.
When we send it out, it is gone.
If the difference is tremendous -- and I respect the staff's
direction on this. But if it's a close call, I kind of hope that we
can weigh in favor of our local concerns. We have about five or
six of them that are totally capable within Collier County to be
able to do a ]ob like this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree also. I was going to
pull it, too, and I was glad you did it first, thank heavens.
Because now we are having a problem employing people in the
building industry with what -- some of the crises that we've had
to. Address and we should make sure that the lobs stay here in
Page 38
March 27, 2001
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, again, it is an engineering
company. We're talking about a lot of things that they do and
they do it everywhere in the State. I know that they have offices
in Tallahassee. I just feel very strongly about keeping it at home.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, with all due respect -- I am
sorry, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no.
MR. FEDER: Okay. I would like to point out just a couple of
things. First of all, the ranking that you have here by numerical
and by consensus recommended a firm that is not local, as you
pointed out, based on a thorough review of firms and a ranking
that afforded a local firm a very close number two ranking
because of its local nature. So then to say because it's local
then it should be the first firm is to establish basically a closed
shop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we gave -- did we give points
to the local firm?
MR. FEDER:
MR. OLLIFF:
MR. FEDER:
knowledge of the project. They had worked with someone on an
in-house project on the preliminary work and drainage.
Now, having said that, what I will tell you is the firm in
question, Wilson-Miller, has two of our largest of the five CEI,
construction engineering inspection. They have Golden Gate
Boulevard, as well as Pine Ridge. They have the design on Santa
Barbara which you recently awarded, a rather large one. And it
was recently extended from Davis down to Radio Road.
So it's not like we're not providing the local firms.
Hole-Montes has work here, as does Johnson Engineering and
others. If I go down the list, we have a very aggressive work
program. We are going to be spreading around the work,
obviously, locally. We would love to have that work. We'll
encourage people to open up local shops as long as we make
sure that we are covering all of our people that are here locally
today.
But I do want to point out to you that we go through a
process of ranking. And whoever wins that contract is the one
that we are going to recommend to this Board. We do consider
In effect, the local firm is given --
Yes, ma'am.
-- consideration because of their local situation,
Page 39
March 27, 2001
the local nature.
And I will tell you another issue that we're going to start
trying to consider, but not until after we work with the industry
some, and that is that they split their public and private work.
For firms ready to come in and show that they're ready to split
their shop with their employees and with their staff function,
that's going to be an issue of preference that I'm going to
recommend that we consider in the future.
But for right now, we went through the process as a
has-been. They were very close. A lot of that is because of their
knowledge of the job. But by both numerical and by consensus,
the top firm is the one that we're recommending to you here
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you gave points for local --
for being a home-based company. And despite having given
those points, they still came in second?
MR. FEDER: They were given consideration by two of your
directors, Steve Miller and Ed Kant. By the project manager,
Cordy, as well as by Mitch Reilly. They were given consideration
for their knowledge, background, abilities to handle the job.
Again, the local firms have an advantage going into that
because we know what they can do. We know their
performance. And that is not in any way to minimize the
capabilities of any of the firms, especially Wilson-Miller. They
have done excellent work and they will continue to do for the
remainder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, would it be
inappropriate for me to ask what the difference in dollar amount
was between Wilson-Miller and the outside firm?
MR. FEDER: We don't go through on a dollar. We go through
on what they provide us for a proposal, who they are going to
staff with, the capability of manpower in their job, and how they
are going to come at the project. We then go to negotiate with
the top-ranked firm. If we're unable to successfully negotiate
with the top-ranked firm, then we go to the second and on down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What if you negotiated with both of
them simultaneously; either one is --
MR. FEDER: If it's under the Competitive Negotiation Act,
we must select a top-ranked firm. We must then try to negotiate
with them.
Page 40
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, guys, this is -- in my
experience on the Board, this is one of the most sensitive things
that we do. And we have this blind/double-blind and we're not
going to politic it system here. And I'm afraid to monkey with it,
frankly, you know, unless the staff says we didn't give
consideration to local firms.
You know, we do want to give consideration. We do want to
give the local economy the chance to keep those dollars here.
But I can't tell you how sensitive it is if -- if -- in my opinion, if this
Board starts saying, "We want you to give it to who we think it's
best for the community for you to give it to."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That scares me.
MR. OLLIFF: And I will tell you that we recognize the value
of keeping business local and the advantage in most cases of
using local firms. But you need to recognize as well with the
work program that you have in the transportation side we are
heading into a mode where we're going to be in a position where
we have to look for outside assistance. In our current work
program you don't have a single engineering firm that I'm aware
of from outside of this community.
And in this particular case you had one that came in and
won the job by a competitive process. And the fact that the local
firm was as close as it was was, in part, due to their being local
and receiving extra points for that. Our recommendation is what
it is. But just -- I wanted to jump in just to explain, especially for
the new commissioners, by Florida State statute price is not an
issue in terms of making a determination for professional
services.
It's -- under the statute it's called the Consultant's
Competitive Negotiations Act, but the short term is CCNA. And
we have to hear presentations by professionals and pick the best
professional firm who has the best qualifications and the best
presentation in terms of the particular project at hand and then
we are allowed to negotiate price after that. But the statute also
requires that we pick a top-rated firm and we have to negotiate
with that firm first. And if that negotiation falls apart, then we
have the opportunity to go to the number two selected firm. So
we can't negotiate with more than one firm.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you know, I appreciate that, Mr.
Page 41
March 27, 2001
Olliff, and I understand that. Again, my private sector
background seems to always stick its head up here and say that
we would do it differently and probably end up with better prices
and the same quality of work. But that's not the case.
I do like the suggestion, Mr. Feder, that we break it out by
public and private. And I would like to see that incorporated in
the future so that we know how much they are doing private and
how much
they are doing public. I think that's an added agreement --
ingredient that would be a value to all of this process. And I
think it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand this.
MR. FEDER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, what I was saying was
a little bit differently. What I am going to recommend to you in
the future is that we encourage firms to basically within the firm
-- and there are some firms that do this. To divide out the staff
that they have that are doing government work versus the staff
that they have that is doing private sector work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that --
MR. OLLIFF: A great example is when you have got the
same consultant who is providing an overlay master plan, for
example, in an interstate quadrant intersection, it's the same
consultant who's representing two of the private petitions that
are coming before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Conflict.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Conflict, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: We've had very good firms that have managed
to do that very well. But, nonetheless, the division makes it a
little bit easier to deal with those types of issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a -- I need a couple of
yes or no answers to some questions. During the ranking of the
RFQ, was it part of the process that they are a local firm?
MR. FEDER: The emphasis or the knowledge of the firm and
their capability is taken into account by the rankers. I don't
believe that there is a separate set of points. I will defer to one
of the people on the ranking. I am not part of the ranking
process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: So I didn't have to approve.
Page 42
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and one other question
you can probably answer for me, Mr. Reilly. Was it consideration
that this road project that the local firm has designed it for a four
phase or a four lane and now we want to go to a six lane; was
that --
MR. FEDER: That was considered, but I will defer again to
Mr. Reilly who is on the committee. But what I will tell you is the
local firm was involved in the drainage portion when it was an
in-house, the 30 percent design. So we knew that they had some
knowledge. And I will have Mr. Reilly refer to how the firm took
that in -- the selection committee took that into account.
MR. REILLY: The answer to both is yes and yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm going to make a motion
to approve the staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
I would like to add to -- what you suggested, Mr. Feder, that
we do emphasize breaking out the divisions within these
companies for future consideration. MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Then that takes us to public
utilities, (1). And it's 10:30 and that will not be a short
presentation and discussion, so I recommend we take ten and
resume here at 10:40.
(A short recess was held.)
Item #8Cl
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC. (WMI)AND IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL
COMPANY (IDC), - RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACCEPTED AND STAFF TO PREPARE
ORDINANCE REGARDING MANDATORY RECYCLING
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We are back in session. Thank you,
Mr. Mudd, for giving us a break. We wanted to give you our
Page 43
March 27, 2001
undivided attention on the next two subjects.
If you will walk us through each section of this proposal by --
that you have negotiated with Waste Management. And I would
urge -- I know that all of the commissioners have done their
homework and have been briefed. And we really have four or five
decisions to make here.
But if you will take it section by section, I would ask the
commissioners to let when you finish each section, address their
concerns on it. And then we'll just do that until you are at the
end and give us the total number on the tipping fee and explain
all of that so that we don't interrupt or divert you from where you
need to go. And then we'll take public comment and then we'll
entertain a motion to make a decision. If that works for you, sir,
then it will work for us.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the
record, I am Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator.
This negotiation wasn't -- it was a team. It was a team
approach. And I would tell you that the County -- on the County's
side we brought the best there is in the State in Florida and
probably in the nation.
And before I continue, first of all, David Weigel gave us a --
gave us a great lead to one of the finest attorneys in the State of
Florida. And David Dee helped Robert Zachary from our staff,
work together as a team. He is from Landers and Parsons.
David, if you would put your hand up. He is right behind me.
If we get into those technical, legal type issues, David is here.
The other piece to our team is Malcomb Pirnie and Steve
Schwartz is here. You have seen Steve up on the mountain top,
up on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The king of the garbage hill.
MR. MUDD: And it was very interesting as these
negotiations went on to have the team sit there and when a --
when the proposal came one way or the other, they started
talking about how much are you charging. And Malcomb Pirnie
was there with calculators checking figures and notes and
saying, "Please give me your stuff." And coming back saying,
"Oh, not so fast."
And David was doing some great legal work, as far as bids
to the original contract in the '95. And then I have got to say
Page 44
March 27, 2001
about my staff from solid waste, led by George Yilmaz and his
crew, did some
great work finding all of those documents to make sure that
institutional knowledge wasn't lost with relatively a lot of new
faces at the table.
We promised you in January after you said we could go out
and start negotiations that we would come back to you today,
the 27th of March, and tell you where we are with these
negotiations. And I will tell you we're there. And in substance --
there is a couple of things that need to be tweaked around the
edges, but it's probably time, after this, with your
recommendation and approval, to go into contract writing.
I will take every piece of the proposal together. The theme
and objective. The theme in this negotiation was shared
responsibility. If you made the mistake, why should I pay?
Bottom line, what is my shared responsibility?
And we brought it over and over and over again. And one of
the
things that I will say is that Janet Vasey -- and I don't know her.
But she wrote a great editorial line on the 12th of January that
says, "Why should we pay Collier County residents for somebody
else's mistake?"
And I won't read it for sake of time, but people do read the
editorials and I do. And I've even read this in negotiations when
we started and said, "There is where -- there is where we are."
So shared responsibility was the issue.
We're going to talk about five things here today. We're going
to talk about odor control redundancies. We're going to talk
about restorations of cells one and two, reconstruction of cells
one and two, contingency disposal because of our line cell
shortage or -- call it crisis if you'd like, okay, because we ran out
of it or we're running out of it, and what are we going to do for
recycling to start taking off some of that volume that is going
into the landfill.
Odor control redundancies. These are the things that we
negotiated. Discontinue stripping daily soil cover off. Therefore,
at the end of the day the soil cover gets put on. It doesn't get
stripped off the next day. And then you put the garage on top of
that soil cover and then you put it on top. And that's to basically
to keep the fresh garbage smells from leaving the landfill site.
Page 45
March 27, 2001
Add three-phase power to the flare system so it's more
stable than the two-phase power that they have now in case you
have an electrical storm that takes out power. And that happens
frequently during our storm months, wet season. To have that in
there as a more stable source.
The next thing was to add backup generators to that
lower-end flare so that if we lost three-phase power that the
generators would kick on and the flare wouldn't go off. The flare
is burning off methane gas that has -- that has the rotten egg
smell gas that is mixed with it. So we can't afford to have that
blower go out, especially when we're sucking it off the hill and
putting it through that flare. That needs to be running all of the
time and not subject to mechanical failures.
Improve the existing electrical system. Again, construct
new gas collection trenches. Not only -- not only under the
membrane cap that is up there now, the geomembrane, but also
in the open cut so that those trenches and that gas collection
system is installed as they're putting garage on top so that it is
actually sucking off the open face and going to that flare to
reduce any odors that would be
emitted in that particular case. And then continue to conduct
those engineering studies to make further improvements. If we
see an issue, that we get it taken care of before it becomes a
problem for the residents that surround the landfill.
The odor cost. The initial proposal was $5.14 a ton. I want
to make sure that everybody gets the -- you know, when you start
talking tonnages, it doesn't look like a lot. But I want you to
think of a half a million tons going into that landfill in the next
ten years on a yearly basis, okay?
So a dollar is a half of a million dollars, okay? Two dollars is
a million dollars. And if you can kind of work that in your mind as
we go through this thing and you kind of make that process and
go with us, then it makes it a whole lot easier. So you don't get
suckered into the dollar per ton, okay? And I want you to get
there. I want you to know the whole story and get the magnitude
of what we are talking about.
The last order -- offer was $3.86 per ton on the surcharge.
The difference between the initial and the last is $12 million over
the life of the contract. Now, what does this entail?
This entails the daily soil cover that goes on the landfill. It
Page 46
March 27, 2001
covers the volume lost, okay, because when you're putting in a
material that doesn't normally go into a landfill, you're basically
taking away from the life of the landfill as it goes -- as you get to
the end of the landfill life. So we're basically putting an element
with the daily soil cover into the landfill that's going to reduce
the volume -- overall volume that we can put into the landfill for
garbage.
And then it also includes a five-cent cost. And these are on
the last page of your notes. So it breaks it down. Five cents for
additional odor control. But they basically caved in on additional
trenching issues. And we're basically paying five cents on a ton
for that additional electrical stuff there at the blower and flare to
make sure that we have the redundancies.
Our recommendation is that we authorize payments to
Waste Management for the soil on a cost reimbursable basis and
not just give them the flat fee. We want to see every cubic yard
of dirt that goes in there and we want to see the vouchers before
we do those payments. And the reason that we say it's $4 a ton
versus the $3.86, there is a difference between 4.11 and 3.86.
We're hoping that the costs are going to be less than 3.86. But if
they need more, it could be above. I don't want to go back to the
Board and say, "Well, I need another nickel."
So we put it in at the $4. And then as we talk about the
long-term improvements, any dollars that are saved off of that
would go into the reserve for the long-term improvements that
you're going to decide to do in the last meeting in June.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So that really is decision number one
that you have got in front of us now.
MR. MUDD: Now, the $4 increase, it turns into a residential
rate of $5.83 because they -- they basically use about 1.28 tons
per household in Collier County a year. And that's what that fee
would be in their annual rate -- in their annual bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. When this
flare is on -- the new flare that you're proposing to put in place,
will you still keep the old flare there and will they both be
operational?
MR. MUDD: Well, if I bring the -- and that's a question we
have asked. And as we talk about this some more in the process
-- it's one of those things we want to talk about maybe having
that redundant system sitting there.
Page 47
March 27, 2001
But they're going to put two blowers on, instead of one. And
with the electrical power and the different redundancies, I think
-- basically what I'm getting from Malcomb Pirnie and crew is
that should be enough with that one flare. But, yes, I'd like to
have that addition flare to sit on-site and that's one of the things
that we'll talk about, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd -- well, for everybody's
information, let's go back to the original contract of the daily
cover. It was the commission who approved because our staff
recommended C&D cover and that's to increase our recycling.
And we've found out that it is causing problems. That's why
we're going back with the daily cover, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to add to that, you know,
your constituents were here that day telling us, "Don't do it.
Don't do it. Use soil." And it turns out they were right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But there is something in
the old contract that I have some concerns and I hope that it is
in the new contract. What kind of hammer do we have if the
odors are not addressed or mitigated?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's not going to be a new contract. It is
going to be an amendment to the old contract. And that's one of
those things that we will -- I will have to talk David Dees to talk
about what hammers we will put in there to make sure that the
odors are taken care of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we need a bigger
hammer than we have currently. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need to spell out who is
responsible for the odor control system. I think that's some of
the things that we heard in our workshop. That's my only
comment on this item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly noted.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next issue on restoration
of cells one and two. There is basically two options. One is to --
and this is the old Sheriff's pistol range where they had the berm
around and they basically shot into the old dump site. And then
what is underneath that old dump site as it sits there.
I've seen everything from recommendations to let's just
Page 48
March 27, 2001
flatten that and put the cell on top of it. I don't that -- and
George Yilmaz agrees with me. That's not a good thing to do for
future
generations in case there is a problem there. We have PSI right
now doing geotech work out there determining volumes,
determining exactly what ingredients are in that, what
substances are in that to determine what that's going to entail.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's reasonable to assume that a
lot of those bullets were made out of lead and lead is not a really
good thing to leave in the system.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Most of them are made out of lead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So I think it's prudent on the County's part that
we go in there and dig it out, okay, and get it on a proper lining
and get those hazardous materials out of the process and
dispose of them properly. Waste Management came back with a
final offer of $1.70 per ton as a surcharge for financing that
restoration for 15 years. Their interest rate is eight percent. We
can do a lot better than that. We do have money in our reserves
that we can draw in order to do it.
The other option is the County assumes responsibility and
pays real costs for the restoration to have consultants go out
there, engineer it, get it there, contractors. So we basically, as a
staff and our team, recommend that -- that we basically keep it
Countywide. That we do it within staff and our consultants that
we have on a
definite -- delivery of definite quantity. And we handle that
process, instead of going into the $1.70 a ton issue for a 15-year
period of time. And the restoration costs are there.
Their initial proposal to do cells one and two and restoration
was $9 a ton. The last offer we got was $1.70 a ton. It saves us
$68 million over the life of the contract.
And I would say -- if we basically do it, we can probably
bring that in -- and this is my estimate -- under $2 million in order
to do it. Now, we are going to fast pace that when we do that.
Once the lining is down to the southern part of that area, we plan
to go out
there and contract the removal and have it done in less than a
three-year period of time. It's three years. Excuse me.
Three-week period of time.
Page 49
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good, Lord, have mercy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's three weeks.
MR. MUDD: And the reason the three-year thing popped in is
that was what Waste Management wanted to do over a long
period of time in order to take it out. I basically said, "Wait a
minute. The reason we're not mining it right now is because it
stinks to high heaven, okay, and we left it buried."
When we uncover that thing I don't think it's going to not
smell. We need to do it very quickly. So the plan in our mind is
we conceptually look at it. Once the lining is there, we're talking
dozers moving it out of the way. We figure we can get it done in
a three-week period of time. Let me quote it again. Three
weeks. I'm sorry I misspoke.
And at that time we are going to set up our fan system that
has been laying on the ground and we're going to see if it works.
The staff is of the opinion that it probably won't work because it
works on a cyclone manner and it creates a cyclone effect.
Having that on the open face would have garbage bags flying all
over Collier County. And so that's one of the reasons that we left
it on the ground.
And if-- and we've talked to that contractor. If we're going
to be able to get our money back for the fans partially, we are
going to have to put it into operation. What better time than to
put into operation for that three-week period of time where it's
going to smell anyway? And if it does compensate a little -- or
alleviate it a little bit, so be it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I like that idea. Getting back
something that was a poor, poor investment to begin with. And I
applaud you for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two questions, if I may.
One is: What time of the year are you considering doing this?
Because the weather, obviously, has a real impact on how bad it
is going to be for the community.
Is there a way to do it in the dry season or at some time -- I
mean, I know it is going to be bad no matter what. This three
weeks is going to stinky. Is there a way to do it where --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We're going to try to do this when
the tourists are gone, okay, and before the turtles come out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So translate that. What is that;
March?
Page 50
March 27, 2001
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
season?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
and the turtles, okay.
March, April time period.
Okay. That's March.
Is that before the mosquito
Yeah. Before the mosquitoes
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is funny.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like your idea about let's pay for
it ourselves and do it ourselves as opposed to -- because Waste
Management obviously would have to build in a worst case
scenario dollar amount to set the fee today. Is there any way to
give us some reasonable guess?
You said something about an amount you think it might cost.
Could you break that down to a -- so I can compare it to the
1.78?
MR. MUDD: Yes. 1.78 is about -- a little less than a million
dollars a year over 15 years, plus there is an interest rate on it.
So we're talking in the tune of $15 million. And I think we can
bring it in less than $2 million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's easy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for clarification. So what I
understood you to say is as soon as we receive the cell lining,
then in three weeks time we're going to dig out those two cells,
line them, put the stuff back and cover them. Everything in three
weeks time?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And take out the hazardous.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hold on.
MR. MUDD: What we're going to do is that we're going to
take -- we're going to have a lining that's there already. We're
going to take that -- because I have got to have that capacity.
We're going to take the stuff out of that particular area that is
the north end and we're going to put it on that new liner.
Once that's there, we're down to virgin turf, then we're going
to go in and line that area. The new lining on that area is going
to take longer than three weeks, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What he's -- I believe what you're
telling us is that you're taking it off, you're putting it in another
area, and then it will be covered so that you get rid of the stench
and then you'll be able to reline the old cell.
MR. MUDD: The area that it came from, that's right. But
Page 51
March 27, 2001
and
there is an area next to it -- you know where that pond is, that
leachate collection pond, that is the area I'm talking about
having a lining on already. So it is just basically moving it from
north just to south with dozers, get it out of the way so that you
are not putting it into a dump truck, hauling it out, and having
dump trucks running all over the County with a certain smell
being emitted from the back end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to take that back and
put it back into --
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. Once it's on the liner, we're going to
cover it, okay? Now, if there's any hazardous waste, then we're
going to have to be able to sieve through and pull the lead out in
order to get that. And then those particular pieces we'll haul out
to a hazardous waste site. And there's one in Georgia or
whatever that we take it to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that going to happen in three
weeks; even the removal of the hazardous?
MR. MUDD: We're going to try, ma'am. We're going to try,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with the remediation of
these old cells one and two. It is good for the environment. It is
good for the community. The reconstructions, I lost on that
when that came up the first time. So that is my input on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reconstruction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is basically expansion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So where they put the lining now, is
that, like, going to be a new cell? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They are going to store this stuff on
then they'll use one and two as another cell as the old cells
MR. MUDD: We'll put a lining on that one. It will all be one
lined area, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It will all be one lined area. That gives
you capacity to use in the next few years as you're going to your
long-term solution.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Mudd, keep them moving.
Page 52
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Keep them moving, right. That was
decision number two.
MR. MUDD: The reconstruction of cells one and two. Waste
Management came to the table and basically said that the
County is required to pay all costs of construction and closing
new cells. My ]aw dropped and then things got a little tough.
When it was finally done, about three weeks into the
negotiations, after we did some intense research on past bids
and other correspondence, Waste Management came to the table
and said, "It's no longer -- it's no longer a negotiated item. It's
our responsibility."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is the place where I
think your staff really needs our commendation because, you
know, since -- since all the players have changed, both on the
Waste Management side and on our staff side, you know, this
fact could have gotten lost in the institutional memory. And
George and his guys dug and found the proof there that we
needed. And then Waste Management was able corporately to
say, "Oh, okay. That promise was made, then we'll keep it."
And, you know, we respect them for doing that and really
thank staff for being able to prove our case there. That was a
big number.
MR. MUDD: It was $45 million, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Note that $45 million savings. Could
you continue, Mr. Mudd. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Restoration and reconstruction authorized the
County to perform restoration of cells one and two paid from the
solid waste reserve fund to be required with future tipping fees,
accept Waste Management's offer to construct and close new
cells to provide 15 years of landfill disposal capacity. That's
what the staff's recommendation is.
We're going to go to contingency disposal. Our growth
management plan says that we need to have two years of line
capability and ten years total requirement in the landfill. We
talked about it at the workshop about the two years of line
capability and when it runs out versus how long it takes to build
one. You have to be in construction of a line capability before
you can start using the two years of line capability that you have
in reserve.
It does -- we have also found out that capacity could be in
Page 53
March 27, 2001
an out-of-county landfill or achieve via partial haul out. And
those
are the things that we really looked hard at. If we wanted to do
partial haul out, we'd have to haul out 900 tons per day to
Okeechobee. We basically bring in 1,200 tons a day into our
landfill. 300 would be going into our landfill, 900 would be
leaving out at the tune of 94 -- or excuse me. $54 a ton for haul
out. That equates to $15 million a year.
Then we started talking about, "Well, what about other
space someplace else? Provide a guarantee for two years
capacity at Okeechobee. And this gets into shared
responsibility. We basically came down and said that maybe the
staff made a mistake when we got that letter in June of 2000
that said, "Hey, you need to start building a liner."
Okay. And now we have identified that, yeah, there was a
lag of time. Now, if I'm still under a consent order, do you get
the lining anyway when you start? Well, you probably could have
gotten the design done and had all of that stuff.
So let's say that the County was negligent in the fact of
about ten months. So if we're going to have to haul out for three
years, the County will accept ten months of that, Waste
Management, you do the rest on your own horse. They came
back and said, "Whoa. That's a lot of money."
And after that they said, "Well, give me a guarantee that you
will do this at Okeechobee and reserve the space to us because
your shared responsibility is that you should have been
Johnny-on-the-spot, instead of where we are today." And they
came back with an offer that they would give us a guarantee of
two years of line capability at Okeechobee at no cost to the
County and they would provide a guarantee of disaster capability
at no cost to the County on that landfill.
That basically saves us about $42 million over this potential
three-year period of time. So staff's recommendation is: Let's
take their guarantee of space. Let's preclude going through this
$54 a ton business. Let's get the line capability on-line before
we run out of space. And then we're in good hands for an
intermediate solution and we still have to talk about the
long-term solution at the end of June meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Check. That's your next decision,
Board. Continue, Mr. Mudd.
Page 54
March 27, 2001
MR. MUDD: Recycling program. This is the exciting part.
We have to understand that the landfill is a profit dog for Waste
Management. If the County doesn't know that, the County needs
to know that, okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Translation is: They ain't making
money on the landfill.
MR. MUDD: They are not making a lot of money. If anything,
they're right on the line. And John Wong's not going to see a
raise in a long time.
And so you really had to take -- you really had to take that
contract and say, "Well, what's the negotiating thing?" Shared
responsibility is one thing. So where are the incentives?
So we talked to the County Manager and we thought it
prudent to make sure that the collection contracts were on the
table as a negotiating tool because that isn't a contractual dog,
okay? There is some profit in that for the company.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John is getting a raise.
MR. MUDD: So what we basically did is we went at them
hard and said, "Okay. Tell me what you can do for me for the
recycling program because we're not doing well in the recycling
program in this County."
1999 we were at 26 percent. 2000 we ended the year at 19.
We're going down. We're not getting any better. We need to do
something a whole lot better, as far as the program is concerned.
And we want to see some other things happen.
So we went at them and said, "Show me what you can give
me." It went from soup to nuts, Cadillacs to Volkswagens,
whatever you wanted to do into that. And so we basically asked
-- they basically came back and said, "Okay. If we get an
extension to our contract to 2006 and at 2004 the County will go
out for a bid -- open bid to open it all up -- if you give us an
extension to 2006, we'll include residential mixed fiber material."
That's corrugated cardboard. It's cardboard from cookie
boxes. It's cardboard from cereal boxes. Magazines, junk mail,
catalogs, and that at curb side. We will -- they have said they
would do commercial glass and bottles at a cost of $5 a pickup.
That is the highest weighted item for the commercial folks. So if
you're taking that out of your waste stream and you're putting it
in your recycling stream, then there is a correlation. Your waste
bill will be less and it can offset that $5 pickup fee.
Page 55
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Because you are paying by the
ton on the pickup fee?
MR. MUDD: That's right. And the way that goes is bottles
weigh the most, cardboard weighs the next, and plastic bottles
is the next after that. Plastic bottles a lot of volume, not a whole
lot of weight.
And then we talked to them about electronic scrap
collection; computers, televisions. All of those screens that
protect us from those harmful rays have lead in it. We've been
disposing -- we, the whole country, has been disposing of those
materials for generations in dumps. We need to do the right
thing and start putting that waste in a hazardous waste stream.
And we got them to agree to the fact that they would
sponsor the turn-ins of those materials. They would haul those
electronic materials to the site, but the County would be
responsible for the actual price of getting rid of it with the
contract that you set. And there's a couple of state contracts
with vendors and there's a couple that have come in to give us
some bids and we're still evaluating those proposals.
So we're basically talking about no cost if residential could
-- or collection contract for Waste Management is extended five
years to 2006. $5 a pickup paid by commercial customers for
glass and bottle collection. Electronics recycling cost paid by
Waste Management and Immokalee Disposal. Electronic recycle
and processing cost to be determined and paid for by the County.
And Waste Management came in and said, "Those 5,000
recycling bins that you guys purchase annually, we'll buy it and
we'll take that over." And that basically saves the County
coffers about $26,000 a year.
The staff's recommendation is to approve Waste
Management's proposal for expanded recycling services subject
to final contract negotiations. And I want to make sure that
everybody understands that. Approve Waste Management's
proposal, but it's still subject to final contract negotiations. And
consider making commercial glass collections mandatory. We're
going to have to have an ordinance that does that. Are there any--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I have a few things
because I think this is very important. The recycling program
Page 56
March 27, 2001
here in Collier County and the -- what we have been doing in the
past and hopefully where we are going.
But, first of all, my understanding is that this Board last year
said, no, we are going to take the contract out to bid. And the
contract was due in 2002. Where are we at in that process?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- I will tell you where I am in that.
I was so looking forward to kind of removing this stigma of this
having been an unbid contract. I wanted a shot at bidding this
contract.
And I will tell you the only reason why I am willing to go with
the deal today -- and I am sure I'll be criticized for it. But the
reason I'm willing to go with the deal is, frankly, we have so
many fires burning in this County right now and, frankly, most of
them, God bless him, are in Mr. Mudd's division and he is busy
putting them out. He didn't cause the fires, but he is putting the
fires out.
Meanwhile, we have one service that in our annual survey
got like a 95 percent approval rating. We've got one thing we're
doing right, leave it alone and let's work on the stuff that
desperately needs our attention. As much as I wanted a shot at
this contract this time, we have got bigger fish to fry right now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, I pushed that.
I've always believed in competitive bidding all my life.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I saw here that that was a
powerful tool for our group, led by Mr. Mudd, to use that to get a
lot of things accomplished with an extension of a contract that I
have said to staff and I have said to everyone else is that when
that comes up 2004 -- actually, you have got to start thinking
about it and then it goes out for bid in 2006 -- that would be a
more appropriate time to put that contract out for bid. And I
think it still holds to my principle, but it also gives us a great
opportunity to leverage a situation.
As you so aptly explained, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we have
got a lot of fires burning here. And why disrupt something that is
really working on a collection side, when in addition you can get
to a recycling program that will enhance what we're doing so
that we get more of that stuff out of the landfill and improve our
efficiencies in that area?
I'm with you. If we're going to get criticized, let's stand
Page 57
March 27, 2001
together. But that, to me, is just good business sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard is that we're going
out to bid in 2004 and --
MR. MUDD: Going out 2004 to have executed the transition
in 2006. You don't want to go at six and do the dance for six
months and then all of sudden who has got my garbage and it
starts piling up like it does in Brooklyn every once in a while.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask is there any support
on the Board to go out to bid in 2002 and -- with a new contract
2004?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would -- there would be if we
could get every -- all the positives we've got in this deal. But I
think our -- all of the puzzle pieces that he's put together with the
recycling, with all of the positives that we have gotten here
financially and environmentally, I think we'd lose them. I mean, I
think that was the chip that we had.
MR. MUDD: What I'm also going to ask you -- as I go through
this presentation, I'm going to show you the rates per County.
And you're going to find out that your collection rates is one of
the lowest ones in the State of Florida.
You also probably have the best approval rating, as far as
the customer is concerned, as far as those rates are concerned.
So you've got a great customer approval rating. In your defense,
if you make this, your customers are halfway happy, okay? And
in most cases they got like a 95 approval rating.
And your costs are already down. And what you're doing is
squeezing out more service from your contract already because
you're using a lever on them. I will tell you -- I don't know. It is
still unknown to me if you are going to get a better deal if you put
it out for bid, okay?
You could. And God only knows if you want to get
somebody that wants to come and undercut it by a big part so
that they get their foot in the door. But I'll tell you when they do
that sooner or later they start doing those change orders to you
and the next thing you know you are right where you were before
or a little bit higher. I'm not saying -- that happens a lot out there
in the business world.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that where we're at at the
landfill?
MR. PERKINS: Close, yeah.
Page 58
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anyways, I have -- the recycling.
I think that what is proposed and what we need to do are two
different things. I'm not sure in the multifamily whether we are
doing the recycling that we need to.
My understanding is that there are multifamily out there that
do not have recycling bins or recycling carts or whatever like
that. And if we're going to do this recycling, let's do a good job
at it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we recycling in multifamily?
That's a real important question.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. There's been one or two that have
been brought to my attention since I've been here that didn't
have the carts. And we had the carts Johnny-on-the-spot.
So anybody that's watching out there, if you're in multifamily
and you don't have those brown carts out there for bottles and
papers and things like that right now, give me a call at 732-2540
and we'll get them out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I agree with
Commissioner Henning about the recycling. I think that we need
to put a real strong emphasis on the commercial end of the
whole thing for the businesses. I don't think we're going to be
doing enough, according to this contract.
I really can't agree with it, unless we can go ahead and start
picking up cardboard, along with the glass, office paper and the
electronic goods also. I just think we're falling short. We're
putting up something really nice and saying, "Here we go. This is
what we're going to do for you." It's not enough.
If we're going to recycle, we're going to recycle. We can't
be taking little tiny bits at a time so that they can come back in a
couple more years and say, "Well, we want to continue the
contract and we'll add this to it." I want it all now or nothing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what else we could add.
Because I understood that we were --
MR. MUDD: Let me bring Don or Tim up to the thing and let
them answer that question. Because now it's a good lever. I like
this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question to Mr.
Mudd? A question to Mr. Mudd just before we get to that one is:
Compared to what is recycled in the City of Naples, under your
Page 59
March 27, 2001
proposal would we be recycling the same, less or more?
MR. MUDD: We would be recycling the same, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Compare it to Lee County.
MR. MUDD: I can't tell you if they are doing -- now, Tim can
tell you if they are doing corrugated cardboard or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. The other question is about Lee
County and let Tim Stuart answer.
MR. STUART: Tim Stuart from Waste Management.
Let me answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question first. From
a residential standpoint, if you add the cardboard, we'll be doing
more than the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about from the commercial
standpoint?
MR. STUART: The commercial standpoint it's different. And
I just want to make this clarification for Mr. Coletta. The
commercial recycling is an open, competitive environment for all
companies to participate in.
We, as a company, along with other companies, participate
in cardboard recycling for commercial, for office paper recycling.
And what we're proposing in this contract is to hit the glass side
of it and some plastic side from the commercial side. So I think
-- and that's open to the State of Florida. You cannot make those
exclusive for particular companies to do commercial recycling
from that aspect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We would support you with the
right kind of ordinances. Let me ask you this question. Do you
think that you'd be able to do this maybe if we put it out to bid?
MR. STUART: What I'm telling you is that as of right now the
State of Florida doesn't allow that type of service from a
cardboard, office paper to be part of a bid process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I help you?
MR. STUART: That is wide open.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we need to do is to have
an ordinance saying -- mandating recycling in businesses. And
every business is different. The restaurant and bar business,
you're talking about glass -- recycling glass. I have a lot of
products delivered to my business in boxes. The cardboard is --
will work for me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have some office paper in mine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, your office paper now -- home
Page 60
March 27, 2001
office stuff is going to be picked up in this process. The
commercial side of it -- I understand the questions. And my
question to legal will be: Can you establish a local ordinance to
do this? If so, I think it is a great idea.
MR. STUART: Can I address that, Mr. Carter? Yes, you can
do that from an ordinance standpoint, but I don't think you can
make it exclusive to one company doing it. So you, as a County,
can pass an ordinance saying, "Hey, commercial businesses are
going to be required to recycle cardboard, office paper, and
whatever." But I don't think you can put that to one individual
company to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So Waste Management -- in
other words, we'd have to make this across the board to
Immokalee Disposal also?
MR. STUART: Absolutely. And to any company that would
like to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a representative from
Immokalee Disposal here today? MR. STUART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I finish what I was saying,
please?
MR. STUART: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. That's no problem.
MR. STUART: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Plastic would help my business
out tremendously. And I hope that we can do an ordinance with
the cooperation with Waste Management since they are the
carrier of our waste. Maybe put something in the bill saying,
"This service is offered by -- and the different companies -- for
this type of price and please call this number."
MR. MUDD: We can lay out a menu for the commercial side
of the houses. We laid this ordinance out. Is the commission
telling me that they would like to have -- this last bullet, consider
making commercial glass, would you like that expanded to
cardboard and plastic and office paper?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
MR. MUDD: So staff will come back to you with an
ordinance that includes those issues. And we'll take canvas the
collectors out there in the County to give the folks a menu of
Page 61
March 27, 2001
what the cost is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this would -- this would be
something that is beyond this contract. But the contract, as far
as Waste Management is concerned, is affected by the portions
that we can control right now this day. The ordinance then
would put additional --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's get it wrapped up right
now before we go any farther because we have been talking
about recycling for how many years, folks? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hundred.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's correct. But what I'm hearing --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing ever happens. Today is
the day we do it or else let's continue this so that they can get
together and make it come back with recycling.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like we're going to do
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We're going to do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're going to do it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through an ordinance
mandating businesses to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we have to have the
commitment from Waste Management and also from Immokalee
Disposal to be able to make sure they're going to be agreeable to
this.
MR. MUDD: The commercial -- sir, what's stipulated is when
you go out to commercial that the business has the right to find
their own folks that will pick that up for them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They can haul it themselves.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The ordinance will say that it's
mandatory to recycle, okay, and here is what will happen. And
then it's up to business to negotiate, okay, with the haulers to
get that done.
And the subject here is the ordinance issue and how far the
County commission wants us or how -- how expanded do you
want the recycling program. And so that's the issue at that
juncture. And what we'll do is we'll layout and find all those
haulers of recycled material and what their charges are and we'll
give that to the community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, you're tough and I hear punitive
if you don't follow the rules.
Page 62
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thing that I heard
Commissioner Coletta say that I wonder if it's something that we
could take it just one bit more. That is, you have raised the issue
of these screens, the electronics, and the fact that -- let me just
say it. Shouldn't we add that to our mandatory recycling for
business?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, businesses I don't think is the
big abuser here. I think it's you and I and everyone else in this
audience that we go through computers so fast that --
MR. MUDD: Let me put it this way, ma'am. I'm not going to
dispose of those screens. Once this is done, we're not going to
dispose of cathode ray tubes or TV screens in the landfill
anymore.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We won't take them. You have to go
to a recycling process or you're in trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's taken care of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, can we fast track this
so that we can save some space in the landfill?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. How fast can we get this
ordinance?
MR. MUDD: I can get the ordinance pushed so that you've
got it before the end of April. I will tell you that. And I would like
to have it in two weeks. But, David, you have got to help me on
ordinances a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, David, would be willing to have it
done in two weeks. I heard him nod his head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You heard that?
MR. WEIGEL: We need two meetings worth for
advertisement purposes. About four weeks. We can do it in 18
days, but that's shorter than the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can name that tune in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I go a little further, please?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Again, we're
opening up a contract. This is a hauling contract with Waste
Management. Let's fix it. And what I say by that is -- my
understanding out there is we have a litter problem coming from
some of these garbage trucks. And my understanding is it is a
design problem.
I want to put some hammers in there to make sure that
Page 63
March 27, 2001
we're covering all our bases, as long as we're working on these
two
contracts. Teresa has been working with Waste Management
and I want to see more hammers in there to make her life easier
and the aesthetics of our roadways better.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. One of the things that we've discussed
-- and I have discussed it with all of the commissioners -- is the
fact that we would like to make sure that all construction
dumpsters are covered at the end of the day. So if there is a
storm at night, the contents don't get blown all over the
subdivisions. To make sure that those dumpsters are covered in
the transit mode and that all solid waste vehicles have the
proper cover on them. And we'll work that process for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Stuart, what is your title
here with Waste Management?
MR. STUART: I'm the district manager for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I just want to thank you for
bringing John Wong here to Collier County. He is a very
reasonable person and a person that I have a lot of trust and
faith of telling me the truth.
MR. STUART: I'm glad to hear that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Real fair. Thank you.
MR. STUART: I'm just going to address one thing, Mr.
Carter. In reference to the trucks and the litter -- and I can
backup what Mr. Mudd is saying. They are enforcing it from the
Sheriff's Office in reference to those.
And there is not a design flaw problem with our residential
trucks. What the problem is is when we automatic -- the
automated system comes and picks those carts up, they bring it
up. Loose
material does have a tendency to open up and fly out.
And we have put before the staff some type of requirement
ordinance to make -- people use the carts as a receptacle as
opposed
to putting their material in bags. If people would use bags more
that would dramatically reduce the litter that comes from
residential households.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's talk about that because I
disagree with you. So what you're saying is the Sheriff's
Department is enforcing it. Therefore, your drivers are getting
Page 64
March 27, 2001
ticketed for it, not Waste Management.
What you have is an open hole on top of these trucks that
wind is getting in there and carrying that stuff. So all I'm saying
is screen it so we don't have --
MR. STUART: We do have that mechanism, but,
unfortunately, we have to have an open -- open bin, so to speak,
to dump the material in. And we go from home to home. It's very
difficult to do back and forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to work on this one.
MR. STUART: I agree with you. And I think that we've made
tremendous steps in the last two or three months with the help
of the Sheriff's Office and Teresa's office.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you may also add on your pickup
routes each day -- you may have to go to the point of having
somebody follow a truck. It doesn't have to be every pickup, but
you ought to periodically spot check that so that the drivers
don't even know who is tracking around behind them. So that
they are more -- that they are more disciplined. I think that might
help.
MR. STUART: We do that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I think I
can help you with that. Could staff give us the number of anyone
who is following a Waste Management truck and they see any
litter come off of it. What number can they call out there?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And while she's coming up to answer
that question, Mr. Stuart, I have one other request in this
contract with recycling that it be done twice a week. That we
have pickups twice a week in recycling as it is every bit as
critical as picking up garbage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, frankly, it is even more
important. The only question I have is --well, if the recycling is
going to be -- I will just give you my experience. If the recycling
is going to be the same basically as the City of Naples, I have a
City of Naples recycle bin that gets just rounded up full once a
week. I am pretty darn diligent about trying to put everything in
there.
I don't think -- I mean, unless we're adding more to it, I don't
think that I could fill up a bin twice -- twice a week without
maybe some more education about what it is I could recycle.
Page 65
March 27, 2001
You know, I want to -- the goal should be that we pick up
recycling twice and bury -- you know, garbage that we're going to
bury once. And that would teach us, you know, what's
appropriate. We should be recycling more.
At the same time, I don't want big garbage trucks driving up
and down the street when there is not a recycle bin sitting out
there. So that's the balance for me.
MR. STUART: I think we can address both of those issues at
one time, Commissioner Carter. We had -- Mr. Mudd and I have
talked about doing a pilot program. And what we mean by that is
picking a certain allotment of homes, let's say 1,000, and
studying it for a three-month period offering that type of service
twice a weak for two things; to see if it's worthwhile from a
resident and County standpoint and see if the material is there to
justify that. And we'll work with staff to make sure that happens.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That may very well be something that
find in season that's more apropos than it is out of season. I am
flexible on that. But with magazines and everything else that
come into my house, we can fill two bins a week. I have no
trouble with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thing is I have a
little hesitation about hearing pilot program. Because I think
that this should be more of a phased-in approach to doing it.
Because I don't want you to go out and do a pilot on 1,000 homes
for the next six months and say, "See, they don't really have
enough."
Because we have to educate people to recycle, recycle,
recycle. So hopefully even if we are not filling up two bins a
week for the first six months, in the next six months we would
have gotten smarter about what we can recycle. And, you know,
I would like to think of it more as a phase-in with a goal towards
twice a week pickup.
MR. STUART: I would agree with you. That would be our
goal. And I think the education up-front of that area is the most
valid, the most important thing to do prior to starting that. I
agree with you. Our goal is to get as much out of there also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think we're okay with that if the
rest of the Board -- well, I should say I'm okay with that as long
as -- and I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie. It's phased in. We
study it. If you've got Iow periods where it is, frankly, not
Page 66
March 27, 2001
necessary for a whole lot of reasons to do it, fine. But give it at
least 12 or 24 month in a cycle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is a goal. We are going to do
it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And it is a goal to get there. Because
if it is necessary, let's make sure it is done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Carter, I
would like to address some questions to Immokalee Disposal
company.
MR. MUDD: This is still coming. I'm going to do recycling
Immokalee. I'm going to get to that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let him go there. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Immokalee Disposal Company. What a segue.
We've talked to them and I asked them -- first of all, good
company, okay? I wish I had 100 of them like that. They're
home grown, family operated, live in the community that they
service, and
all they want to do is a good job, okay? And my hat's off to them.
They're super.
They offered expanded recycling services at no additional
cost in exchange for contract extension to 2006. It's pretty
much the same contract that we have for collection with Waste
Management. They'd extend customer-- customized service.
If they have a -- if they have somebody that is unable to take
the garbage out, they -- and Waste Management has offered the
same thing. If we have a customer that can't get out there and
get their trash out, just let us know and they will come to that
door and pick it up for them wherever -- and they'll get an agreed
upon spot where it is and they'll make that happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's great. And that puts a
responsibility right on the homeowner who has a difficulty. They
need to call and say, "I've got this problem," and we'll take care
of it.
MR. MUDD: They said they would purchase new collection
equipment. And part of that has to do with carts. So we're not in
the we/they anymore in Collier County. Everybody has the same
standardized service so that you don't have somebody that
doesn't
have it and somebody that does. And we'll talk about that, as far
Page 67
March 27, 2001
as cost is concerned, but it's basically a dollar per year per
household and they will get carts.
Establish drop-off facilities in order to get at that
commercial paper and some other things that aren't out there.
And we also
talked about ag plastic a little bit. We're still talking that issue.
Instead of why burn it when you can collect it and get it
recycled.
Increase commercial collection frequency. They basically
said that they do that. And they'd increase the residential
collection frequency for recycling to twice a week when the
demand dictates it. As soon as they need it picked up twice,
they will be there to pick it up twice.
And they will introduce electronics scrap recycling. Again,
the same constant thing. They will pick it up. They will pick it
up at curb side, okay, instead of going to a central location. And
they will -- they will move it. We'll have to pay for the disposal
price out of Collier -- from Collier County just like we talked
about in the Waste -- in the Waste Management side.
Our recommendation is to approve the IDC proposal for
expanded recycling service subject to final contract
negotiations. And I say,
again, subject to final contract negotiations.
Approve IDC's proposal for cart service. They have basically
said it cost them two and a half percent. They sucked up one
percent. And they said, 'I'm going to need a little bit of help on
that one and a half based on that contract extension."
And that basically equates to -- if I can find my piece of
paper. That equates to just about a little bit over a dollar, okay,
on their annual fee for the cart service.
So what is the physical impact? We started out, prices were
high. When we finished, we basically -- we feel we did a pretty
good job and saved the County about $127 million in the
negotiations.
The fiscal impact. The initial proposal was well over that
147. It gives you an idea. That recycling expansion is that little
top of the bar in yellow. And you can see. And then there is the
last offer and what we finally got at it.
Here it is -- for all of those critics of maybe expanding or
extending that contract, here is what your residential rates are,
Page 68
March 27, 2001
comparisons across numerous counties in the State of Florida.
Manatee is the only one that is lower than ours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would this be after today's
changes? If we adopt today's change, we'd stay that Iow?
MR. MUDD: You're going to grab about $5.83 on the annual,
okay? It is going to come up a little bit, but you're still -- you're
still second lowest on this chart.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: After today's changes; if we
adopt the contract proposals in front of us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good.
MR. MUDD: The -- I will also say that to compare the City of
Naples -- because one of the Commissioner's area is there,
they're paying around $206 a year for their garbage disposal. Our
annual bills are about $114, going to be $120. And you're doing
pretty good, as far as you're getting the same kind of service. On
the recycling side you'll be getting a little bit more.
That gives you an idea of the commercial rate comparison
that was shown on the hill and to let you know we are in the
ballpark with
Manatee and Sarasota.
So summary of recommendations --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt
you before you do that just to say that in the City of Naples they
come to the side of your house and pick up your trash. So it's
not quite apples to apples to do that 206 versus 120. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in defense of the City.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, I agree. But the City is a
much smaller area and much more compact area to cover. So
that's -- that really is a different way to have to collect than do it
Countywide.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they come -- you don't have
to put it out on the street. They come back and get it.
MR. MUDD: But most -- but what we've found out today is
that if you need that kind of help in your -- in your home in order
to get that done, that both of our vendors will come to your door
and pick that stuff up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Am I also correct that even if you want
that done -- if you want to pay an additional fee, you can have
Page 69
March 27, 2001
that done? I don't remember that one time.
Tim is nodding his head yeah. If you want to pay more, they
will come around to the side of your house and pick it up. You
know, your call.
MR. MUDD: But if you're incapable of moving it to the curb --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're incapable, we'll do it no
charge. But if you're healthy and well and just don't want to
have that other exercise in your two weeks or your two days out
of the week, they will pick it up for you.
MR. MUDD: The staff's recommendation is increase the
landfill tipping fee by $4 a ton. Authorize payments to Waste
Management for odor control measures recommended by
Malcomb Pirnie and staff on a voucher system. Choose option
two for the restoration and the clean-up of landfill cell one and
two, which is the staff will go out and contract with a separate
organization or organizations to get that done. Obtain a
contractual guarantee from Waste Management to provide at
least two years of capability at Okeechobee for our line
capability and also for the County storm debris at no cost to the
county. Approve Immokalee Disposal's proposal for expanded
recycling services subject to final contract negotiations.
Approve Waste Management's proposal for expanded recycling
services subject to final contract negotiations. And approve
IDC's proposal for cart service at a 1.5 percent cost increase for
the Immokalee Disposal collection area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would add to that, sir, the
development of an ordinance that we talked about a few
moments ago.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner, excuse me. Mr.
Mudd, one question. If the worst case scenario happened and
we had to start shipping the garbage over to Okeechobee into
that reserve space that we've got, how will that impact the rate?
Because I know that can't be in these numbers now.
MR. MUDD: Sir, that is $54 a ton. And how that breaks out
at 1.2, whatever, that could be up to $70 a household on their
annual bill if we have to haul out three years from now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have to try to find some
resourceful way to try to avoid that, correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I've already told Waste
Page 70
March 27, 2001
Management that they better be hustling on that design and that
permit request to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's appropriate,
Commissioner Carter, I'd go ahead and make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning moves for
approval of the recommendations proposed by staff. Do I hear a
second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Wait a minute. Isn't there public
comment?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. You're correct. I'll take
public comments first. If I do put a motion on the floor, I will not
ask for a call from the Board until after public comments. But if
you feel more comfortable that way, I have no problem going to
public comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go to public comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to public comments.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the first speaker is Bob
Krasowski and then you have two representatives of Waste
Management, who, I believe, are here to answer questions if you
have them in the way of John Wong and Tim Stuart.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No disrespect, Mr. Chairman. I just
thought you were going to take a vote on something.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It seems like your mind is pretty well
made up right now. We haven't had public comment.
I'm real -- my name is Bob Krasowski. I've been here
regularly for awhile, you know, talking to you on this issue
representing just myself and the public. I'm real impressed with
Mr. Mudd and Mr. Yilmaz's efforts here. And especially -- they're
both -- both of them have been very cooperative in sharing.
I really regret that I haven't been able to sit in on these
negotiations so that I can keep up with what is going on.
Because it's hard to listen to all this and have some background
knowledge in this issue and look at these charts and then have a
list about eight or ten different topics which they're requesting
that you approve. I have read the summary here and I have a lot
of notes, but now I have five minutes.
Page 71
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. Well, we want to hear your
comments, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. In a nutshell, what I would
suggest, which has proven to be correct thinking through the
years, is that we maintain flexibility. I stood here many years
ago, along with others, and opposed the privatization of the
collection and operation of the landfill because it took away
flexibility from us.
I today think that we should maintain as much flexibility as
we possibly can. And I think Commissioner Henning's comments
regarding a renegotiation or putting this contract out to bid in
2002 for a 2004 transition, if thought to be a good idea, is very
good. Because otherwise, as part of this whole thing, Waste
Management is stretching their contract to 2004, 2006.
So I think you should go with that or at least keep that
option. If they threaten to withdraw from some of the things that
they have agreed to, then you could deal with that, as well. Just
because we have problems with water, with sewage, with roads,
doesn't mean we have to drop the ball on this one. This is a big
money issue. It is a big environmental issue. It's a big health
issue.
Before we agree to anything or sign a final contract, I think
that we should also be aware of what options we have in regards
to the collection, clean murphs (phonetic). I understand by what
Mr. Yilmaz had explained to me that those are things that we will
be looking at in the future. Before we lock ourselves into any
position right now, we should give it a couple of months, you
know, let them proceed with shoring this whole deal up. Give it
a couple of months until we can review all of the proposals that
have been submitted to the solid waste, which Malcomb Pirnie is
reviewing, allow us to have that workshop I asked you for with
Doctor Connit present, okay, sometime at the end of April or
beginning of May or something. And we can go through all of
these options in comparison to other opportunities that we might
have.
So I think -- I pretty much agree with a lot of the things that
we have here today. I would only add to that that including the
possibility of constructing an additional solid waste landfill
facility at site 'L' be put back on the table. Now, if we're going
to ship out our waste at $54 a ton to Okeechobee or if we have a
Page 72
March 27, 2001
disaster where we need more landfill space than is available in
Golden Gate, thus requiring the Okeechobee scenario, I don't see
why, in our own protection, we can't have a state-of-the-art
landfill, site "L", which is 8 or 10 or 12 miles out beyond
Orangetree.
I know that this is politically not a good idea. And I see
Commissioner Mac'Kie shaking her head and she's the least one
impacted by all of that, where these other commissioners are not
interested. But it's something that I think that we might be
faced with in the long term, especially if you don't build that
incinerator. That's one of the long-range options because then
you'll need a slight increase in volume to locate your waste.
We could all stop generating garbage. We could all recycle
real well. We could all design systems where the end product
wasn't as problematic, as far as landfilling, but that is not going
to happen. So we have to be able to landfill stuff and we have to
own our own -- be responsible for the stuff we create. Otherwise,
you know, we're just going to ship it off. That's not a good idea.
So, you know, I'm going to end up here. I have had pretty
much
my time. Is that automatic or are you pressing that, Sue? She
knows I'm done and I've had my say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody gets the same time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I know. I had my stopwatch because I
was going to check her, but I forget it. 4:16, that's good.
The daily cover. You know, years ago -- and this is an
incentive for you folks to be flexible, to open up the process, to
not make any decisions until you hear all of the options.
Because so many years ago people stood here and said you
cannot not cover the daily garbage that goes into the landfill just
to create more space by not putting that cover on because it's
going to stink to high heaven. And it did, you know.
So these people -- you know, Waste Management managing
this thing, look at the efforts that have been put to work out a
solution over the years and years and years, the last ten years or
so. And this is dealing with Waste Management and that solution
is just now -- when the contract is up is just now starting to see
some remedy. And, you know, the same thing with the collection
of the recyclables. They were supposed to collect all ones and
number two plastics. If you put out a number one that wasn't of
Page 73
March 27, 2001
a certain type, sometimes it didn't getting collected.
So I don't know. You know, you've heard what I've had to
say. It's good seeing you all again. And I hope with that
workshop with Doctor Connit is going to get done. I will visit you
all about that, you know. And please don't do anything that puts
our feet in cement for the next couple of months. But I know you
have to do something pretty soon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bob, I appreciate your comments. I
may not always agree with you. I think that we're looking at a
time line. We talked two years. 24 months of this whole
business is like snapping your fingers. And I think that we need
some breathing room here to get major things accomplished.
So, Mr. Olliff, do we have --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, two representatives from Waste
Management were here just to answer questions if you had them.
The only other speaker that I've got submitted his form late after
the item started. And it's Al Perkins. And it's up to the Chair's
discretion. We normally ask for them to submit their items --
their request before the item starts.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Perkins, in all due respect, I will
allow you your five minutes. But you know the rules, my friend.
So it will be five minutes. And you know when you need to sign
up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Al, it's good to have you
back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where have you been, Al?
MR. PERKINS: Not feeling so swift.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're glad you're feeling better.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you very much. To bring the people
up, good morning people. You people at home, listen up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is Al Perkins if you've never seen
him before.
MR. PERKINS: Al Perkins, Belle Meade Group. The reason
why I speak about the landfill -- because I'm going to bring Mr.
Mudd up to speed and the majority of the commission up to
speed. There was a meeting in this room right here and the
place was jammed. It cost $268,000 and it was from Clear Flame
out of North Carolina stating the total conditions of the landfill at
that time. The amount of gas available and also the dangers, the
fire hazard, the amount of leachate, which he didn't express too
much about.
Page 74
March 27, 2001
If you don't know what leachate is, when it rains like crazy
out there, where does the water go? It goes through the
garbage. And then where does it go? Because you'd better
catch it, otherwise it's going to be in your water supply.
Going along with this, I want to take and say something else
you people need to know, okay? At every one of the meetings
pertaining to a new landfill that we paid a million bucks to CHM
to Wilkerson and Associates and Dufresne-Henry. Now, I
videotaped every one of those meetings and nobody else was
there, with the exception of Tom Henning. At the time it was
Tim Constantine. He was there.
And also a representative from Oberlin College that put forth
-- now Oberlin College under college properties here offered
1,000 acres, financial backing, put their -- all of their resources
to work to create state-of-the-art, cutting-edge waste recovery
facility. It was all there. But, of course, pressure being what it
is from Waste Management and whatever, it didn't happened.
And, needless to say, I got a little bent out of shape because
here we're trying to fix a problem, not move it, not create
another problem, not put more trucks on the road, but fix the
problem. Now, this is going to go on from now until eternity as
long as everybody takes and creates a problem with waste.
There is no two ways about it.
The flare. He mentioned the flare. We're losing $100,000 a
month out there because we're burning it off to the atmosphere.
And, of course, what are we doing to the atmosphere? Now I'm
going to sound like an environmentalist, right?
We took it here and we converted it and we put it there.
Well, breathe it in, people. $100,000 a month. Check with
Caterpillar, which Waste Management owns a piece of it. They
can generate the electricity, capture it and utilize it and put it to
good use. We can even use the methane for driving their dog
gone trucks. Do you people got any brains?
I'm not trying to -- and check me out. And, by the way, I've
been called a liar in the paper and on the radio. Prove it out,
people. Prove it out.
Nobody mentioned the rodents and the birds. Hurricanes
were mentioned. Where are you going to put all the debris and
how fast are you going to get it out of the way? Because one of
the major things are going to be, especially from Marco Island
Page 75
March 27, 200t
and along the beach, are flat tires. If you people have ever been
in a hurricane, you're going to see debris all over the place and
you're not going to be able to get to it, unless you've got a
bulldozer out in front. You're not going to drive your car, unless
you have a four-wheel drive vehicle. And I own two.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That makes you a
non-environmentalist, Al.
MR. PERKINS: Well, I saw two in the parking lot here, too,
okay?
I understood there was $15 million involved with the hauling
to Okeechobee. Now, I have put papers out to you -- some of you
people that you should have known that Oberlin College
documented this in writing. They were willing to get behind this
thing big time because they are environmentally sensitive. That
is their second curricula. And what happened for getting advice?
And if need be, send somebody to Sydney, Australia. If you
people watch the Olympics, they had t50,000 people in the arena
that night -- opening night. Okay. I think a little different. How
many coffee cups? How many McDonald wrappers? How many
soda bottles? How much human waste? What did they do with
it? How did they handle it? Can I continue a little bit?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to wrap up, Al.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Getting down to the money.
other thing. I do not accept Waste Management's cart.
Now, one
I do not
want their piece of property on my property, which makes me
liable for their equipment. So I threw them out. I will not accept
it.
Now, dollarwise he said we pay $120 a year, okay? In
Pompano I used to pay $297 within sight of where they're
generating electricity for 500 homes. It now went up to 310.
The hurricane bit is a very important thing because it's not
if. It's when we get it. What are you going to do about it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to wrap up, Al.
MR. PERKINS: I think I have got it all done. The recycling
thing is very important. And this County -- with the money that is
in this County. And I hope to hell that there's something left from
the stock market for them.
If there is anything left, how about you people getting
behind the recycling this? Put this thing through. We can take
Page 76
March 27, 2001
and lead the dog gone world if you're willing to go with it. Push
it. But if you sit on your hands and you keep your mouth shut,
nothing is going to happen.
Two things, people. You've got two things that's going for
you; your voice and your vote. Use them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Al.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that the last speaker?
I'm a little disappointed. I appreciate that Al Perkins
showed up and Bob Stone, but where's everyone else that has an
interest in this?
Can you -- Mr. Henning? I'm at a loss for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can answer this, this is not
the final as it says on the screen. The contractor is still going to
come back to us.
MR. MUDD'- I will also state, Commissioner, that this isn't --
that this is just the short and the intermediate. I still have to
come to you the last meeting in April with a request for
information to talk about all those different alternatives for the
long-term, get your input to us about what things we should go
out there and concentrate on over a two month period of time to
come back to you at the last meeting in June for your advice on
the long-term solid waste process for Collier County, and that's
the time line that we're under.
This is to get --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I'd just like to see
a little more public participation, but we can't force them, I
guess.
Thank you for coming in and thank you, Bob.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, you will see in the
long-term solutions that you will have a lot of people here to
speak to those issues.
MR. MUDD: There was one thing that, Al, you mentioned
about leachate. Just so the folks out there know, that if it's on a
lined landfill site, there's a leachate collection system, just like
there is out in Collier County under cell six, and we take that,
collect it and move it through the sewer system to get that
treated, sir, so it's just not running off into the ground water. So
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Question, please. If this contract is
approved till 2006, what recourse do we have if the odor
Page 77
March 27~ 2001
problems haven't been solved?
MR. MUDD: It's one of those things that Commissioner
Henning brought up about putting a hammer in there, okay, as we
do this final negotiation, to make sure that, because it doesn't
exist in the original contract, when we do the amendment, that
we have things in there, stipulations, liquidated damages, so that
there is a hammer to make sure it does work, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a similar question for Mr.
Weigel, that -- now that we have tied the extension of the
collection contract -- I mean, assuming this goes through, we've
tied collection and landfilling, and in the past, those have been
totally separate. Just like the collection is our incentive to get
what we want at the landfill, the collection is our hammer to get
what we want at the landfill, is there a way to tie the two
contracts together?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that there probably is. The
question is whether that's absolutely necessary. I would say I
would want to look at that again, because we're dealing with
someone with whom we've been dealing a long time, and the
promises, the negotiated requirements from both parties, county
and Waste Management, will be, I think, very apparent in both
agreements.
So, I'm personally not so concerned with the linkage of one
agreement to the other, for instance, that we hold them
accountable in collection for issues that may or may not come up
under the landfill operations contract, because we should have
the appropriate hammers in each agreement to take care of
issues that are pertinent to those agreements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the private sector, you know,
for example, if you have a first mortgage and a second mortgage,
you have a cross default so that if you default in one, you can
call a default in the other, and that's the kind of concept that I'm
looking for here, that if the landfill smells bad, we may get your
attention on the collection side, because we know that's where
you're making money. You're not making money on the landfill
side.
So, some kind of cross default, something -- I just want to
float the concept, if there's a way to do that.
MR. WEIGEL: And we'll certainly float the research on that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would think that would be -- it's not
Page 78
March 27, 2001
final until it's signed. I think that gives you an opportunity to
address that issue.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll look at that very closely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Without any further questions from the
board, I need to have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make that, Mr.
Chairman, but I do have some questions.
The options for long-term, when are we going to see those?
MR. MUDD: Long-term is the -- you will see the RFI, the
request for information that we went through, because the board
asked us to get all the high tech. solutions and get that. We
went out, through Malcomb Pirnie's help, and went out and --
went out for request for proposal from all the industry folks that
were out there, and we received those. We're going through the
requirements now to sort out the wheat from the chaff, the stuff
that's really doing -- it's happening in this world, and those things
that are just nice thoughts that aren't going on and they're going
out in the laboratory.
We're going to come back to you with those -- with the
results of that request for information the last meeting in April,
sir. We still owe Bob and his person from New York to come
down and review those processes so that we can have a
workshop with them before we finally come to see you. We tried
to get that scheduled for March, but there's been a couple other
things that have been going on in utilities that I've been trying to
handle, and so we're going to get to that.
We made a promise that we would do that for them, and
that's going to happen, but the last meeting in April, I think it's
the 24th, we're going to come see you with a presentation on the
request or information. At that time, we're going to seek the
board's guidance on what things we should go back out and get
more detail on, and then we're going to come back to the board
on the 26th of June, and we're going to say here are our
long-terms options, okay, and give you the good, the bad and the
ugly, and then ask you for your guidance to tell us where we
should go, to put what things out for bid so that we can have a
long-term solution for Collier County's solid waste.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two stages, April 24th, June 26th,
everybody please listen. You have maximum opportunity for
public input through this process, and I just want everybody to
Page 79
March 27, 2001
please understand and mark those dates. I don't want to hear
about this in September or October, that I didn't know. Well, it's
going to be well publicized. I know the Naples Daily News will
certainly assist us in making sure that it's well publicized so that
everybody has an opportunity to participate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make that
motion, but I want to make one more comment to Waste
Management. I'd like to find out why we're not doing a gas
recovery system, and we don't need to know right now, maybe
with Mr. Perkins and myself and some other community people,
because I think that's where we should be, so you get to
convince me different. I'll go ahead and make a motion that we
accept staff's recommendations, and I'm going to add some
things in here, and then I know that I'm in favor of a 2002 hauling
contract to go out to bid. I don't know where the rest of the
board sits. I've heard some comments over here to my
immediate right, but I'm not sure what the far right is going to be
doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, is that part of your
motion?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The far right, I don't know yet. No,
he's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you in favor of,
Commissioner Fiala, of the 2002?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 2002 for bringing it back for -- to
start moving the process forward toward a bid that's going to
come out in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the hauling contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: --2006, is it, or--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, excuse me. Please
understand, if you do it in 2002, it means it's done in 2004.
The whole premise of this contract proposal was that it's
extended to 2004 where we have the opportunity to put it out,
and, therefore, would take effect in 2006. They're asking, in
effect, for two years, 24 months to be able to accomplish
everything that we've discussed this morning, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked me the question, no, I
don't think so, the 2002.
I think -- I've asked Jim Mudd about this, and we sat down
and had a conversation, and I feel that he has negotiated this
Page 80
March 27, 2001
contract to a point where 2002 might jeopardize that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me go ahead and finish
making a motion.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if I may clarify. If you go out -- if you go out
-- if you do not accept --
MR. OLLIFF: Jim, I don't think you need to clarify it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, let it go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- go ahead and make a
motion that we accept staff recommendations. We want
hammers. We want better recycling, and I wanted to do
something about this trash on our roadways, and I know where
it's coming from. I've seen it, and just to let the public know, I'm
in favor of remediation of cells one and two. I'm not in favor of
expanding the landfill. I just need to put that out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But your motion includes that
staff recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just staff's recommendations, it
does, but I'm saying I know where we need to get with our solid
waste. We need to make these hard decisions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good for you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm with you, Commissioner Henning. I
understand exactly where you are.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, before that motion gets
seconded, do you want to include the direction for that
mandatory ordinance with the amendments that were made by
the board?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would request that if it's all right
with the motioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mandatory as far as recycling?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you include the word
maximum before recycling?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if I'll go that far,
because as a businessman yourself, I think that you know what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
myself as a businessman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
willing to do that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I'm willing to go all the way
Is the business community
I'm getting confused about the
Page 81
March 27, 2001
motion here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's not complicate the motion. Let's
go for an ordinance, that will be clarified there, if we may, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not adding anything else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, is the motion to approve all
of staff's recommendation --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and to add to the business
recycling, add the paper and plastic products and to bring back
an ordinance to that effect to make it mandatory, is that
basically the restatement of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I think from the comments
that we've had here about recycling, that Mr. Mudd is going to
bring back something, hopefully, that we like, and we can also do
something about it at that time. We don't need to hammer that
out right now. The hammers --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are we okay?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. Just for clarification, I think what I have
heard is, staff recommendation with the addition of mandatory
ordinance for commercial and an expanded recycling effort on
the commercial side pretty much to mirror what is on the
residential side, as well as some performance measures and
some penalties for that is what I heard Commissioner Henning
include, as well as for staff to look at as part of the contract
negotiations, some additional enforcement or penalty methods
for trash along the roadway if it's the responsibility of Waste
Management vehicles, or some sort of, at least, addressing of
that issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a pair of seconds,
Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same motion (sic)?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries five-oh.
Congratulations, Mr. Mudd, and we thank you for all your
outstanding efforts in making this work.
We're going to recess, if we can, Mr. Olliff, yes?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I just need to bring the board up
Page 82
March 27, 2001
to speed here. I've probably got 20 registered speakers on items
for the rest of the agenda, and there's one gentleman who's here
who said that he was asked to be here by Commissioner Coletta
in order to just introduce himself to the board, who is the new
supervisor for the Big Cypress Preserve, Mr. John Donahue
(phonetic), and he's here, and I think he's requested just to be
able to introduce himself.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir, if it's the pleasure of the
board, I will take the next five minutes to introduce and say
hello, and then we need to recess for no longer than five
minutes. Then we must come back to the time certain at 11:30.
I apologize to the audience, but I think what we just went
through, you should applaud what this board has done and what
your public works people have done to provide an overall
improvement in one of our major problems in Collier County.
Good afternoon, sir.
MR. DONAHUE: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, for taking the time to
listen to me today. Thank you, Mr. Coletta, for setting it up and
meeting with me earlier.
My name is John Donahue. I'm the superintendent of Big
Cypress National Preserve and of DeSoto National Memorial up in
Bradenton, and I wanted to come here -- I think it's extremely
important for all federal land managers to have close
relationships with the local people, the county government. I've
always had that opportunity in other places I've worked, and I
wanted to start to establish that relationship here today with
you,
I'd like to take the time to invite you all to come out and
visit Big Cypress. If you can set aside some time together or
individually, I'd like to take you on a helicopter tour so you can
see the entire preserve. That's the only way you can do it
possibly in one day.
I did want to just mention a few things. There are areas
where we have always cooperated in the past between the
federal government and Collier County. One area is with the
sheriff's department. The state and the local county officials
have concurrent law enforcement jurisdiction within the
preserve, which I might mention is 729,000 acres, mostly in
Collier County. It's about the size of Rhode Island, and we have
Page 83
March 27, 2001
an outstanding relationship with the sheriff. I met with him and
some of his staff members, including the sergeant at arms, last
Friday. We have a new memorandum of agreement in place, and
we anticipate that we will be increasing our areas of
cooperation.
One thing that I did want to mention is there's been
discussion in the newspapers over the past year about the
property which we own upon which sit the Everglades City
Chamber of Commerce and the substation of the sheriff's office.
I did assure the sheriff the other day, and I want to assure
you-all, that we feel it's in the interest of the United States to
have that substation continue there. When the lease is up, we'd
like to see you renew it. That's entirely up to you-all and the
sheriff, but I would like to extend that idea to you, that we would
very much like to see you continue your presence there.
We have also settled the issue with the Everglades Chamber
of Commerce. I've accepted their payment. They will be there
for the next 14 years. What comes after that is yet to be
decided, but I think that that brings that whole discussion to a
close.
Another area I'd just like to point out, we have, perhaps
between the county parks department and the national parks
service, some opportunities to work together in the future. If you
would direct me towards whoever you think would be
appropriate for me to work with, I'd like to begin talking with the
county parks officials about areas of cooperation, and another
thing that I wanted to mention to you is that there are five
county roads that are within the boundaries of the national
preserve. Those are Wagonwheel, Upper Wagonwheel, Turner
River Road and Birdon Road and three miles of the loop road,
which is State Road 94.
We've recently, last year, took possession -- Monroe County
dedicated their portion of the loop road to us, and I would like to
suggest to you that we would be interested in, if it's appropriate
and you are interested in dedicating your roads to the United
States, we'd be interested in that. If not, the -- another lower
level we might take is a memorandum of agreement where we
would take up some of the maintenance of those roads on behalf
of the county. I think that's something you might want to
entertain. I'm not asking you to enter into discussion or make a
Page 84
March 27, 2001
decision or anything. I'd just like to broach that subject.
We do have a similar agreement with the State Department
of Transportation where they do some work for us up on 1-75, we
do similar work for them down on 41, on Tamiami Trail. In fact,
Mr. Feder was, in his past life as state representative, we worked
with him on the conclusion of that agreement, and essentially,
those are the only items I wanted to discuss today.
I think it's important just as a good neighbor for the federal
government to work closely with the state and with the county
government, and we would very much like to do so. I invite you,
again, to come out and visit with us, and hopefully, I haven't
taken up too much of your time today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: John, thank you so much for
coming out here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I really thank you for that, and I think,
if it's the pleasure of the board, we ought to -- I saw Tom Olliff
taking notes. We ought to pursue all of those requests and come
back with some sort of report -- a report to the board on what
might be feasible to do, and also, individual commissioners may
have opinions one way or the other, and they need to
communicate to Mr. Olliff, which will eventually come back to us
in a board meeting.
MR. DONAHUE: I'll follow up with some literature about the
preserve, a letter and some information about the roads we
discussed, and then you can discuss it with your appropriate
agencies, and we can talk more seriously in the future about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
Is the board okay with that? I see a number of nods.
Recess for five minutes, and we come back to the 11:30
item. Thank you.
(Small break was held).
Item #9B
REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING SECTION
163.3215, FLA. STAT., VERIFIED COMPLAINT FROM VANDERBILT
SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., VANDERBILT CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC, THE MANSIONS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., GULF COVE CONDOMINIUM
Page 85
March 27, 2001
ASSOCIATION, INC., AND VANDERBILT BEACH AND BAY
ASSOCIATION, INC., CHALLENGING THE COUNTY'S APPROVAL
OF SDP-2000-108 FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACHCOMBER
RESORT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PREVIOUS DECISION APPROVED WITH
NO LEGAL BASIS TO SET ASIDE
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you'll take your -- if you'll take your
seats, ladies and gentlemen -- modern technology. If you'll take
your seats, ladies and gentlemen, we are now proceeding with a
time certain item that we need to address this morning. We have
a lot of people here representing the groups that are -- have the
concern in Vanderbilt Beach and which I have that concern.
I am going to ask Attorney Weigel, our legal counselor, to
walk us through how we deal with the issue today within the role
the Board of County Commissioners can play when a group is in
litigation with the County on a situation. So, our role here today
is we'll do what we legally can, and we can't do any more or less.
I have committed that on the legislative side at which this body
works, that I will continue to work with that community, because
it goes to a land development code cycle and will do everything
when we address the land development codes in June to have
hopefully come up with a workable solution to a very difficult
situation.
So, Mr. Pettit or Mr. Weigel, we need to clarify up front the
role the board can play on this agenda item today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just put the question the
way it -- the question I want answered is, are we in litigation
currently with the group that proposes to speak to us today?
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, assistant county attorney. Good
afternoon, commissioners.
It's an interesting question. What we are here today on is
the fulfillment by a group that has threatened to sue the County
of a condition precedent to filing a suit in court. The statute that
applies here, and this relates to a site development plan, as
explained in the executive summary, 163.32.15 provides that
before you may challenge a local government's development
order, you must first file a verified complaint with the local
government, and as I interpret it, and I don't believe there's a lot
of case law explaining this aspect of the statute, this provides
Page 86
March 27, 2001
the local government with an opportunity to take a second look.
Many local governments in the state, I'm apprised and
aware, don't even respond to the verified complaints. They
simply stay mum. I don't think there's any law that requires a --
that absolutely requires a response.
It's been the practice in this county for several years, since
I've been involved with this legislation, 163.3215, for us to put
this on the board agenda, because a verified complaint has been
filed, and, at least as I read the statute and as I think Ms.
Student from our office reads the statute, the board should be
apprised that the verified complaint is there, and somebody is
saying that something that either the board passed on or staff
did administratively, which is the case we have here today, is
inconsistent with our growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that would not be an issue that
we would resolve in this room this morning is what I think I'm
understanding Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: That is, I will be quite honest, almost an issue
of first impression because of the way we do things here. I don't
think there's any case law on it. I'll look at Ms. Student. I
suspect she hasn't seen any case law on it.
I will tell you how I interpret it for better or worse, and this
is Mike Pettit, it's not a judge talking, it appears to me to want to
give you an opportunity to look at it a second time, and what I
mean is that -- we've obviously got speakers who are going to
come up and state their position, both pro and con. This hasn't
been advertised as a hearing, per se, but the power to look at it a
second time comes from a state statute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Haven't you in the past advised
us that if we are being sued, please don't meet with the people
who are suing us; please let the communications be attorney to
attorney? I mean, that's certainly the advice that I give my
clients if they are being sued.
I don't want -- I'm afraid to speak in the forum where I know
that the record may later be produced to the judge and used
against the County in litigation.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner, and as I've told you
in previous meetings, just a few meetings ago, what Mr. Pettit
has indicated to you here is that your review pursuant to statute
is limited.
Page 87
March 27, 2001
We believe it's limited to determination if the administrative
act done by staff in regard to approval of a site development
plan, the matter before you today, is consistent with the growth
management plan, our comprehensive plan, and the fact is, as
with other proceedings I've advised you on, it's not a question of
desire or like or dislike. The review that the board has is one of,
is there a basis, substantive, competent basis to indicate that
staff has done -- has arrived at a wrong decision, and Ms. Student
may speak on that a little bit further, but we don't find, as
attorneys advising you, that we would advise you to say
absolutely you cannot speak or should not speak. At the same
time, I think if your review is consistent with and limited to the
precepts I just put before you, you may entertain this item and go
forward.
As Mr. Pettit indicated, many boards, other counties don't
even give this an opportunity whatsoever.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
I would concur with what Mr. Pettit said. This is an area of
the statute, I believe, that's problematic, and other local
governments just send a letter from the county attorney's office
just out of hand denying it.
When this issue first was discussed some years ago at
seminars on the topic, other local governments, you know, have
some type of hearing with an opportunity for the different sides
to present their issues, and I -- in my estimation, it's an
opportunity for the board to take, as Mike stated, another look
before proceeding into circuit court. It may even work similar to
an alternate dispute resolution type of situation where you have
to do certain things before you go to court. I won't say that's
gospel. That's just a thought I had about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if we were, for example, in an
alternate dispute resolution format forum, as I understand it, the
discussions in that forum are not admissible in court because
they are settlement negotiations.
MS. STUDENT: I wouldn't go so far as to say that about this
proceeding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is what scares me
about this proceeding. I have no idea what the right outcome is
here.
Page 88
March 27, 2001
I know that unless we agree with the people who are
proposing to sue us today, and say that it's inconsistent with our
growth management plan, they are going to sue us. If board
members have said on the record, gee, it looks to me like it
might be inconsistent with the growth management plan, and
that's admissible in court, that can't be good for the county's
position.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, I would hope that the board
doesn't -- addresses the issue head on and doesn't make too
many comments to the side of the issue, and, of course --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, David, what is the issue
then? Address the issue head on how?
MR. WEIGEL: The issue head on is, was the approval of the
site development plan consistent or inconsistent with our growth
management plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is the question for litigation.
MR. WEIGEL: But it's also the question before you today, not
because we give it to you, but because the statute sets it up for
you to have. Call it an opportunity, call it a directive, case law
doesn't tell us which, but there is something in the statutes that
says it comes before you.
Now, in regard to whether there's a lawsuit by people who
are unhappy with the previous administrative decision or if
there's a lawsuit from the developer/owner who may be unhappy
with a change in the decision that may occur, we can't -- your
legal staff can't look away from the requirement to address the
legal issues and provide the facts to you, as well as the public,
and the developer interest, and they will have, I expect, a better
idea at the conclusion of this agenda item today as to the merits
of whichever case any particular position wants to carry forward,
but we, as staff, both the county attorney's office working with
the development services staff, are prepared and expect to
provide you the reasons why we think that there's a consistency
with the administrative action that was taken and the growth
management plan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Therefore, let me ask this
question. What if we allowed the attorneys for each side to
speak to this commission today with no comments on the part of
the commissioners, what does that do? Does that keep us in
neutral ground that says, we have heard you, we haven't
Page 89
March 27, 2001
commented, that doesn't say we agree or disagree?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then perhaps discuss
strategy in a closed session.
If you're going to sue us --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Listen to me. We have closed
sessions on all issues that involve this type of subject. We are
not discriminating, and in a closed session, we only discuss
strategy. No decisions are made. We make those decisions out
here in the public, in the sunshine where you all are present. So,
please remember, this is due process.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it is the best
process. It is the law. It is what I have to live under as an
elected official. So, please, please be patient.
Would that be sufficient --
MR. PETTIT: Let me address that.
There's a 30 day time period from now, if the board, for
example, were to simply affirm the staff action, within which the
petitioners may file their lawsuit. Obviously, if what occurs here
today -- and the recommendation before you, I should state, is
that at this point, neither the staff and the county attorney's
office have found any basis to rescind the staff action or come
forward with any basis to rescind the staff action, so we're
saying it is consistent, and we're also saying, yeah, there's also
the issue of whether there is -- the allegations in the verified
complaint are true in establishing an inconsistency, but I guess
the point is this, that if everybody has an opportunity to speak
today, there's a 30 day window of time in which discussions can
be had before we're going to be facing a lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask this question one more
time. What if legal counsels for both sides present what they --
and they represent these groups, let them present, and it goes on
public record, and then we go forward following the rest of the
process? What happens there? Does that jeopardize the
commission or the County in sending a signal one way or the
other, other than that we have heard -- we have heard the case
presented by both parties?
MR. PETTIT: You will have heard the case presented by
both parties, and if your decision is to, at this point, take no
further action on the site development plan, it would just simply
go forward into court if the petitioner chose to take it to court.
Page 90
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask the board this. What if
that was the direction we took? We heard both sides. After you
hear both sides and you say, well, this is our decision, is that -- is
that where we need to go or do we -- you tell me what you want
to do, because I'm walking in new waters here, folks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All of us are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We want you to guide us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to make sure where we
are at with the land development code. I need to be clear on
that on any action or any suggestions that I would want to see if
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All that input could be made in the
land development code cycle, which takes place in June. There
are two meetings. There's one where it's brought forward.
Everybody has heard. There's public input, and then it goes back
to staff, and if there's fine tuning or whatever that direction is, it
comes back for the second reading, and then it's either passed
or denied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought would be, I very
much would like to hear from the attorney for the group who is
here to see what his goal is, and if he has a question to put to us
today, then we can decide whether or not to answer it. You
know, right now, I don't -- I guess his question is going to be, do
you want to overrule staff. I'm willing to hear the question
asked. I don't know beyond that. Maybe we can hear from Mr.
Pires.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As the chair, I'm going to go out on
that big limb, and I'm going to say that I will allow legal counsel
to present for both parties, and then that will be the end of the
input for today, and the board can then make a decision, if that --
that seems, to me, the only way I know how to handle this, and --
excuse me, sir, you have to -- I cannot answer questions for you,
sir, unless I go to everybody in the room. So that -- it may be
seem arbitrary, but I'm going to exercise my role as chair and
take that position.
Mr. Rynders, is that acceptable to you?
MR. RYNDERS: Oh, sure.
Let me say, if you give me a little bit of leeway here, I'll save
you about a five minute request to address this issue.
Page 91
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll give you ten minutes, sir. I want to
do that the right way, if that's ample time.
There's -- the procedural conundrum that you described this
morning was created in the 1985 growth management act when
the legislature found that it had to completely overhaul the 1975
growth management act because it had forgot -- it had not
foreseen the huge complexity of compliance issues and
enforcement issues when you make planning mandatory for
counties and cities, and so it found it had to provide a procedure
for making sure that all the cities and county plans were
consistent with Chapter 163, and it had to have a separate
procedure for making sure that all the city and county plans were
internally consistent, and then it had to come up with a
procedure for challenging and making sure that the city and
county plans were consistent with their own development
regulations, and then it had to come up with a procedure for
challenging and resolving whether the city and county plans
were consistent with the regional plan and the state
comprehensive plan, and five, it had to wrestle with what to do if
what they define as a local development order, rezoning,
approval of an SDP, variance, a special exception, were alleged
to be inconsistent with the local plan. So, they had five different
consistency challenges to deal with.
They resolved the first three by allowing any affected
person, who is basically any person who spoke at a public
hearing on an adoption of a plan, to challenge it and request an
administrative hearing through DOAH, the Division of
Administrative Hearings, and then the hearing officer would
make a decision. Ultimately, the DCA, Department of Community
Affairs, would decide whether that was right or wrong, and they
had an appeal to the administration commission, which is the
governor and cabinet, and then they resolved one of those other
challenge procedures in a slightly different method requiring
substantially affected persons to pursue some other avenue of
relief, but when they got down to the rubber meeting the road
where the counties are approving SDPs, issuing building permits,
rezoning land, doing all the stuff you do constantly, they said, oh,
my God, if we let everybody come in here and file a lawsuit in
circuit court --well, first of all they said, we can't have the State
Department of Community Affairs overseeing and reviewing each
Page 92
March 27, 2001
zoning decision and building permit that the 67 counties and 350
cities are issuing every day of the week. There is not enough
state -- hardly enough federal government employees to monitor
that consistency.
So, they decided that that would be dependent upon citizen
enforcement, and they created this statute, and the house and
senate fought over it for the whole damn session in 1985, what
we call 32.15 suits, and that's kind of what we're under here, and
they hammered out a procedure in there where persons with a
certain specifically defined type of interest, defined in 32.15,
Subsection 2, could challenge a local development order as
inconsistent with the plan if he went through a certain
procedure, and the argument -- and the senate and the house
agreed on a final bill, because neither one of them could agree
on the type of standing that the person had, but they said, in any
event, let's give that city or county an opportunity before it gets
sued and has to go to court and pay Mike Pettit a couple hundred
thousand dollars to defend itself, let's give that city or county --
MR. PETTIT: You're too generous.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You wish.
MR. RYNDERS: -- a chance to correct its own order by
requiring the complaining party to file a verified complaint saying
what his gripe is with the city or county within 30 days of the
issuance of the development order, and then the city or the
county could say, holy smoke, we forgot this, we forgot that, we
overlooked this, something I do all the time. My wife has a long
list of things I've mistaken and overlooked and forgotten and
stuff. Everybody makes mistakes.
So, they said, let's give the cities and the counties -- they
get 30 days to look at this verified complaint, and they can
decide, well, you know, we did kind of forget about such and
such, and they've got a point there, and we'll straighten this out,
and then nobody has to go to court, and poor Mr. Pettit doesn't
get to make all that money. So, the process--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's the other way around, Counselor,
but --
MR. RYNDERS: -- we're in here is that we have been
required to file our verified complaint with you, hopefully to work
out this problem and stuff, and I think there is a solution, and our
Page 93
March 27, 2001
verified complaint goes on and on about the different provisions
of the comp. plan that we think it violates, but that's not really
what I think went wrong here, although that will be part of the
basis of a lawsuit if we cannot work our differences out here in
this procedure we're in.
The only reason, that I want to tell you, that I know all this
is because I read the 75 page law review article written by Bob
Rhodes (phonetic) and the two or three other guys who are in
Tallahassee -- I mean, they've been secretary of the Department
of Community Affairs or -- I mean, they analyze the legislative
history of this bill in 75 pages of a Florida State law school law
review article, which I have been required to read, and, in fact, I
have five -- I can run five copies of it and ship it out to you, and
since there's probably not enough stuff for you to read, you can
read this in your spare time and find out what you're actually
doing here and what the legislature thought that you could
accomplish by these verified complaints.
They haven't worked -- the procedure hasn't worked very
well for the reason that Mike states, most of the cities and
counties don't want to work it out, and they just don't even
answer them, and then the suit gets filed anyhow, so the
legislature's wisdom in adopting it is questionable one way or
the other, but the problem in this -- we do believe that the
approval of this particular site development plan does conflict
with serious and important provisions of your comp. plan, but
that's not what I want to talk about today. It also conflicts with
provisions of your LDC that you can easily fix.
Now, this all began because of a -- just a simple mistake.
There was a belief at the time this was reviewed that
somewhere in Ordinance 2000-43 that the board approved last
June, it had deleted the minimum lot size of one acre from
Section 2.8 of your LDC that governs residential tourist areas. I
-- and that belief acquired a kind of, you know, common
knowledge, became kind of common knowledge. I have been
through that ordinance, every amendatory ordinance before and
since for a period of two and a half years, and the board never
did delete the one acre minimum lot size from your RT zoning
district, so it's still in there, and your staff, it didn't take too
many weeks before your staff figured out that that was true, that
there was a one acre minimum lot size.
Page 94
March 27, 2001
So then, the justification for having approved this project on
the .92 acre became that it was a lot of record, and you've got all
kinds of definitions in your code of lots of record and
nonconforming lots of record and so on, and the problem is that
the body of -- in your definitions in the I. DC, which I'm going to
hand out copies of as exhibits here, of a lot of record and so on
do not make it absolutely clear that they're talking about a lot.
They're not talking about a lot and a building, and I'll tell you
why. The law in Florida relating to lots of record -- see now, I've
used up this ten minutes, but I won't be much longer, and I
believe I can make this very clear for you.
See, Florida was subdivided and resubdivided, you know,
over the last hundred years, and they've been selling lots to
people up in O. hio and everything. People come down, and they
find out that - they had shown up, and they had bought a nice 60
foot lot but the zoning in the meantime in the '50s and '60s
required an 80 foot lot. So, the courts developed the concept of
a lot of record, meaning an undeveloped lot that was undersized
or couldn't meet the setbacks or something like that, and that's
kind of the way your code defines it, a lot that because of a
change in the zoning is -- does no longer meet the criteria for the
particular zoning district it's in, and your zoning code does
exactly what the courts did, they said, well, a guy still ought to
be able to get on there and build some kind of house, you know,
or build something that it's zoned for. So, on lots of record, non --
they become nonconforming when the zoning changes and
they're too small, too narrow, t. oo wide or whatever --
COMMISSIONER MAC KIE. Because they are grandfathered
in,
MR. RYNDERS: Yeah, they're grandfathered in. You come
in, and you can get a building permit provided you meet certain
other requirements, and that's what your zoning ordinance does.
Now, there's another whole category of things that happens
with these substandard lots, is people do come in, and they do
build on them, and they use them for 20 or 30 years, and
meanwhile, the zoning changes, and it turns out that what they
built originally met the zoning code, but now, their lot is a little
too small for the zoning district, which is the case we have here.
You've got a .92 acre something lot in a one acre minimum lot
size zoning district.
Page 95
March 27, 2001
So, ordinarily your mind leaps to this nonconforming lot of
record. Well, it's not -- it's ambiguous and not as clear as it
should be and certainly not as clear as it is in the case law that
lots of record, nonconforming lots of record are talking about
undeveloped lots, but it is very clear that the code you adopted,
your land development code in Division 1.A contemplated what
would happen if someone built a non -- someone built a structure
that became nonconforming because of the change in the zoning,
and Section 1.8.10 says where a structure lawfully exists at the
effective date of adoption of this ordinance or relevant
amendment that could not be built under this code by reason of
restrictions on lot area, which is what happened here in this RT
zoning district, any structure or a portion thereof may be allowed
to decrease its nonconformity -- oh, it says it may be continued --
such structure may be continued as long as it remains otherwise
lawful, subject to the following provisions, and then they -- they
say it can't be enlarged to increase the nonconformity and so on
and so forth, and I have, which I was prepared to offer into
evidence --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Rynders, I'm going to have to ask
you to finish up. I've given you 15 minutes now, and I -- MR. RYNDERS: We will save a lot of time here.
I have brought records to introduce into evidence before the
board -- I just want to make sure I'm introducing the copies I
made for you.
In any event, there was a dec -- this property was developed
with a seven unit rental facility in the '60s, and a condominium
declaration for a seven unit residential condominium -- I guess
the clerk will take this -- was filed in 1978, and everything went
along just fine, and they ran the seven unit condominium on this
-- and in the meantime, you-all adopted this RT district with the
one acre minimum, and you made them under Section 1.8.10 a
nonconforming structure, and there's a whole set of provisions
that deals with those nonconforming structures.
One of them is that should such nonconforming structure or
portion of the structure be destroyed by any means to an extent
of 50 percent of its actual replacement cost as determined by
cost estimate, da-da-da, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this zoning code.
Well, the purchasers of this property got on there, and
Page 96
March 27, 2001
without reading this section real close, not realizing they were in
a nonconforming structure that's governed by this code, tore the
seven unit condominium unit down. Now, less than a month ago,
they terminated the seven unit condominium with this --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can introduce that at the end, if
you would, Mr. Rynders.
MR. RYNDERS: On February 28th of the year 2001, they
terminated their seven unit condominium, and we have copies of,
actually all the deeds that relate to the property going back to
the '60s and copies of all the building permits that were issued to
develop the seven unit condominium, which I'll also introduce.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They will be entered into the record.
MR. RYNDERS: Now, our suggestion to you is that here is a
property owner who's got himself a nonconforming structure, has
been using it for 30 years one way or another, it's not what the
courts have classically considered a lot of record, because a lot
of record is just that, it's a lot. It's not a nonconforming
structure. Your ordinance has called it a nonconforming
structure and has said that it's got to comply with the provisions
of the zoning code.
Well, how can he do that? He can do it through a variance.
He applies for a variance to the County for a variance from the
minimum one acre lot size, he can easily meet the criteria under
that -- under your provisions for granting variances because he
didn't create that problem, the County did by reducing his
minimum lot size, and there are seven or eight other provisions in
your section on granting --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may add those to the public
record.
MR. RYNDERS: They're in your LDC. There's no point in --
anyway -- and through the variance process and the criteria for
granting a variance, you can allow this developer to build what
might be reasonably appropriate under those criteria.
So, the solution we want to suggest to you is to tell him that
he is subject to your nonconforming structures section, and if he
wants to rebuild what he tore down or build anything, he's going
to have to come back and get a variance for that minimum lot
size and build what becomes appropriate there and to reinforce
the fact that the -- Section 1.8.10 does, indeed, apply here, you
have a Section 1.20 of your land development code, which has
Page 97
March 27, 2001
escaped my immediate grasp, that says, in -- where there's a
conflict between this code and the provisions of some other
code, law, statute, the more stringent requirements will be
applied to the landowner.
Now in this case, allowing him to build a ten story, 74 unit
hotel where formerly there was a seven unit condominium on a
lot that doesn't meet the minimum lot size does not seem to us
to make a lot of sense, particularly in the coastal high hazard
area, and I don't think you want to be the county commission
that figures out a way to let him do that, but if he -- if you apply
your code as written and requir, e him to get a variance as your
nonconforming structures section does, that procedure will allow
him to make whatever plans and allow the public input and allow
everyone to go forward happily without a lawsuit.
Now, I did want to say, there's a separate concern about the
change last June to these FARs of .60 and .80 for hotels in the
RT zoning district~ which essentially tripled from 26 to almost 80
the density of hotel rooms that can be built in your coastal high
hazard zone. That is a separate matter from this, and we've
discussed it with Mr. Weigel, and he's well -- my clients have
made him well aware of their concerns, and we're kind of hoping
that we don't have to go through one of those other enforcement
procedures that the legislature created in order to challenge the
consistency of those FARs that were adopted last June with your
comp. plan and the state's requirements.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Rynders, I understand that, but
now you're going into an area that I think that we understand.
We appreciate it. Will you please enter everything under public
information for the record, and I thank you for presenting your
position to us, and now I need to allow equal time on the part of
the other attorney, whatever he or she who is representing the
other side has to say, we'll entertain that, and then any
questions or clarification can come from our own attorneys. I
would recommend to the board that we don't pursue an active
discussion on this at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I -- may I ask one
question, Mr. Rynders, just because I want to -- I'd like to
understand your point, Mr. Rynders, and I have to tell you, I
consider myself a rather intelligent person and an attorney, and I
tried to follow what you said.
Page 98
March 27, 2001
Is your -- is your point that they don't meet the minimum lot
size requirements, and, therefore, your point is that they should
have to go through a variance procedure in order to build
anything on the lot?
MR. RYNDERS: That's one of about six points, yes. That's
one of about six points.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the one that you said
you think was just a mistake that was made?
MR. RYNDERS: Yeah, right, and, you know, if you made
them go through the variance procedure, my other points kind of
become moot, because that's all the relief we want.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically, your question is, or
your issue is that they -- that the lot is less than an acre, and,
therefore, the appropriate procedures weren't followed by
making them go through a variance?
MR. RYNDERS: Exactly correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to get the point so I
can hear a rebuttal.
MR. WEIGEL: From what Mr. Carter has indicated, and I
think is absolutely appropriate is, since we're talking about
property rights, and we have an owner/developer of this property
that's been brought into this forum for questioning, Mr. Carter
has asked for the attorneys of the subject property to have their
comment and then looking for county attorney and staff to
comment or answer questions after that.
MR. OLLIFF: Petitioner's representative will be Bruce
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property
owner.
The one thing I noticed with some question in my mind
about the presentation you just heard is we never heard anything
about the comprehensive plan, and that's what this proceeding is
supposed to be about, inconsistency with the comprehensive
plan. We heard about the land development code, but that's not
spoken to in this statute~ but nonetheless, let me address the
code question that Mr. Rynders raised.
First of all you should note that this area has been platted a
recorded plat in Collier County since 1953, and although the
minimum lot size in the RT zoning district is one acre -- and we
Page 99
March 27, 200t
certainly never had any confusion about that, I don't know --
can't speak for anybody else, but we knew that the one acre size
has been there and continues to be there.
They're trying to make an issue where there is none with
regard to the fact that this lot is just under one acre. It also
seems a little bit hypocritical for some of these plaintiffs to be
raising this issue since there are two condominiums, the Gulf
Cove and the Mansion, which are also built on lots that are
nonconforming and less than one acre in size.
It is the size of the lot that is nonconforming, not the use,
not the structure, which was torn down. Hotels are a perfectly
allowed use in the RT zoning district. It is nonconforming uses
and nonconforming structures that cannot be extended or
enlarged without coming before the county commission for
approval.
This has no application in the code to nonconforming lots.
Land Development Code section 1.8.2 is entitled nonconforming
lots of record, and it states in very clear terms, quote, in any
district, any permitted or permissible structure may be erected,
expanded or altered on any lot of record, unquote.
Then let's go to the definition section. I believe that was
handed out to you. I'd like to read that definition into the record,
because the last line of it is really important. Nonconforming lot
of record, any lawful lot or parcel which was recorded or for
which an agreement for deed was executed prior to the effective
date of this code and which lot or parcel does not meet the
minimum width or lot area requirements as a result of the
passage of this code shall be considered as a legal
nonconforming lot and shall be eligible for the issuance of a
building permit provided all other requirements of this code and
Florida statutes are met.
We have met the code requirements. Your staff, your
planning staff, your county attorney staff have reviewed and
reconsidered this SDP approval and recommended that there is
no basis to reverse the administrative approval for this site
development plan, and I have nothing else to add.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions for our legal counsel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I have one.
I -- I'll take a risk and just say what I think. I am -- I wish
there was a way to avoid this building on this lot, but I am unable
Page 100
March 27, 2001
to see one. If there is an inconsistency with our code or with our
comprehensive plan, would you please advise us of it?
MR. PETTIT: Let me -- let me address this in two ways. First
I want to emphasize what Mr. Anderson said. It's critical that at
the beginning of Mr. Rynders' presentation in referring to comp.
plan inconsistencies, he said quote, and I wrote it down, not
really what went wrong here, unquote. It's my interpretation of
163.3215 that what you are here for today is to hear about
inconsistencies with the comp. plan, and we haven't heard that,
so I think that's important.
Secondly, the question about the amendment, I think it's
also important to note that that is in a different forum,
completely different proceeding.
With regard to your request at this point, I'm probably going
to defer to Ms. Student, but I can only say that I've looked at this
with her counsel and with Mr. Mulhere's counsel, and I see no
problem, either with the land development code or the comp.
plan at this point, and let me defer to Ms. Student as to your
other question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counselor.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Mar]orie Student, assistant
county attorney.
I would concur with what Mr. Pettit said and what Mr.
Anderson said, and I also want to put in the record that in our
code, in the definition section for a variance, at division 6.3,
where there's a presence of a nonconformity in a zoning district,
a variance is not authorized, and I wanted to put that in the
record as well.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you repeat that again for me,
please?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, and I'll turn to it, and if you'll bear with
me, this code is voluminous, and I will read it into the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us what you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tell us what it means.
MS. STUDENT: Basically, where there's a presence of a
nonconformity in a zoning district, a variance is not authorized,
and that's in the definition of variance that appears in our land
development code, and I would -- I have it right here. First part
of the sentence deals with use variances which are prohibited.
Establishment or expansion of a use otherwise prohibited or not
Page 101
March 27, 200t
permitted shall not be allowed by variance, nor shall a variance
be granted because of the presence of nonconformities in the
land use district or classification.
MR. WEIGEL: Let me decipher that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Well, what that means --
MR. WEIGEL: Marjorie, you have to be at the microphone
when you talk, but the first thing is, and the last thing is, that the
variance procedure is not applicable to this particular lot. She
talks about, reading from the definition, the use variances are
not allowed, and then beyond that, indicates that -- go ahead,
finish it up.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, where there's a presence of a
nonconformity in a particular zoning district, a variance is not
authorized. So then, that leaves you -- and bolsters the lot of
record, because otherwise you would not be able to develop your
property for anything because it would be too small. So, if you
didn't have the lot of record and you don't have the variance, you
couldn't put anything on it, and that is forbidden in land use law.
MR. WEIGEL: And I'll add in here, and the fact is though, is
the use that has been approved by the approval of the site
development plan is a use -- is a structure which is not only
recognized in the land development code, but is also recognized
in the RT zoning district, notwithstanding that it's the high
hazard flood plain, et cetera, but that hotels are, in fact,
authorized under our growth management plan in that area, and,
you know, frequently the county attorney -- we give you the
news. It isn't necessarily our policy desire, good or bad, but we
have to give you the news, and this is -- as we've looked at it
clearly, independently from the developer and their attorney,
we've looked at it with our staff, come back again and again, our
vow to ourselves and to you was that if we saw something that
was a, call it a chink in the armor of what appeared to be on its
face an administratively appropriate decision, we'd let you know.
We have now let you know everything that we know and can
think of, and we don't see that issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that just really leaves us, you
know, in a position of not having a way to do what the neighbors
want us to do that I'm aware of. I mean, I can't see it.
MR. RYNDERS: What Ms. Student just said was that the
Page 102
March 27, 2001
presence of a nonconformity -- MR. OLI. IFF.' Mr. Chairman, he needs to be on the record if
he's going to speak.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Rynders, you know, I think I've
given you full time up here. He had 30 minutes, ladies and
gentlemen.
MR. RYNDERS: What you just heard was that the presence
of a nonconformity in a district makes a variance not authorized.
Well, the nonconformity isn't present anymore. It's been taken
down. That's why he needs the variance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the nonconformity is the lot.
MR. RYNDERS: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The size of the lot is the
nonconformity at issue. The size of the lot hasn't been changed.
MR. RYNDERS: No, a nonconformity is a nonconforming
structure. That has been removed, so that the only way he can
build there is to get a variance from the minimum lot size. That
is the normal procedure, I assure you, that the very provision she
just quoted shows that when he removed the nonconformity that
had been there since the '60s, he needs a variance. If he left it
there, a variance wouldn't be appropriate, but he tore it down.
It's an empty lot now, and my clients do own properties on lots
that don't meet the minimum lot size, and they are -- what are
you going to tell them? Are you going to tell them that they're --
they can't tear down their - they have to tear down their condos
and they can put up ten story hotels?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we don't change the
development code, yeah.
MR. RYNDERS: If you just follow the specific language of
your LDC, the result falls out as easily as it possibly can. He
destroyed it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Rynders, with all due respect, I
understand your position. I empathize with the neighborhood,
and in a legislative side, I will continue to work to make changes
in the LDC that may deal more effectively with these issues, but
now you're into an opinion of legal representation that is in a
judiciary situation, it is not the role of the board of county
commissioners, not in this situation, as I understand it, Counsel.
MR. RYNDERS: The legislature gave us this chance to try
and work out the problem, that's all I can say.
Page 103
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I thank you for your input, sir.
Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: I don't want to go farther than we need, but I
also believe that the definition of variance in the land
development code would indicate that it doesn't apply to lots. It
applies to yards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I never, as long as I've sat on this
board, heard a variance from minimum lot size. I've heard of
variance from side yard setbacks, front yards, backyards. I've
heard of variance on heights, but never from lot size. I don't
think that's been how we work it, and, you know, I hate this. I
wish there were something to do, but I think we are stuck where
we are, and we're going to -- I'm going to make a motion to
approve the previous decision and to say that there's not a legal
basis to set it aside.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second on this from someone on the
board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm afraid that from the
discussion here today, that that's all we can do, so I will second,
even though I don't like it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will say for the record, I, like
Commissioner Henning, I may not like the law. I may not like
certain aspects of anything. I have to stay within that
framework, so it leaves me no choice but to let this follow its
course under what's there today and to look in the future in the
next LDC cycle to make any improvements that we think we can
that would make it better for the community.
So, therefore, I'm going to call the question. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
Motion carries --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. I'm opposed. I still think it
has some good points.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries four-one. That leaves
my options open for any reconsidered efforts in the future.
Thank you very much, counselors.
Thank you, audience.
We are now in recess for 30 minutes so this group can -- can
I say 20? Recess for 20 minutes, 20 minutes, then we come
back, board.
Page 104
March 27, 2001
(Small break was held).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Back in session.
that clock. That clock is fast.
It's 10 after 2 (sic) by
Item #8C2
UPDATE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE
CAPACITY ISSUES WITH THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY- RESOLUTION 2001-96 REGARDING
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - ADOPTED; HOLD HARMLESS -
APPROVED; CONSENT ORDER WITHOUT PENALTY - APPROVED
But anyhow, we're going to the item where Mr. Mudd will give
us the report on the north sewer water treatment plant. Thank
you.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: For the record, I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities
administrator. I'm going to give you an update on the north
county sewer service and what's happened in the past; where we
are right now as far as short-term planning, long-term actions,
long-range plan; then finally talk about what we found out
yesterday with our meeting with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection about a proposed consent order.
There will be three things that we will ask for the board's
approval for motions today. One is the interlocal agreement, one
is a hold harmless agreement with a World Tennis Group so we
can put the connection with the City of Naples over their bridge
or on the side of their bridge, temporarily, for a year, and the last
one is to get the board's approval for the chair to sign the
consent order when we get it from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
First of all, let's talk about spills. We had leaky aerator shaft
seals, spilled about 50 gallons a day for several weeks. It was
contained on-site. The way we remedied that is we basically
took the liquid level down into the tanks so that it would stop
leaking, and we're going to do some maintenance items as soon
as we get over peak flows to make sure that doesn't happen in
the future.
We had solids washed out, filters backed up and spilled onto
the ground, contained on-site on 14 February, 15 February, and 3
Page 105
March 27, 200t
March, and the quantities that happened on those days are off to
the right of those days on your slide.
Overflows. We're unable to produce effluent meeting
reclaimed water standards. Our turbidity was too high for more
than one day, exceeding available reject water storage capacity.
Storage ponds overflowed, releasing partial treated
wastewater off-site to the roadside swale, and it basically moves
north to a stormwater canal to the north of the site.
That happened on February 18th, and that was our biggest
spill, at one point six million gallons, again, on February 27th, the
28th, and March 1, with the quantities that ran over the sides of
those ponds.
The way the plant works, you go out to the reclaimed ponds
that are lined, and then you go to -- then it spills over into the
reject ponds. We basically have about a day and a half capacity
out in those ponds, the six ponds that we have, and our peaks
pushed us out over that. We tried to use everything we could,
just couldn't contain all the water.
Short-term improvements. The emergency city/county
interconnect. You have that interlocal agreement on the dias. I
gave it to you this morning. It is one that we were able to work
with the city on, where it gives us a 90-day interconnect with a
renewal clause on it to -- and that's just a north interconnect to
go to their plant.
The city was gracious enough to grant us that for 90 days.
Hopefully they will let us use that renewal notice for up to a year,
and the City Council asked their staff to come back with a longer
term agreement and to also look at the possibilities of a
north/south, connecting the north and the south end of the city
system to the county system to provide a connection via their
force mains from our north plant to our south plant.
So, in that particular case, they wouldn't be treating our
waste. What goes in up north would come out south, and we
would pay them a fee for using their force main to let us
interconnect with our two plants.
I need to get a motion from you to sign that interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page t06
March 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie. A pair of seconds, Commissioners Henning and Carter.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to recognize the
appreciation that I have for Commissioner Carter and
Commissioner Mac'Kie on working with the City of Naples to
make those happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank the staff for an outstanding
presentation in front of the Naples City Council.
MR. MUDD: I need another motion at this particular juncture
so we can hold the World Tennis Association harmless on the
interconnect, and you have that paperwork in front of you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. MUDD: I talked a little bit about the mutual benefit
city/county interconnect with the north and south, and we are
working with the city staff to bring that back to the City Council
for their consideration for the future.
We are also working on an interim north/south interconnect.
We're working right now, using our effluent line that we're
putting on -- that's basically going on Livingston Road.
We're also taking a look at another temporary place so that I
can -- there's a concern on IFDEP's part and on our staff's part.
When you take the reclaimed interconnect out and use it for
sewer, you're not moving reclaimed water back and forth into the
irrigation system.
It takes time to flush that again. It would really be good if we
would have had the effluent line separate from the interconnect
for sewer.
So we're looking for another place that we can do that on a
temporary basis to keep them separated to alleviate some of the
fears that IFDEP showed yesterday at the table.
We also are updating our wastewater master manual this
Page 107
March 27, 2001
summer, and you'll see that in the consent order and the last
slide as Mike McNees talks about the consent order.
Short-term operations. We need to adjust our plant operation.
We need to equalize the flows using a new aeration basis. We
need to improve our clarifier performance, and we found that we
needed to put four times the amount of alum to settle the sludge
out this time because of the increased organic loads that we got
into the plant.
So we are going to make sure we have those chemical feed
systems on-site so that next year they're there, and we're ready
to go, as far as our protocols are concerned.
We need to increase our oxygen transfers. We had high
organic loads, BOD levels were down, dissolved oxygen levels
were down. You really want to have that stuff up so it keeps the
bugs healthy and so they'll eat a lot faster.
That's basically it. If you give them more oxygen and you feed
them more, they can eat more. So we gotta make sure we work
the oxygen issue.
And the other thing is telemetry. This year we tweaked back
our valves. We used Kentucky windage. We used people on
walkie-talkies making sure they were seeing it, it was okay. We
really need to automate that system so that you've got an idea of
where it sits and how the whole system is doing, and we plan to
put that in to make sure that we can shave off our peak-hour
flow.
Short-term institutional. We need to revise our standard
operating procedures. We need to do better. When we're on the,
edge everybody's got to be at their best, and you can't afford to
have one that's not moving as fast as everybody else is. So when
you really need it, we got to have it. We got to revise how we do
business. We got to revise our sewer use ordinance to allow the
ability to get folks to pay a different rate for excess strength
charges. You can't let your grease pits overflow and go down
the drain. You can't do that kind of business and get away with
it anymore.
That's part of the reason we had our organic load so high.
We've got to enforce our oil and grease limits and Joe Cheatham,
the director of wastewater, put a plan together where we will go
out and inspect those restaurants, and we will teach them to
make sure before next season they got their grease traps
Page 108
March 27, 2001
cleaned out, they have a mechanism to get that, and they
understand what impact they have on the system.
Then we've got to modify our north permit to dispose reject
water through our north water plant ejection well, and IFDEP
yesterday agreed that they would look at that option and that
would give us a way to dispose of reject water instead of putting
them out in our ponds, or help us alleviate that so we don't have
that overflow in the future.
Long-term planning. We need to have a biosolids master plan.
We need to acquire a site for the new regional water
reclamation facility if we indeed are going to take over Orange
Tree in 2011, and if we're going to do that, we have to do it
legally. You have to have a legislative change out there to
expand the county's water/sewer district.
More treatment capacity. On this slide I basically laid out to
expand the north plant's liquid stream early. I've got November
2001. The contractor, you'll see in the consent order, is a little
bit more stringent on when it needs to be completely wrung out
as far as the plant is concerned. Worked out all the bugs. We'll
talk about that a little bit.
Expand the south plant to 16 million gallons a day. That's an
additional eight, 2003. And that's a build-out for them. Expand --
the next expansion for the north plant to 23 and a half million
gallons a day. That's another 10 by 2004. Expand the north
regional plant to 28. I put 2009 with a question mark. We'll see
how that master planning works out with the consultant this
summer before we agree to that particular case, and then the
new third regional facility, again, if we're going to take Orange
Tree out in 2011, it needs to be on-line by that time.
Long-term capital improvements. We need to get a north
regional flow equalization tank on, and the IFDEP was pretty
adamant about that yesterday on the north plant.
We need to talk about ejection wells someplace in the vicinity
of the north plant, so we can get away from the pond issues we
have, a north/south interconnect permanent along Santa Barbara,
2004, and a new sludge stabilization facility. One that doesn't
stink, in 2004.
We need to think about it because sludge is an issue in our
landfill, and we need to think about how to dispose of it in the
right way and to get people to use it. Fertilize their fields, lime
Page 109
March 27, 2001
stabilize. That kind of business.
Long-term upgrade. We have got to add telemetry out there.
We got to quit doing the Kentucky windage stuff. It will get you
into trouble, and if you make a mistake, you got a big problem,
and it's ugly.
Then we've got to reduce our infiltration in inflow, and we're
doing that by lining our old sewer pipes to make sure that you
don't get rainwater coming in that doesn't need to come in from
the groundwork.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Mudd, I need to interpret --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Kentucky windage?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm scared to ask.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Coletta, why don't you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to. It's a
term you use when you're shooting over a large area to allow for
the wind and the drift of the bullet. Someday I'll take you out and
give you a first-hand experience.
MR. OLLIFF: So what he's saying is, instead of having an
electronic system to be able to tell when we're holding
wastewater back in the lines, underground, in order to provide
some capacity at the plant --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it sort of poke and guess?
MR. OLLIFF: We're using our nose. That's what he's telling
you. We're basically manually managing that system, and we do
not have a good electronic system to be able to tell us what
we're holding back and how far we're holding it back. And so
we've been doing it on a manual basis, and that's not a good way
to manage it.
I'm sorry. Go right ahead.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right. We've got a couple old
Kentucky windage folks up here.
MR. MUDD: Take a look at this slide. This is the north plant,
the long-range plan. You'll see the solid one that kind of jumps
up in a step manner. That's basically the expansions coming on
line.
If you take a look at the starred line that's the lowest one,
that's basically the average annual daily flow. If you look at the
line --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who cares. We don't care. You
can leave that off.
Page 110
March 27, 2001
MR. MUDD: That's right. Because that's where says we are
doing just fine. The next line is more predictive of peaks, which
is 1.3 times the average annual daily flow. That's the circled
area.
Then, when you look at the lines with the diamonds and the
plus sign, the diamonds are basically we've taken out the
permitted capability. We averaged the last three years, '98, '99,
and 2000, up on the north side, and then we said, okay, we're
going to get 2.1 million gallons permitted per PUD, and what's
build-out, is it five years or is it 10 years? If it's five years, it's
the plus sign line, which is the high end. If it's 10 years, it's the
diamond-shaped line in that process.
Now I will tell you, and Mike McNees brought out a good point
with IFDEP yesterday, we might have a skewed number in there
because in 1999 the impact fees for roads were increased, and
everybody rushed to get their PUD in for permitting, and it was a
huge spike. So I might have an outlier in my numbers when I do
that average.
But what I will tell you is, those high lines are worst case.
The worst possible case. I will show you in the next couple of
slides as I go out, when you take a look at the south plant, same
legend with the lines. You start taking a look at five-year and
ten-year. What I would draw your attention to is the line with the
round circles on it that is just to the left before you get a plant
increase of eight on at the south side.
We're rerating our plant right now on the south end to get it
from eight to nine, at the peak month go to 10. And that
basically takes care of that, and there's a protocol change to the
plant.
The plant was originally built for 10, but was only permitted
for eight. We are going through that rerate right now. That's
something we saw early on and had that working already. And
Tom Palmer from Hole Montes and Joe Cheatham will be up
there with IFDEP talking about that particular issue here before
week's end.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom Taylor?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry. That's right. Thank you, sir.
Long-range plan combined. What happens when you group all
the plan for the plants, north and south? And you can kind of see
when it's coming on, but when you finally see that last part over
Page 111
March 27, 2001
there where it basically plateaus out, that's 56 million gallons a
day.
According to our planning folks, in a study that was done in
1994, that's build-out for Collier County. That build-out date was
supposed to happen at 2030.
So I will tell you my high numbers with the plus and with the
diamonds, right there, on that average out having a number
that's probably too high because of the '99 peak in permits. I
would tell you that it's happening 15 years too early in this slide,
as far as build-out is concerned. I think we've got a spiked
number, and I'm a little too high.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, I don't understand that. I
want to get that point. Give me that one again.
MR. MUDD: In 1999 -- for instance, in '98 at the north plant,
we permitted two million gallons a day, future expansion. In
1999, we permitted 3.2 million gallons. In 2000, we permitted
one. I guess what I'm saying, there was a rush to the register in
'99 because of the increase in impact fee for the roads. When
you take a look at it down in the south side, the south plant, in
'98 they had .5 million gallons promised. In '99 it went one. In
2000 it went to .5 again.
So I have a bump in the '99 numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that 3.2 million gallons a day
that happened in '99 at the north plant, we think is, at least,
partially caused by that rush for permits that resulted from the
other decision?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If I'm right, we corrected one problem
that we caught up in impact fees and we did that and we will
review it in a two-year cycle. We'll never get into that position
again. That corrected one part of the problem, but when we did
that, Mr. Mudd is exactly right, everybody rushed in there to get
in under the wire.
MR. OLLIFF: The other thing he's telling you in simple terms
from a planning perspective, a lot of people probably pulled
permits trying to beat that impact fee increase. Some of which
may or may not every actually get to the point where they
develop them quickly or that actual lump of permits that's sitting
out there's probably going to develop over a longer period of
time.
Page 112
March 27, 2001
So he's sort of reinforcing that number by telling you that
based on development growth rates that we've had historically,
our long-range planning staff will tell you that line is probably too
high, it's too fast because their projects tell you it should be a
15-year further line, in terms of the build-out, where we need 56
gallons.
So there's some skewing going on here, but we are telling you
we are showing you real numbers at least. And we're showing
you that we are planning based on peaks. And we are showing
you that we are planning based on actual connections and real
live numbers.
And hopefully -- I don't know that I've ever seen this kind of
information presented to the board where you can actually see
where are planned expansions coming on and line and banging
that up against what our projected growth rates are so that the
board gets a pretty good feel for what it is we're doing for facility
planning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you know what the bad news
is about showing this to us is now we're going to want to see it
on water, we're going to want to see it on roads. We're going to
want to see it on everything. MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's exactly what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's called accountability.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, accountability.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We are going to get there because we
know what we need to do and, thankfully, we've got staff now
that are really laying it on the line to us and that's what we need.
Shame on us if we don't follow through.
MR. MCNEES: Good afternoon. Mike McNees from the county
manager's office. I think we all probably read in the newspaper
this morning that the only thing standing between us and a
resumption of connections to the north sewer were two items.
One of those items was the physical completion of the
interconnect with the City of Naples.
The second on those items was only a consent order that
needs to be signed off on both you and the DEP. And when they
say the devils and the details, well, here we're going to go into
the details of the consent order because it's not as simple as it
sounds.
Page 113
March 27, 200t
And what I'd like to do today is walk you through what we
believe to be the major components of the consent order as it's
going to be given to us by the DEP. Get you to approve and
authorize the chairman to execute that consent order when it
comes through as long as there are no material changes to the
things that I've talked to you about today.
If we happen to negotiate something that's materially
different from what we talk about today, we will have to come
back to you. But it's our intent to get as much approval as we
can today so that we can move this process forward as quickly
as possible. And I'll explain each of these items to you and what
the conditions are as we go.
The consent order is a document that is an agreement
between the county and the DEP as to certain actions that are
going to take place as a result of what they have cited us for
which would be violations of their regulations.
The first thing that they are asking us to commit to is to the
completion and full operation of the north county water
reclamation facility expansion by December 1st of 2001. Staff is
preliminarily agreed to that date. I will tell you here though that
it will require some further commitment by the contractor.
If we don't feel like we have that commitment and we can be
comfortable with that date, we will be negotiating and coming
back to you again. But it is our intention, at this point, to work
towards that date and making that happen.
The second item is that we will agree for the completion of
either a permanent or a temporary interconnect between the
north and the south wastewater facilities by December 1st of
2001. We believe we can do that with an effluent interconnect
that's being constructed as we speak, and that that one won't be
a problem for us. We will just borrow that line until we don't
need it anymore.
Third item would be the actual completion of the city/county
interconnect which we expect will be done in two weeks. You
have already approved the interlocal agreement and the
mechanical pieces of that are already in place.
One of the issues will be that we will need to get from the
DEP -- this is not an item of the consent order, but the consent
order is contingent upon this. Which is a rerate of the south
wastewater plant from eight million to ten million gallons.
Page 114
March 27, 2001
You will recall that probably seven years ago -- six to seven
years ago -- you did some ma]or expenditures at that plant for
odor control purposes. To change that treatment process and do
to some safety concerns of the neighborhood, we at that time,
could have asked for a rerate of that plant based on those
changes so that it could legally treat more than it is today.
We're going to go back, and have already preliminary met --
our engineers have had preliminary meetings with DEP on getting
that rerate which would give us two million gallons a day in
excess capacity.
If we're going to interconnect, and we're going to take a
million from the north to the south, it's very important to the DEP
that they believe that will work. And if they pass this rerate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means we prove to the DEP
that the capacity is as great as we believe it is? MR. MCNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what rerate means?
MR. MCNEES: Yes. That means it changes the permit,
changes that from an eight million gallon permitted capacity to a
ten million permitted capacity.
We think that that will happen, and our engineers have
assured us that from their preliminary meetings, they don't think
that's a problem. That's just one of the little contingencies here,
one of the details that we have to hammer out within the next
two weeks.
The other thing we're committing to is the construction of
equalization facilities as Jim talked about at the north plant by
November 1st, 2002. They want a surge facility there, so that if
we have peaks, we can store them and then do that treatment in
the off-hours. That's something that staff's willing to commit to.
Another thing that's very important that answers the question
that I think everybody who's been involved with this issue at
every step has asked, which is, once we have solved the
immediate problem, how are we going to make sure we don't
ever get into this position again?
DEP is going to ask us -- going to require us -- and we're going
to agree, to submit to them a completely updated wastewater
master plan by October 1st of this year.
It will include all of the information that Jim's just talked to
you about a few minutes ago, but in much greater detail and with
Page 115
March 27, 2001
much greater analysis of the growth issues and the plan
expansion needs and definition of those for the future, and that's
something we want to do anyway.
So it's just as well we give that, and frankly, we want to work
with the DEP and make sure they're agreeing. They're a good
critical third party to look at our assumptions and where we're
going and make sure they buy into what we're doing.
Related to that master plan, they are asking us in the consent
order to make formal commitment to the next expansions of the
north and south plants, as Jim described just a few minutes ago.
The first piece of that would be that we commit to having a
permit application to the next 10 million gallon expansion at the
north plant in the hands of DEP by January 1st, '02.
Following that would be the actual construction of that by '03
and -- actually the construction of the south plant expansion that
we talked about by '03. Completion of the next 10 million at the
north plant by '04. Those will be formal commitments as part of
the consent order.
Those are the primarily the ma]or pieces of the consent order.
The only thing we still have remaining to talk about are
penalties because the penalties will also be part of the consent
order, both the penalties for the incidents that have already
taken place, and the penalties that would be put into place if we
fail to meet the terms of the consent order.
With respect to penalties that are assessed based on
incidents that have already taken place. The DEP put a number
on the table yesterday based on a matrix that they use with the
number of incidents, and they have something they call
"economic benefit." It's kind of a complicated analysis.
We didn't get to see that backup information yesterday. I
know their number, though. Their number was $130,000. They
give us an option of doing what are called "in-kind services,"
where if we can spend that money to the benefit of some other
issue or, in fact, to the benefit or part of the wastewater system
in the county that they agree would be a county benefit, we can
spend that money, as opposed to just fine. We can spend that
money to benefit Collier County in some way.
Now, to do that, you essentially pay 50 percent more. It
would be our opinion that that's worthwhile because we get the
benefit of it instead of just paying a fine. So, given that their
Page 116
March 27, 2001
number was $130,000, which we will negotiate with them some,
and given the 50 percent more than that recommending an
in-kind payment, we would recommend that you give us the
authorization -- or the chairman the authorization to sign the
consent order giving the authorization of fines not to exceed
$200,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, but that -- can any of this
expansion be counted toward that?
MR. MCNEES: No, ma'am. It can't benefit just us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again. It can't benefit
just --
MR. MCNEES: Just our system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has to benefit what?
MR. MCNEES: Some of the types of things they're throwing
out, there are some package facilities in the county that they're
having problems with and they think if we can spend some of our
money either to bring those folks on to our system or to make
some improvements. There are some areas where there are bad
collection systems that we wouldn't typically as the provider pay
to repair those systems. They would be the homeowners'
responsibility in some lower economic areas. Those would be
places we could spend some of this money. Where the residents
would benefit, the environment would benefit.
And so that's what we have to negotiate with them. They
have some ideas, and I'm sure we have some ideas. So, what
we're asking for is your approval, not to exceed -- and we're
obviously going to negotiate for the lowest penalty we can, but
we don't want to have to come back if we don't go any lower. So
we think $200,000 will cover it.
The other penalty phases are, if we fail to meet the December
1st, 2001 commitment to have the north plant expansion
operating or to have the north/south interconnect in place, two
things happen. One is $10,000 per day fine the DEP would begin
to asses.
Two would be the immediate cessation of the issuance of
Certificates of Completion until that plant is operational. That
means connections to the plant would be halted, at least those
that require DEP approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, this is the only point -- well,
actually there are others, but this one gives me the most
Page 117
March 27, 2001
heartburn, particularly about whether or not to just sign off, you
know, to give the chairman authorization to sign an agreement
without a special meeting or something because until we know
what the odds are of Item 1, completion by 12/01/01, then golly,
$10,000 a day.
Right now what we have is no permits, and that's a horrible
thing, but what we're saying, if we agree to this, if I'm
understanding correctly is, you're promising that by December
1st you'll have your expansion on-line. If you don't, not only will
you get no permits, we want 10 grand a day. Am I understanding
that correctly?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then somebody has to tell us, got
to show us, a contract with the contractor to complete it by 12/1.
MR. MUDD: And we agree with you on that one, and until we
get the contractor to come back and show us, as we crash this
thing with incentives, that we can bring this on board. We're not
going to put anybody's signature on this consent order until
we're darn certain that that can happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't this tell the contractor
right now that if he can charge us $10,000 a day to accelerate
the contract? I mean, you know, I'm not sure we're in a good
negotiating position if we sign off on this today before you've cut
your deal with the contractor.
MR. OLLIFF: That's what Jim was just telling you. We don't
intend to execute this consent order until we know what the
schedule is--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we vote today to give Jim
the authority to sign this within these parameters, then your
contractor knows what we're willing to pay to get that contract
accelerated to 12/1.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm not signing anything until I'm
assured we can do that, and I want to know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At what cost?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I want to know what's going to
happen here. Everybody wants to know that. The contractor
also -- he's already behind. There may be some other clauses in
there that he may be under penalty, I don't know. But if he
doesn't perform, we've got another big hammer, I would think.
MR. MUDD: Yes. The contract has a clause in there for
Page 118
March 27, 2001
liquidated damages if he doesn't stay on schedule.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it $10,000 a day?
MR. MUDD: No, it's about $2,500 a day, but he's three months
behind, so there's some negotiating room with him, in order to
talk this process out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my question bottom line is,
when are you guys -- you're going up tomorrow, you're going to
try to negotiate this deal with DEP tomorrow. You know, what if
we had a special meeting on Friday to hash this out and see
where all the puzzle pieces fall together or something. I mean,
I'm --
MR. MCNEES: The main piece of the puzzle is what can we
get as an agreement with the contractor. That is the big piece
hanging out there, I guess. To be perfectly frank, I'll tell you that
our negotiating position can't be much worse.
We're in this position where we have pressures to get this
thing done. I don't know that it gives him any more information
to know that if it's not done by December 1st, that our fine would
be, if we agreed to this, $10,000 a day. I don't know that that
necessarily puts us in any weaker position.
If we don't think we can get there by December 1st, we're not
going to recommend this thing be signed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that piece. My
question is, I'm trying to be the contractor for a second and
decide how much I'm going to charge you -- yeah, I can get you
there by 12/01, but it's going to cost you $30,000 a day. I don't
know, you know -- the question here is at what price, paid from
what fund, and I'd rather see that before telling Jim, go off and
sign this. That's such a missing piece.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right now I calculate he's in the hole
$225,000. I think that does give us a bit of a chip to work with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Now, what does that -- using "in
the hole 225," what does that mean?
MR. MUDD: Means he's 225 in the hole because he's late
already on his schedule, and he's got about $2,500 a day in
liquidated damages. So my calculation and the chair's
calculation is he already owes us about $200,000. I think there's
some negotiating that can go on here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's good.
MR. MUDD: You have to give us a chance to get out there and
Page 119
March 27, 2001
talk to them, and there's some things the CBIA can do from the
Association of General Contractors perspective, that's a national
organization, in order to help us and bring some powers to bear.
They can work their membership, and they can work those
associations to help us get some attention as far as that
gentleman is concerned.
Now, we had a conversation with them this morning. He is
coming back, and I've got a call in to their CEO this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then, I guess the only point is, can
we sign off on this enough today to give you guys enough
discretion, or do we need to talk about it one more time?
MR. MCNEES: Tom just had a good suggestion. If it's the
$10,000-a-day penalty, if you think that gives the contractor too
much information or gives him too much leverage, you could
authorize us to approve the consent order absent that penalty,
and if we can't talk the DEP out of assessing that penalty, we
have to call a special meeting for Friday, and we'll get you to
approve that then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe that's --
MR. MCNEES: In the meantime, we will have had that
opportunity to negotiate with the contractor without the penalty.
Now, that doesn't get us all the way down the road because I
don't know that DEP is going to be interested in removing that
clause. They seemed somewhat adamant about that, but at
least it keeps us moving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, for one, feel comfortable with
the way we've got the direction going. We've got an emergency
situation that requires extraordinary measures, and we have to
hold with some sort of schedule, and I have confidence in staff
and in Jim to stop short if the reason comes.
We can set a certain parameter and not go past it, but let's
keep the ball rolling on this. We don't need any more delays
because every day we delay on it is one day less before we get it
completed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will also be in Tallahassee tonight and
all through tomorrow, and if there's anything I can do while I'm
there to explain our position to the Secretary or anyone else, I
will be available, naturally, to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What an ace in the hole that is.
Question, though. With permitting, if we're going to be needing
Page 120
March 27, 2001
permitting as we go through the steps of this building, and if the
permitting is anything like the problems we've had to face, like
permitting that flare over at the landfill, and they hold us up even
though it's not our fault, what recourse do we have there?
MR. MCNEES: The best answer I can give is an example. The
permit required from the DEP to make the interconnection
between our system and the city system we already have in
hand. That was only approved by City Council last Wednesday.
So the DEP is committed to working with us to the limit of
their resources and their legal authority to make this happen.
They want to see us succeed. They want us to be able to
successfully treat the sewage that's being generated, is the
bottom line.
And it is in their interest, as well, to help us, and they will
work very hard. I'm not concerned that they would hold us up
from some permit. In fact, for these specific items, our
temporary interconnect and the north/south expansion, the only
permission we need from them is to use that effluent line
temporarily as an interconnect, and they've already verbally
agreed to that. They think that's a good idea.
So I don't think permitting will get in the way, in terms of
kicking us in to some fine mode. Maybe the thing for us to do
would be, if you'll give us this authorization contingent upon our
ability to negotiate something solid with the contractor, and if
we find by Friday we're unable to do that, or by late Thursday, we
can call you into special meeting and take whatever action we
have to at that point.
What we're trying to do is keep this thing moving as much as
possible, so that we can resolve a lot of the uncertainty that's
out there in the building community about when it is they're
going to be allowed to connect.
Our target is to have this resolved in two weeks, and the DEP
has agreed that they think that's manageable. We just have to
cross off that one box about the contractor, and you have our
commitment to do everything we can do.
MR. OLLIFF: And just so you know how serious the DEP is
about helping us, the DEP district director from Fort Myers
offered not only to assist if we need help with the contractor in
order to crash that schedule, but also offered help up the line
from the DEP organization if that was necessary in order to be
Page 121
March 27, 2001
able to put some additional leverage to get us there to this 12/01
date.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have got some big hammers in the
toolbox, ladies and gentlemen, and we will not be reluctant in
using them.
MR. MCNEES: There's one more piece of detail, one more
item of the consenter, it's fairly minor, but I need to put it on the
record.
Other violations of the consent order, other than the two
December 1st dates, such as if we're a day late turning in the
master plan and all the other things that are in the consent
order, they're saying fines of $100 a day. That will be a formal
part of the consent order so we need to be authorized execution
of that.
That's the terms, again, we're looking at a target of two
weeks to be able to have all the issues resolved and have the
DEP sign off and execute the consent order. At which point
they're saying they will once again issue Certificates of
Completion or give their permission to connect with that
wastewater plant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Talking about the master plan,
how long ago was it that we did our master plan for wastewater?
MR. MUDD: Wastewater master plan was done in '97.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Now, before we worked
out this latest master plan, how did we measure capacity?
MR. MUDD: We did that on peak flows but not on service
population. And that was the mistake. That was changed some
time in that time frame, they did it for water and they did it for
sewer, best I could tell, and when we do it this time, we're going
to do it on service population.
Service population high season.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you kind of lost me
there, I'm not sure--
MR. MUDD: No. What they basically did is they did, okay,
what's the average population serviced over a year in Collier
County. So that big spike that you get for three or four months
during the high season, tourist season, basically was smoothed
out by your lower averages in the summertime when everybody
got there.
So that's your service population. Your service population
Page 122
March 27, 2001
wasn't at the high-end and that's what got us in this trouble is
the high-end population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we were measuring peak and
then we went to average. And who is "they?" You mention
"they."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Former public works directors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we have a consultant on-line
at that time?
MR. MUDD: Yes, we did, it was CDM.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've already asked for -- I think
I see where you're going. Having been on the board at that time,
I've asked Tom to get me the complete transcript of that meeting
because I'd like to see exactly what I was told the day that we
made that change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Then I will leave it up to you.
Well, you will be hearing about it.
If I may add something to this.
This is something I've been saying for some time and I don't
mean this as a shortcoming for Mr. Mudd. Not at all, I think his
departments doing as excellent job.
I believe we should have an outside firm that can do an audit
on the physical resources we have in this county, and do it once
a year. We have an audit done on a continuous basis on the
money we spend.
Now, I'm sure that we're correct, but we also found out that
the landfill was seriously short. We found that we were short on
roads. The landfill, I understand now that the problem with the
rationale behind the airspace was because they combined
Immokalee with the one here in Naples. Combined the two of
them together to come up with an answer.
Now, that was a fact that just came out recently to me. I
don't know if you knew about it before. The problem is that
we're not getting continuous answers. Even though right now we
might be in the line, we might be in the good. Who's the
guarantee that down the road we're going to get back into the
same problems that we have today.
If we have an outside firm to come in and do an audit, then we
can have some predictability to this.
How long is the resource going to last.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the sound of it and I am
Page 123
March 27, 2001
willing to consider it. But I just want to point out to as a person
who feels sort of hoodwinked by the '96-'97 decision, I got that
advice from an outside expert.
Today, I got the truth from county staff. So I am not too
persuaded by the -- now, maybe it's a good insurance policy
because now maybe I can go sue those people for giving me bad
advice. But absent -- but for the fact that maybe there's
somebody to sue, I'm liking what I'm getting from staff better
than what I got in '96 from an outside source.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, and I assure you I do to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff, why don't you make a
suggestion to us, maybe it isn't today, but there is a question.
And I understand both sides and maybe you would like to come
back to us with a definitive answer on that.
MR. OLLIFF: I think the level of information that the board
wants, we're going to start providing on a regular basis as part of
your -- what used to be an annual update and inventory report for
the board, I think was just a confusing, difficult item to get your
arms around.
It's our job, I think, to try and turn that into something that's
very simple for you to understand. And it's my goal to give you
that information in a format that makes you believe you don't
need an outside audit. I want you to be able to see these
numbers in a simple enough term that you understand them
easily and you know we're on top of the capital project planning.
And whether it's me sitting in this chair or somebody else in
the future, you'll know the kind of information you need to be
able to make the decisions you need to make.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And members of the board, to reinforce
that, I spoke recently with Mr. Olliff to establish what he's
referring to as a briefing book. So you will get briefed through
this manual on the key things in front of us, including these, so
you will have it on a very -- what I call a "deliverable" on a
regular basis so you will know what's going on. And you will
have an opportunity to be updated. So that's what Tom's
working on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I was going to say, I am not
willing to walk away from that idea. Not yet. And if Tom can
produce what he says, then I'm willing to consider it. But no
offense intended to individuals, but we have a big responsibility
Page 124
March 27, 200t
and the buck stops here.
And if you can do what you say, Tom, then that will be one
thing. But if it stays confusing and hard to follow and we can't
keep our arms around what project -- because I mean we
approved this dang expansion three years ago. And meanwhile
people are out shopping interest rates. I guess we should have
known that. I'm not exactly sure how we should have known it
as a board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think these are all great
suggestions, but please keep in mind what we have now that we
didn't have then is we have an excellent performance
measurement system that we hold the county manager
accountable for. And we -- that's the biggest tool that I know to
make sure that he delivers on what we ask him to do. And so
that helps.
And I don't discount any of this because it's all good food for
thought and hopefully all of these things -- Commissioner Coletta,
the briefing book, the performance measurement system begin to
ensure all of us that we are getting what we ask for.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I can tie perhaps your
concerns to this specific issue and give you some level of
comfort where we are with wastewater, that third party
independent expert analysis of what precisely are our plant
capacities, what have our flows been, what are the permitted
connections and what can we estimate will be connected in the
second year, third year, fourth year, fifth year. That is precisely
what this master plan update is about.
What makes me even more comfortable that it will be
accurate is once we have created it and once you've seen it,
we're putting it in the hands of the DEP and it will be their job --
and I'm sure it will be their intention to go through that with a
fine-tooth comb to make sure that in the real world, and when I
say the real world, I'm talking about waste stream into our
facilities, we're going to be able to handle whatever comes our
way.
That is their commitment. So in this particular issue --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. That's one piece, but
what we have learned from this is that we need the same
information -- I want that graph that you showed us with the
stars and the dots on it. I want that for every infrastructure, and
Page 125
March 27, 2001
that's what our AUIR ought to look like, frankly, Tom. Not this
book we get.
MR. MCNEES.' The other thing, I don't know if this gives you
any level of comfort or not -- I hate to almost say this, but when it
comes to wastewater, it's just not that dang complicated.
It's nuts and bolts. It's number of flushes per household. It's
all mathematical. It's all additions and divisions, and it's just not
that complicated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Mike, where were you in '96?
MR. MCNEES: And we did an awfully good job in this county
for 15 years of keeping up. We need to get back to those nuts
and bolts systems that we've had in the past. And that's our
commitment to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I can't help it, but I was
the only one sitting up here in '96 or '97. Where was somebody
with common sense then? And I will be back after I look at that
transcript because I don't understand how -- it is a simple thing.
How could we have been so misled.
MR. MUDD: The other thing I'd add to the thing is, there's a
date on here, the latest date of 2005. We're going to be under
this consent order until 2005. That means that they are under
the long form for IFDEP until 2005. So I will tell you, they've got
our thumbs squarely on our heads to make sure that we do
exactly what we signed up for and to make sure it's all there.
And we've dotted every i and crossed every t.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have public speakers, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF'- We do. You have two public speakers. David
Ellis, followed by Kathy Curatolo.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'll be brief.
Just really a couple of things in the last two weeks. I really
wanted to come back after our last meeting and first of all, say
thank you for the proactive nature in which you've approached
this challenge.
It's been exciting to see the government come together and
work with the private sector to work on this problem. And I
know many of you have personally been involved with actual
things that have happened.
Commissioner Mac'kie, I know you spoke before the city and
actually plowed a lot of ground before Commissioner Carter
came back last Wednesday and worked with the city.
Page 126
March 27, 2001
Commissioner Henning, you've been involved with getting the
word out and attending a lot of these meetings. And I know you
other commissioners have also been raising the bar as far as
expectations of what we will be able to achieve in the
community.
I can't tell you how much, as a representative of the
construction and housing industry, that we appreciate that. Our
work force is affected, the people that own property is affected.
Just so many people in different ways have been affected. It's
been very helpful.
The other reason I wanted to come today was also to tell you
how proud I am of working with your staff in the last few weeks.
They've done a lot of very positive things. Mr. Dunnuck, Mr.
Cheatham, Mr. Olliff, Mr. McNees, and certainly Mr. Mudd have all
been very open, accessible, and professional during this process.
And when I say accessible, that's probably been the key to
what's happened in the development industry. I can assure you
that my phone has been ringing off the hook. I know yours has.
And your staff has been extra deliberate in actually dealing with
those questions. You can imagine as that uncertainty has
mounted, they have been there.
We have had meetings almost on an every other day basis at
our office late in the afternoon where someone from the staff has
been there even in some cases to come and say, "We don't know,
but we will be back in a couple of days to tell you what we know
further." It has been very positive for us in that regard.
And now as we're working towards the resolution, at least
where we know where we're headed, once again that's very
helpful. And to update you on that, at 4 o'clock this afternoon,
we'll have a meeting at our office and your staff will be there,
once again, breaking down what they just told you into layman's
terms.
And also one of the other things your staff has been doing is
actually challenging the industry that I work with in the private
sector to loin them in these solutions. Which has also, I think,
been a very positive thing in giving us an opportunity to work
with you, with our expertise, with the people we know, the things
we can bring into that process.
And once again, I think the private/public partnership side of
this has been very, very positive, and again, I will tell you that
Page 127
March 27, 2001
has been a big help.
I will also tell you that we in the private sector realize signing
this consent order isn't the end of this. It's actually the
beginning. And as we look to the future in resolving these issues
and meeting some of these deadlines that are going to be
hanging over our heads, we will be working with you to resolve
those things.
Let us know how we can be a resource to you. We worked
really closely with your staff, and again, anything we can do to
help in that regard, and anything we can do as we look at this
whole system and how we got into the situation and actually
working through that, we want to be apart of that so we don't
face these challenges in the future.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Ms. Ceritillo?
MS. CURATOLO: For the record, Kathy Curatolo, American
Specialty Contractors of Florida. Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto.
But I would be remise if I didn't personally say thank you to the
Board of County Commissioners and commend county staff.
I represent subcontractors. We're always the last to know
about anything. It's the way the system works. But in this
particular process, we've been a part, hand-in-hand, with staff.
Sharing of information, looking at various solutions, and even
recommending from our base what could be done to move
toward solving this problem.
It's been a great experience. We would like to continue
sitting at the table. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. Commissioners, I
would like to call a question that we approve staff
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I think that we need to move
on and approve the recommendations of working with DEP on
this consent order.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any additional things I need to put in
there, Mr. Olliff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can that be taken out -- that
$10,000 issue? That if that has to come back be in then we'll --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. I include that in the motion.
Page 128
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I include that in the motion
about taking the $10,000 out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll include that in my second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a first and a pair of seconds.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. We've got our
marching orders.
MR. MCNEES: Just two additional things I'd say. One is, I'd
suggest given, that you've taken that out, you leave some time
on your calendar for Friday because I suspect we will be back
here with a special meeting.
Second thing, there have been a lot of thank you's thrown
around, and we beat on the press a lot in this room. I think we
owe a vote of thanks to both of the beat reporters for the
News-Press and the Daily News who have worked very hard to
communicate daily and correctly and clearly so everyone who's
involved in this issue can know what's happening.
They've done a lot to help dispel some of the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They really have. They've done an
excellent job. Just one point of clarification, when we talked
about the taxpayers paying for all of this. I think we need to
clarify, Mr. Mudd, their user fees that pay for part of any
construction or capital improvements on these facilities or
maybe some other ad valorem. But I hope as we go along you
differentiate, it's good for the community to understand the
differences.
MR. MUDD: The expansion issue is an impact fee issue. And
it's strictly an impact fee issue.
MR. MCNEES: There's not a dime of ad valorem money in any
of this discussion. We're talking all user fees and impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Penalty money?
MR. MCNEES: User fees. And all the penalties will, again, go
to capital construction. So we think that's a good solution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for that clarification and I'm
sure it's been duly noted by the Naples Daily News and the Fort
Myers New Press. If you include that in your future articles, I
think that will help the commission.
Ms. Mac'Kie, as vice chair, I'm going to hand this to you. I'm
Page 129
March 27, 2001
on my way to Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Good luck.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know how to reach me up there in
case there's anything I can do before Friday.
MR. OLLIFF: Madam Chair, before we leave that item, I can't
let that item go without expressing to you just our views on that
consent order.
It is not something simple that we are getting ready to enter
into with this consent order. I mean, this is not just a piece of
paper that we sign and it makes this problem go away and
everybody's happy at the end.
I can't begin to tell you the amount of work that that consent
order represents and when we talked in our planning workshop
again about that bag of issues that we need to deal with, this is
the one on the public utilities side that is not going to get fixed in
the next couple of months.
This is one that's going to take probably three to four years
before we're in a better position on the wastewater side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am just go to keep beating that
this is only one of several areas where now we know to be
worried. We as board members know that we might not be so
comfortable as we thought we were on, frankly, we thought we
were comfortable anyway, right, guys?
Item #8G1
REPORT OF THE BAYSHORE/AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ACCEPTED
Okay. Item 8G1 is the review of the oral and written report on
Bayshore, Avalon, MSTU.
MR. OLLIFF: I need to report that the chairman isn't here, but
the written report was included in your agenda package. Unless
there's any questions, I would just suggest that you accept that
into the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
as is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
public speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I make a motion that we accept it
I'll second that motion. Any
No speakers on this.
Page 130
March 27, 2001
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It passes 4-0.
How are we going to handle all of these many -- can we finish
everything but the executive session and then come back?
MR. OLLIFF: Actually that item does say that these items can
be heard at the conclusion of the regular agenda. So I think
we're going to try and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do have some people here on
the Miller Boulevard. I don't know -- do we need to go into closed
doors on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, assistant county attorney. I did not
request that we go into closed doors on that. We've already had
one meeting and I'm not sure, is the agenda item up now? It's
9A.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Actually, we're going to do --
we're going to postpone the 9s for a second.
MR. PETTIT: Right. That's what I thought. I don't think we
need a closed session on Miller Boulevard, I've not set it up that
way,
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2001-97 APPOINTING GEORGE C. MOHLKE, JR.
AND N. REX ASHLEY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go quickly to item 10A,
Health Facilities Authority. I know there was a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I recommend we go with the
committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. I want to say something
here and I agree except where I have one concern. Chuck
Moehlke, I really respect the gentleman, he always adds a lot to
the advisory boards that he is on. But I must remind the board
members that he was the consultant for Naples Community
Hospital on the care and how much money Naples hospital is
losing.
Page 131
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is health facilities. This
has to do with bonding for construction -- this isn't health care.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not the task force?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motions stands as is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in favor please say aye.
It passes 4-0.
Item #1 OB
DISCUSSION REGARDING SHELLFISH FARMING IN EVERGLADES
CITY - SUPPORT ENDORSED
And we could have our discussion about shellfish farming in
Everglade City, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to present this. As you may remember, Everglade
City has suffered quite a setback a number of years ago with the
net ban that greatly affected a way of living for many of its
residents.
This particular shell farming is being done right at this
moment in time on Pine Island very successfully. One of the
residents of Everglade City, Mr. Robert Robinson, brought the
letter to me that he received from the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. And he asked if we could go
ahead and move on it.
It says one thing in here. That, "However, it is important to
get the support of local government early in this process before
they can proceed." And what I'd like to do is to be able to pass
this on to the Florida Department of Agriculture with our
recommendation that they proceed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I assume that all the
environmental regulatory agencies --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, they all come into play during
this process. It's going to take about two years before it ever
reaches its final point where they would be able to do something.
There's a possibility that they might never succeed. Many of
the different attempts that have been brought forward in the past
have failed. Most of the time it was because of water quality.
Page132
March 27, 2001
Clams need water that's fairly free of any kind of a bacterial
contamination.
The area that we're looking at should be that type of area, but
we could find out very shortly in the studies that will be done by
the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be good for the economy
out there, that's for sure. Are there speakers on this item? MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Passes 4-0. Thank you,
Commissioner Coletta.
Item #11 B1
RESOLUTION 2001-98 ADOPTING BYLAWS FOR THE CRA AND
THE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARDS; APPOINT
THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS
THE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD FOR
IMMOKALEE; DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE POSITIONS FOR THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD TO
BE APPOINTED BY THE CRA AT A FUTURE MEETING; AND TO
ELECT A NEW VICE CHAIRPERSON - ADOPTED WITH
COMMISSIONER FIALA APPOINTED AS VICE CHAIRPERSON
Then our I o'clock time certain item that we can, I think, very
quickly handle, item 11B1. Which is the Community
Redevelopment Agency ward and its bylaws. And most
importantly, as far as I'm concerned, the ability to get an
advisory committee appointed -- applied for and appointed for
these areas so we can start having some official community
representation. That's a critical piece.
Instead of a presentation, why don't we see if board members
have questions on this or you need a presentation, just say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I thought it was pretty clear right
in the summary.
Page 133
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought so, too. Yes, ma'am?
MS. FORD: I do have some things to point out. Some changes
that have been made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for the record, your name is?
MS. FOORD: I'm sorry. I'm Marlene Foord, for the record,
principal planner with planning services department. I just
wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that there have
been a few editorial changes made to the CRA bylaws and to the
CRA advisory board bylaws.
Unfortunately, those changes did not make it into your agenda
packages, but I believe that Mr. Litsinger has passed them out to
you and I can refer to them.
I'm sorry that I don't have the board agenda page numbers for
you on the revised bylaws, but I can try to lead you to that
section.
Most of the changes are just grammatical and typographical.
But the significant change that you need to be aware of is in the
CRA bylaws. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, the thing that Mr. Litsinger
just gave us, what page?
MS. FOORD: That would be page 2 of the CRA bylaws.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So page 2 at the very top.
MS. FOORD: It's Article 3, section 5.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Role of secretary?
MS. FOORD: Yes. The Clerk of Courts is assigned according
to the bylaws as secretary for the CRA board and the Clerk has
requested that we include some language to reflect that a
written agreement will be prepared that will lay out all the duties
of the secretary, as well as the costs of the services of the
secretary for the CRA. And we will bring that to you at a later
date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's appropriate since this is our
first one. So we're going to get the details worked out on this
one. Any other substantive changes?
MS. FOORD: No other substantive changes, but there is one
additional change that needs to be made in what you have in
front of you now. The new version that you have. Page 4, Fiscal
Matters, Article 8, section 2, Financial Reporting.
Instead of referring to the Clerk of Courts maintaining
financial records, it really should be the secretary shall maintain
Page 134
March 27, 2001
financial records there.
Other than that, those are the only changes you really need to
be aware of since --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any questions, board members, for
staff? Registered speakers? MR. OLLIFF: None.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion and second.
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes 4-0.
And we can talk about lawsuits.
MS. FOORD: Excuse me. One more thing, we also needed to
have a vice chairman appointed during this meeting. Back in
May 23rd of last year, a chairman and a vice chairman were
appointed. The chairman is Commissioner Mac'kie, and the vice
chairman was Commissioner Norris, and now a new vice
chairman needs to be appointed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that
Commissioner Fiala be the vice chair.
Second.
All in favor please say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes 4-0.
Now, we will talk about lawsuits. No, we won't.
MS. FOORD: One more thing. I just need to advertise that the
CRA website has been prepared and is ready for the public to
view. It is still under construction and you'll see a little "Under
construction" sign on there for a little while until we get it
perfect. But I have the website address with me today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell it to us. It's on the visualizer,
Katie.
MS. FOORD: Probably can't see that, can you? I'll read it out
for you. It is www.colliergov, net. That's the main county
website. And then the link is planningcra and cra home page.
And we will be keeping that updated as much as we can.
Page 135
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you'll be showing that on
Channel 54 over and over and over so that people can find it?
MS. FOORD: We can do that. That's all I have.
Item #9A
REPORT ON STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN
COLLIER COUNTY V. MARSHALL, CASE NO. 99-2009-CA-TB,
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
(PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT CLAIM FOR MILLER BOULEVARD
EXTENSION} AND REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION - STAFF TO
NEGOTIATE A ROAD MAINTENANCE PLAN/TEMPORARY USE
AGREEMENT AND BRING BACK TO THE BOARD IN 45 DAYS
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then we will go now under
Item 9. 9A is a report on status of negotiations on County vs.
Marshall and that's the Miller Boulevard case that we will not be
doing in closed session.
MR. OLLIFF: Did you want to take public comment before you
went to the county attorney section?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Public comment on general topics.
We should do that.
MR. OLLIFF: You have two registered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I called the agenda item out of
order. What we're going to do right now is take public comment
on general topics.
MR. OLLIFF: Apparently he wants to talk on 9A.
Who is that registered speaker?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. OLLIFF: Emilio Baez.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Boulevard, sir?
Then we'll go right ahead.
Are you here to talk about Miller
And now we'd like to hear what he has to say first, and we'll
certainly go that way. So, if you would?
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, assistant county attorney for the
record. As you know, in 1999, the county filed a lawsuit against
approximately 18 parcels and the owners of those parcels over
which a dirt road known as Miller Boulevard Extension travels,
between 41 and Miller Boulevard in the southern Golden Gate
Estates.
Page 136
March 27, 2001
When I was here in December, I advised the board that there
had been extensive settlement discussions with the state and
with Florida Wildlife Federation who are -- the state controls the
majority of those parcels now in one way or another.
Florida Wildlife Federation owns one of the parcels. About
trying to get this thing resolved so that we could establish a
temporary right of use and also do some basic maintenance to
the road to give reasonable assurance that our emergency
vehicles and county vehicles can get back and forth. And that
was in lieu of proceeding with our prescriptive easement lawsuit.
At that time I also told you about a parcel owned by an
individual named Bobby Clay. There was some uncertainty as to
whether Mr. Clay had sold that parcel to Miccosukee Indian tribe.
That also is part of that piece of dirt road.
I wanted to report back to tell you where we are on these
negotiations and get some direction from the board.
Frankly, we do not have a signed settlement agreement, at
this point, to present to you. For a couple of reasons, after
talking with talking with staff the last time, they advised me that
they felt that to give reasonable assurance to the board, based
on the board's direction at the last meeting, that we could get
county vehicles across that road in most weathers and
ambulances and the like.
They felt that it might be necessary to do something called a
"control grade." And I will tell you that Florida Wildlife
Federation and the state are very much against any notion of
raising the overall grade of Miller Boulevard.
What I have been discussing with the DEP who represents the
state in this matter, at this point in time -- a DEP attorney, is for
county staff to prepare a road maintenance plan of what they
think would be a minimal maintenance necessary to make that
road passable in most weathers for emergency vehicles.
I think the reality is that at certain times of the year, it is very
difficult to get ordinary vehicles across the road. The county
staff is doing that.
What I would like to do is come back, I hope to come back
then with a revised settlement agreement with that road
maintenance plan attached. The idea being we can get the state
and Florida Wildlife to approve it.
Another piece of the puzzle would be, I have said, "Look, we
Page 137
March 27, 2001
don't want to go from the court house to the administrative court
house. If you're going to object to any permits we need to do
this maintenance, we might as well just soldier on in the court
over here and see what happens."
Neither the state or Florida Wildlife have been amenable to
that, but the state has suggested the road maintenance plan as a
way for both of us to get around that road block. Because if they
sign on to a road maintenance plan and we adhere to it, and
what we do may or may not require a permit, they've basically
agreed and given up any objection they could have to the permit.
I also have learned since we've talked, I have been in contact
with South Florida Water Management District. One of the
concerns, I know, particularly Commissioner Coletta, but
certainly the other commissioners raised was, they didn't want
anything being given away in terms of our rights to the road until
the physical removal of Miller Boulevard took place. And that is
going to happen.
What I am being told now by South Florida Water Management
District, which is the entity that as I understand will oversee the
restoration project, 2003 to 2004. I don't think either the state or
Florida Wildlife have any objection to giving us this temporary
use right tied to that physical removal. I don't think that's a
problem. I think previously we had brought an agreement in that
talked about just a date off in the future.
The one sticking point aside from the control grade issue, and
I just have to wait and see what the staff comes up with is this,
Mr. Clay, in fact, has not sold that property to the Miccosukee
Tribe. I was told he had. The Miccosukee Tribe, I've now found
their lawyers. They'd like to buy it, but they haven't bought it
and they don't have a deed.
And he is out there not in the negotiation process in part
because it was represented to us that he was selling it. And so
the one concern I have is that I don't want to bring something
back to the board with a loose end. And we would two ways to
go. We are either going to have to negotiate an agreement with
Mr. Clay or the tribe if they buy it over the next few weeks. Or
both about our usage, or we're going to have to go ahead with a
lawsuit as against that parcel.
That's where we are. The only other issues county staff have
brought besides the control grade is we had a provision in the
Page 138
March 27, 2001
agreement that we would take care of cleaning up trash. This
road is a dumping ground for people. They dump stuff out there
and some of the people who use the road went out some months
ago and did a ma]or cleanup and really cleaned the road up. But
I suspect it's begun to accumulate again.
The staff was questioning whether we would want that
provision. I just want to make you aware that there is that
provision if we go forward with the agreement that we're working
on. And the staff's issue was do we have the manpower to do it.
And I think what I can do is maybe negotiate some limitations
on that part of the contract.
So at this point, I don't have an agreement. One of the
directions I'm looking for from the board today is, give me a time
frame. This has gone on a long time, I know the board would like
to end it and I think we need to decide, are we going to get it
settled and how much more time do we want to spend settling it
or do we just want to proceed to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, I think what the words
health, safety and welfare that live out there is utmost important.
We shouldn't give up anything in the way of any kind of rights to
that road until everyone has settled up with the state and moved
out.
Because if we do anything any sooner, we're going to be
lessening their ability to be able to negotiate. Plus the safety
issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at the same time,
Commissioner, I agree with you a hundred percent. And at the
same time, what we've been doing so far is fighting because --
suing because we didn't like the pace that they were moving.
We didn't like the way things were going.
Now that the pace has improved and we have some idea of an
outside date, 2004 is when they expect to be ripping up the road,
I think we have the obligation to cut a deal that provides some
safety between now and then.
And we need to be realistic. We are not going to get a deal to
raise the grade of that road just so they can tear it down in a
couple of years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I might be able to waive on
that a little bit. The last time we met and we brought this up --
I'd love to hear the exact wording, but I think my motion was to
Page 139
March 27, 2001
go for the utmost possible deal we could get including above
grade and including culverts underneath it. And that was the
motion that the commission approved at that time.
And I understand where staff is kind of limited with what they
can do and I appreciate the fact that they're keeping it open and
they're doing an excellent ]ob. I get complaints at the other end
about the amount of traffic going through. As far as access
goes, it's there.
The road is beat to death and it's taking a lot of beating at the
other end, but that's a whole different issue. But the main thing
is, I don't care if it's 2004, 2005, 2006, if the state cannot settle
with each person on that road, we shouldn't give up the right to
it. There's one person that's left, we shouldn't be the
determining factor that that's the reason they're going to go.
At that point in time, I'm more than willing to consider the
loss of that road. I'll tell you why. Because I've been talking to
Clarence Tears, and he's telling me that there's another way I
can get public access into the back end. I'm concerned about
once the road goes, how people will have access to public land.
That's a big thing with me.
When that time does come, Clarence and I are talking about
another route to the west which will follow a natural sand ridge
that would be able to give access to people back in there. Be
able to go in and make use of that natural resource in an orderly
fashion,
but I don't want to give that road up until everybody has settled
with the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's hear from the public
speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: First speaker is Emilio Baez, followed by Justo
Morera.
MR. BAEZ: Hi. My name is Emilio Baez. I have 97 acres off of
Sabal Palm Road. And I was at the meetings at Big Cypress with
Clarence Tears Friday.
And one of the main things was, is that we are in the
landowner request zone that will never be forced to sell. And our
access is Miller Boulevard. Because we cannot go west through
the slough.
And they have -- you know all about Sabal Palm, everything
they've been opposed to us doing. So we had a meeting and they
Page140
March 27, 2001
had said -- that's forestry had said that they're probably going to
have to leave it into a hundredth. So I mean, what's the
difference now between from 75 to 100 where there's only a few
more miles and putting it through all the way and keeping it that
way then on to 41.
And I have this restoration. I brought one for each one of you.
And the main thing about it was, is we're never going to be
bought out. They don't let us go through Sabal Palm to the west,
so that means that we well always have to be in there because
we're not selling and we're never forced to sell. And that's under
-- you could ask forestry, every one of them.
They have said that they're not going -- since Belle Meade was
always a willing seller, willing buyer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the government changed
that, sir, I really do.
MR. BAEZ: No. We have been misrepresented then by Sonja
Durwatcher (phonetic) and Clarence Tears and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I am wrong. I may well be
wrong.
MR. OLLIFF: If I may, I have spoken to somebody at South
Florida Water Management about Mr. Baez's situation because he
has talked with me about this. And it was indicated to me that
he just said was accurate. Now, again, some of this stuff
seems to shift, but that he is in a situation where they are in
what is called a willing buyer zone -- or willing seller zone.
MR. BAEZ: And there's about 800 acres of owners. There's like
25 maybe 30 owners that are in this landowner request zone. So
I don't know how they're ever going to be able to own 100
percent and be able to close Miller Boulevard when we're in
there and we're -- they're allowed to leave us in there so.
I mean, they're going to have to do something with culvert
pipes, raise Miller Boulevard for the future, for an emergency
evacuation and emergency.
And I have these petitions, I don't know whether you want me
to enter it now or in public comment where it has -- we've got
1,178 signatures --
MR. COLETTA: No, now. We should have those in front of us.
Especially what you have as far as the restoration literature. It
would be great to have in front of us.
There are a couple of questions, if I may. I know you're not in
Page 141
March 27, 2001
front of a mike so I'll go ahead and put the question together
while you're passing that out.
Where are you located in this particular scenario? How far
are you from 41 and how far are you from the other way out?
MR. BAEZ: Okay. I'm a little bit over five miles, almost six
miles from 951, so you know, for them to put Sabal Palm Road
through would be the best bet. But they've always fought us and
fought us. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with
MSTU and that MMT2 hill that we had done out there with
attorneys and attorneys.
It's like the state has bought all these other people around us
and, you know, between all of us we have like between 800 and
1,000 acres.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is your physical address?
MR. BAEZ: My physical address is 315 15th Street North, but I
have a cabin out there that's 1490 Sabal Palm Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that your residence?
MR. BAEZ: No, it's not my residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a recreational area?
MR. BAEZ: I've had it since 1986 and that's part of my quality
of life. I go out there on the weekends.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tell me this, though, is there
another way in to your cabin other than Miller Boulevard?
MR. BAEZ: No, there's not. Unless Sabal Palm was culverted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is to be a meeting taking
place on Sabal Palm Road with the residence there about the
maintaining of the road and whatever it takes. Maybe that would
be a good one to go to.
I'll be honest with you, I'm very sympathetic to your
recreational needs and everything. And that's one of the reasons
why I want right of access. But I'm more sympathetic towards
those people that actually live there and still have a residence
there. And I take it that there's probably some people here that
do.
Not that yours isn't a justifiable concern, it is. But when you
come right down to the end of it, are we going to maintain Miller
Boulevard for one place for recreational -- I mean I don't know if
that would be possible.
MR. BAEZ: I'm not the only one of those people who have
their homestead out there.
Page 142
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then that's a different story.
MR. BAEZ: They have there homestead --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not to belittle you in any way. I
just want to put everything in it's correct -- you know, rate it out
in the right way.
MR. BAEZ: Well, I wanted to sell my house and move out
there, but with all the sets that they put against us, NRPAs and
everything else, that we can't do anything with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I apologize for taking your time.
Can you grant him another minute?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly.
MR. BAEZ: They put all these things that we can't do this
with our property. I bought this before they made all that. I don't
understand why we didn't get grandfathered in when there's such
little bit of landowners that were left out there that they put
something on us that you can't do this, you can't do that.
What can we do? We pay taxes on our property. You know,
and I don't understand about this NRPA. If it's already taken
affect, I mean, what can we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me make you aware of that
meeting. I'll get -- in fact, when you get through you can visit my
secretary in there and she'll give you the information for when
that meeting is taking place. It's going to be held by Clarence
Tear, Big Cypress Basin to talk about the various issues out
there.
One way or another they're going to have to give you entrance
to that way or else I'm sure the commission here will be fighting
them every step of the way.
But mainly for the homeowners. I'll be honest with you.
You're important, but it would be secondary to actual property
owners.
MR. BAEZ: That's my second home out there. So, I mean --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I understand that. But
you only live one place at a time.
MR. BAEZ: We can't get electricity --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a lot easier to deal with the
fact if somebody actually has that as their homestead. We'll go
backwards from there. I'll fight for it every inch of the way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many registered speakers do
we have, sir?
Page 143
March 27, 2001
MR. BAEZ.' Can I enter these into the record right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give that to Mr. Manalich, if you
will, and he will be sure it becomes a part of the record. MR. OLLIFF: You have about four more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's call our next two, if we could.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Justo Morera, followed by Al
Perkins.
MR. PETTIT: While Mr. Morera's coming up, I would want to
address the board at the end because I think we need to talk
about the consequences of no agreement versus a continuance
with the loss.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. MORERA.' Good afternoon. My name is Justo Morera, and
I own ten acres on Sabal Palm Road, and I live at 2105 Sabal
Palm Road. I'm approximately five miles east of 951.
And before I start anything else, let me just clarify one fact.
Emilio Baez is not only that owns property out there but he's also
representing everybody. He's the president of Sabal Palm Road
Association. And a lot of the homeowners, they don't even have
a car to make it out here.
So what he's saying is he's also representing us. We're all
behind him. He's done great work. Without him we couldn't do
it. So I just want to clarify that.
Also I don't live out there, but I have someone does live out
there. And we have cattle and we have a farm. We have a tree
farm out there. And I'm really concerned because the rainy
season is coming up and nothing was done with Miller Road,
nothing was done with Sabal Palm Road. As a matter of fact, it's
worse than it's ever been.
They're talking about conservancy of the Sabal Palm Road --
excuse my--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing fine.
MR. MORERA: I don't speak very perfect English.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, but you have got two
languages and most of us only have one.
MR. MORERA: But my concern is the way Sabal Palm Road is
right now, that part is so torn up that the people are starting to
take a wider turn on the left, on the right. There's no
conservation there no more. Somebody should take a ride out
Page 144
March 27, 2001
there and look at it. It's really bad. It's a mess.
So if we did something about Sabal Palm Road and we've
been talking about this forever. I even went to the Florida Power
and Light because I want to bring electricity out there. They
know all about it. Everybody knows about Sabal Palm Road.
And I talked to Clarence and I talked to Nancy Payton, and I
always told them, can you come up with the goodest plan on why
we cannot open it. If we did, it would be better for everybody.
Because the road would be a road, you have the floatation
underneath. There's no reason for anybody to disturb the
sanctuary. And they just go like this, but nobody's ever come up
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll start having some meetings
out there. How would that be? I know there's on with water
management. And I'll get all the neighbors together. I'll show
you how to organize.
MR. MORERA: I was trying to get a hold of Mr. Henning to see
if he could come out to the meeting with us, but I was not
successful. It was -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
than happy to come out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Well, that's District 5.
He's your guy.
I'll be more
MR. MORERA: Well, you were not here. I would try to get a
hold of you. You were out of town. So I try to get a hold of -- I
didn't have enough time. I didn't know of the meeting until like
three days before the meeting. So it was my fault.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's quite all right. I was at a
week of emergency management training to try to figure how to
get you out of there in case of a hurricane.
MR. MORERA: But what they told me at the last meeting,
Clarence didn't want to hear about it because he said it was not
part of the conservation, and it *is. Because if he's going to tear
up Miller Road, how we going to get in and out of there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
MR. MORERA: So it is part of that. And he said, "Well, I don't
want to talk about it." I said who do we go to talk to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to talk a lot about it,
you wait and see.
MR. MORERA: And then they told me that that road has never
been permitted or assisted or anything. I got an address out
Page145
March 27, 2001
there. It's 2105 Sabal Palm Road. I didn't make that up, they
gave it to me. And tourist get lost in there all the time. I'm
always telling them -- because I'm the last. I got a nursery out
there, I'm the last one before you get to the so-called bog.
And I always tell them, don't go there because you going to
get stuck. And they say that's a road, they show me on the map.
Well, it says Miller Road, Sabal Pond Road to 951.
I say, well, if you want to keep going, go ahead, but. So
evidently -- I also saw a future map. I don't know if you -- and it
shows Sabal Palm Road coming all the way up to the five-mile
easement which is one section -- it's right in my corner section.
And I'm the first one, and Bob Tipton is right behind me, and then
we have 10 or 15 more neighbors right in that little vicinity there.
And like I said, Emilio is there and he has his cabin there. But
he also has cattle there, too. And he's our president, that's why
we was -- I wish everybody was up here all the time. But a lot of
those people, they don't have a way to get here. Or they just
scared to come up here.
What I got to say is we need to do something about it. Quick.
Especially before the rainy season comes. At least some kind of
temporary access because we got flooded last year. I ruined a
truck last year going through the bog. That was the only way I
could go through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you for you time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Perkins will be followed by Vince Doerr.
MR. PERKINS: Al Perkins, Belle Meade Groups. Wake up,
people. Don't go to sleep on us. Pay attention. Commissioners,
well, you've heard "temporary use." We're not going to settle for
temporary use. Take it to court. Either make it or break it.
Because we've got an election coming up in a year and a half,
and Jeb Bush and his cabinet are well aware of the evacuation
route needed from Marco Island and Goodlette.
Now, I will openly say I will work my fool fanny off to make
sure that he is not going to be in that dog gone governor's
palace. Unless he puts the evacuation route through to take and
save lives from Marco Island and Goodlette and the people that
are out there in the Bell Mead southern Golden Gate Estates.
Who lives here? He doesn't. Who pays the bills here? He
doesn't. We got so many people from out-of-county, out-of-state
Page 146
March 27, 2001
telling us how we should live our lives and how we should pay for
it. And there's never enough money. Never.
Yet we've got a matching funds thing for the city of
Everglades which amounts to $7.8 billion which, if you count it
up, we're going to be paying two-thirds of that. The state of
Florida. And it all settles right here, smack, right here in Collier
County.
How much tax can you people afford to pay and how much tax
revenue can you afford to lose?
We're talking about the Picayune State Forest that you can't
get to. You can't use it. You're not welcome there. The "No
Trespassing" signs are up there. And when you get right down to
it, you start talking about the South Florida Water Management,
Big Cypress Basin.
In the past, I have caught them deliberately flooding. You
know it, everybody else knows about it. And all of a sudden,
Clarence Tears was there when this was being -- taking place
and they were four-foot above their permitted level of water.
Now, who's the crook here?
Wildlife Federation. They bought their property after the fact.
When Miller Boulevard was being pressured to be put through for
an evacuation route. Talk to the people on Marco Island. You
should talk to them, Donna. You know most of the same people
that I do and I'm sure their not going to hold back. Or do you
want me to take them and promote them and they can call you
about this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. EMS. That forest out there is supposed
to be for recreation, the CAR program. Conservation and
Recreation. You can't use it. You're not allowed to go there.
Now, all of a sudden I'm saying, my God, if I'm going to take my
kids to a park or to a playground, or whatever, don't you think I
should be able to take and get inside instead of just standing
there looking for it.
And then when I'm looking for it, somebody comes up and
hands me the bill. I can pay for it. And I can pay all the
administrative costs that they can do this. Don't forget, people,
you people at home, wake up. You're paying through the nose for
a bunch of people who don't live here to tell you how to live and
how you're going to pay.
Page 147
March 27, 2001
Bobby Clay -- now, I personally talked to everybody that
owned property on that Miller Boulevard Extension. Now, at that
time, I talked to Bobby Clay and he said, I will donate the right of
way, which is 30 feet on both sides of that line, if -- if the county
would take and withdraw their lien because somebody else was
dumping trash and garbage out there on my property. And
then the county sent the crews out the clean up then they sent
me a bill. And I didn't even know what was going on. And this
was not just one issue. It was right up the line.
Avatar, which is the new GAC. Avatar. Make this part of the
record in particular. The collusion that goes on between the
state of Florida, the governor and cabinet, and especially the
Department of Environmental Protection. I call it the Department
of Internal Plunder.
They bought up Avatar's property south of the alley for $400
an acre. But the deal was $400 an acre and all of the permits
needed to put in place a marina up at Cape Coral.
With that I'll finish. Thank you. Please, wake up and protect
the people who can't protect themselves. Please
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. OLLIFF: Vince Doerr will be followed by your last
speaker, Bernard Nobel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nobel, if we could sort of get
you "on-deck," we'd appreciate it.
MR. DOERR: Vince Doerr, retired fire chief of Ochopee fire
control for more that 20 years. And we covered the blocks
probably more than anybody else in this county.
I want to say some things real quick if you have any
questions, if you can hold them to the last because if not, I'll eat
up my five minutes.
One thing I want to say, I've known Bobby Clay for many
years, and Bobby Clay is a good fellow. He's no different than I
am or anything. It's just like me buying that five acres or the
Miccosukee buy it. It seems like there's a whammy over us if the
Miccosukee buy it something's going to happen to those five
acres,
If Bobby Clay sells the five acres, I don't care if he sells it to
somebody in New York. It doesn't matter. I don't understand
this. I don't know.
What is this going to mean if he buys that five? Are they
Page 148
March 27, 2001
going to put a road in there and have a bingo club or something?
I don't understand that. I know he's said to have, as far as I
know, even by record, he hasn't changed over the deed yet.
George Orsbold (phonetic) and myself for over 11 years have
been fighting for this, the roads more than 25 or 30 years. That's
been proven by aero photography, all the pamphlets and stuff I
loaned to David Weigel and Mike. I think he's still got them all in
the boxes.
And in that the aero photography proves that.
years, this is just getting really, really to be old.
know who to blame for it, I'm so confused.
And for over 11
And I don't even
More than 20 years you would think this could be proved as
prescriptive right of way which we're still trying to get in front of
a judge if we have to. But there's this compromise, that's true.
But I don't want to see our road right of way compromised and in
four years to be tore out. I can't even get my mind right who's
even dreamed this up.
Like you all said, if everybody's bought out, yes, it doesn't
matter. But Picayune Park's going to need three ways to get
into. One of the largest parks probably in the state of Florida. To
be able to get into access, use, camp, and father and son fish,
whatever-- hunting even.
I don't know. I get so fed up listening all these years, and the
last few years I haven't said anything because I thought we were
cruising good. But it sure hasn't done any well.
Wildlife Federation. My good subject. Their five or ten acres
was bought after 20 years at the prescriptive right of way was
lost. Wasn't ruled yet by the judge, but Nancy Payton run out
there a little late and I mentioned one time to her at the meeting,
it doesn't matter, if Nancy Payton bought, or if Miccosukee
bought it or if John Henry in New York buys it. The 20 years is
gone. Okay. So I want to -- I get tired of hearing that.
The grade level. If we had to live with the highest grade level,
the highest grade level, you said that -- somebody was talking
about grade level here. I think it was you. If we had to live with
the highest existing grade level to fix that road up, that's a good
start and we can make it. The highest grade level that's on the
road. That's not a problem. Without a lot of fill and a lot of
culverts.
You don't need know culverts when the road is running north
Page 149
March 27, 2001
and south. You mainly need them when it's coming down from
the north or south. So the roads in line with this. So that's not a
bad deal just for one little portion over at the Miller pave.
I have land out there -- 112 acres about a mile and quarter
north of US 41, right off of Miller Road Extension. So I'm just a
mile and a quarter up there.
I don't want to see us lose our right in four or five years and
tear that road out. That's -- like you said, Mr. Coletta, if
everybody's out, yes, then we can all see that.
If you cannot get in at US 41, same thing with fire, rescue,
medical, calling for backup help from Marco, Isles Capri, Marco,
East Naples. If you can't get in at 41, you have to take 28-mile
detour to go around. Ridiculous because of the pussycat or
whatever, I don't know.
But what I'm getting at is, there's -- the parks going to be
used, ya'll. And it still needs fire, rescue, medical. Not just for
the few homes, for the people. You claim hunting and camping,
father and son deals whatever. It's going to be needed to get in
and out.
So what have you got? Everglades Boulevard, literally. What?
Go to Ochopee and come back on Scenic Drive? Ms. Mac'kie
knows the whole story because we've been many times in front
of this thing.
And it's -- I just can't believe we're in America and we've got
to this stupid level. Like something couldn't be compromised
between Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, everybody. And make
them happy without affecting anything.
I'm going to step down because I might get a little mad and --
but I just want to say I just hope you all can stick it out. And I
know you're in a political situation. Mr. Coletta, I know you will
be, too, because -- well, part of this is not in your area, is it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It's all in my area.
MR. DOERR: All of Miller?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All of Miller.
MR. DOERR: All the way to the top part, I didn't know. And
we're where we got -- where we're trying for the road fixup, but it
doesn't include the paved road. You know what I mean? Their
talking about shaving down the paved road.
Thank you for you talk and if you need anything or any
information, I know a lot of my information I got with the
Page 150
March 27, 2001
attorneys right now. If Mr. Coletta or Ms. Mac'kie or any of you,
or Mr. Henning, or whatever -- how do you say your name?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
MR. DOERR: I'll be glad to come in and sit down with you and
go through anything, photographs, map, or anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He knows it, guys. So he's the guy
to talk to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me what your name is again.
MR. DOERR: Vince Doerr.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: D-o-o-r?
MR. OLLIFF: D-o-e-r-r.
MR. DOERR: Sorry. For the record. Vince Doerr, D-o-e-r-r.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, it's for Ms. Fiala, she's
going to call you and get the history. COMMISSIONER
COLETTA: If I may, I got the meeting date and the time here. It's
the Big Cypress Basin will be having it. The address is 6089
Janes Lane. Be every two months. That's interesting.
The 21st of May is the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
You know about it?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. I met with them Friday.
They're the ones --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Either on the record or nothing. So
if we could hear from our last speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: That speaker is Mr. Noble.
MR. NOBLE: Bernard Noble. I have 20 acres at 124 and
Miller. And we have a home on it and we have five out buildings,
and they all are permitted with the Collier County building
commission. We're in the process of moving there if we can get
the electric in. And providing we can get a right of way.
We have talked with electric and they will give us right of way
across state land, which is also allowed by my people to go
across state land.
And then also the parties that have permit on 124 -- off the
end of 124 to my property that I can go -- that I'd have access to
my property from a permit. So they're talking of cutting out 124.
Now all the south blocks there, cutting them roads out. Well,
they're somehow going to have to get that permit, there is a
permit. I have the permit of that road from the county.
So that way, I mean I tried to put everything in line, permits
and everything to get in there. And the thing of it is, now they
Page 151
March 27, 200t
say that they're going to tear up all the road, and that's our only
way in and out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm not tearing up anything,
sir.
MR. NOBLE: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not tearing up anybody's
roads.
MR. NOBLE: That's what I'm saying, and also the park is there
for fire protection, this has got to be taken care of. I already did
-- what I will call illegal work. I cleared a bunch of trees so I
could get a helicopter in because we spend four to five days a
week down there. We don't live there, but we would love to. We
live in La Belle, but we would sure love to go and live there.
And be out and about and in the wilderness. I mean, I love
that. I don't know what people want to leave in a condo, but
that's where people want to live it seems like. They want
everybody else to live in a condo. That's the last place I'd ever
want to go. I like to be with the wildlife.
And more people should be out in the wildlife to find out what
the world is all about. And at least take your young children out
there. Children today won't even know what wildlife is if we go
ahead and completely cut off all access to public land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one of the things I'm
fighting for if I may mention it again.
MR. NOBLE: Because I mean, children haven't got a place to
go anymore. There isn't anyplace to take a person hunting. We
used to have, at one time, over at the national park and Big
Cypress, you could go out there and hunt.
Now you got certain areas. That's all you can go, certain little
area. And when can you take a child out when you got a bunch
of drunks hanging around. That's another thing.
There's no police protection in a lot of this area because of
the park. What do we care? I've got gun shots all the time on
weekends, all around the area. I had a game warden tell me the
other day they talked to the county. Or I mean I told them the
county was going ahead, it wasn't even protecting the area
because they don't even call that county roads.
Every one of those little gravel roads are county roads.
Somebody advised the game commission that they are not
county roads no more. Because I had the game warden right out
Page 152
March 27, 2001
there. I told him, I said, "It is, it still is. Check with them."
"Well, there's nothing I can do with these fellows."
They're allowed to be on those roads. They're county roads
and there's people shooting on them. I mean, we chase them off.
We have to once in a while. It's a wonder -- when we're there,
because we're there five days a week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who do you chase off, sir?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People shooting.
MR. NOBLE: From off 124 and Miller. Way at the south end.
And right beside Miller Extension. There's traffic there roughly of
-- I go in and out of there quite a bit. I go there with a buggy, in
and out. And I've had seven, eight cars at a time. Now, I'm not
exaggerating. Those tracks are there if you go down there and
look at that road, you can see that there's traffic there. If there
was no traffic, there would be grass growing in it. But there's
not grass growing in it.
So I would just appreciate if you think about the future of our
children, if they have a place to go. Because that's what I plan
on doing. Hoping that my grandchildren can enjoy a little bit of
the outdoors yet.
So I thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
We'll go back to Mr. Pettit. My goal here is, I can't help but
say this, you know that song, "You can't always get what you
want, but if you try you might get what you need." You guys
know that song?
Because we may not be able to get what we want here
because the only way to get it is to push through litigation,
litigation, lawsuits, and years. But what we need is something.
And we need at a minimum what Mr. Doerr said about for the
road to be improved to its highest current elevation. That's a
reasonable goal. That's not increasing grade.
But if we can give staff direction to -- and frankly, I think you
did already, say "Go and cut the very best deal you can. Come
back and tell us what it is."
I think what you're telling us today is, "Nobody will even talk
to me," or "1 can't get anywhere."
MR. PETTIT: I think what I am telling you today is I went to
the state and Florida Wildlife with the information I got from
transportation and operation staff and also the thought that we
Page 153
March 27, 2001
shouldn't negotiate a deal that was just going to throw us into an
administrative litigation which wouldn't achieve anything.
And I have not gotten a response at all from Florida Wildlife
Federation. And I have gotten -- the only response I've gotten
from the state to date is they have revised the agreement. They
have some comments. And they think the solution around the
problem of objection to permits would be a road maintenance
plan that we agree to and incorporate in the agreement.
I want to say something --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me pause you, Tom, before you
go there. But if we got a road maintenance plan that we entered
into with the state whether Florida Wildlife participated in that or
not, we would be covered?
MR. PETTIT: Well, we would be covered on the state property.
Florida Wildlife owns one of the lots.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So their option would be to call the
sheriff's office when we trespass across their lot.
MR. PETTIT: Yes. Their option -- our option would be -- I
guess what I'm saying is the question would be raised whether
we could do maintenance on their lot. And I would think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we do what we can.
How about we get you to go get a maintenance agreement with
the state to improve --
MR. PETTIT: I think -- maybe I am being overly optimistic. If
we have a maintenance agreement, I think Florida Wildlife
Federation would sign off on it if the state is willing to sign off on
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, for the most part, I
found Florida Wildlife to be fairly cooperative on a lot of other
things we've been involved in. And I think the main thing I'm
aiming for here, and I don't know if they really object is that,
what we're trying to do is those people that still have homes in
there, that are occupied on a regular basis, in other words, that's
their homestead, if the state settles with them. I mean, if there's
no other way in or out and that's the only way they are going to
be able to move, we have to make every effort to the last minute
to hold on to that for them.
MR. PETTIT: This is where I -- we're talking about Miller
Boulevard Extension. Not Miller Boulevard. It is not paved. And
Page 154
March 27, 2001
there are other ways in and out. And right now if we left the
status quo alone, if we continued litigation, Miller Boulevard
Extension would look as it does and as it has for years and years.
And people would continue to use it when it was feasible to use
it. There are times of the year when it's very difficult to use
because of the rain.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Walk me through this one more
time. Suppose we want to take and grade that thing so it's
permissible so people can get through it. For a while I thought
we were doing that. We didn't do it?It was the last directive we
gave.
MR. PETTIT: But we have not judicially established our right
to do it. That's why we filed the lawsuit. COMMISSIONER
MAC'KIE: And that's why instead of continuing to bang our heads
on the courtroom door, we need to cut a deal for a road
maintenance agreement. Let's get the very best deal we can and
then see where we go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, can we put that one little
thing in there that for the safety and welfare for the people who
live there until that point in time that their --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' What you are talking about is you
want the duration of the agreement to be as long as somebody
lives there.
MR. PETTIT: Lives on the road or lives anywhere in the south
blocks?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, not anybody in the south
blocks. Any place that isn't easily accessible from another
direction where they can get that kind of service that they need
and protection.
In other words, I don't know who's still along Miller Boulevard
Extension or the Miller Boulevard that they want to tear up.
MR. PETTIT: There's nobody on Miller Boulevard Extension, to
my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about Miller Boulevard itself?
MR. PETTIT: That I don't know the answer to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See we're talking, if you take a
look at this, if this is correct, they're planning to tear the whole
road out. And the idea of tearing the road out wouldn't be
acceptable if you still have a person that has a residence on that
road.
Page 155
March 27, 2001
MR. PETTIT: I would assume, and I mean, I can't speak for
the state, but I don't think they're going to tear -- I think part of
the tear out, they're first going to either buy or condemn those
properties.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think what we need to do is
identify what properties would be impacted by this and then
make that part of the agreement that we have to offer that
means of protection.
I know eventually we're going to lose this thing, but I want to
make sure we buy as much time as we can get so we don't
impact people back there any sooner than we have to.
MR. PETTIT: There is a bargaining chip which I've mentioned
to the state so there's no reason not to mention it here to you.
And that is that the state hadn't focused on it, but before they
tear any roads out, we have to abandon them. Because my
understanding, and again, I'm relying on transportation staff, is
that the paved roads are county roads.
We've got signs on them. And so we would have to abandon
or they would have to be condemned. And obviously to condemn
them requires spending money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So lust --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's give direction
somehow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is what I'm hearing if this is a
consensus of the four of us. That we want to give direction that
you negotiate a -- what did you call it -- road maintenance
agreement.
MR. PETTIT.' Road maintenance plan that would be
incorporated into what the state calls a temporary use
agreement.
But understand what that means. The temporary use
agreement means that when Miller Boulevard, the paved portion,
is physically removed --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we have to okay that, too.
MR. PETTIT: That's my understanding. I will tell you I have
not done the legal research. I'm operating on the assumption
that it's a county road. If it's a county road, we have rights in it.
We would either have to abandon those through an abandon
procedure which is statutory. Or we would have -- the state
would have to condemn it.
Page 156
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be nice to know if we
have that bargaining chip to be able to make things come
together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we would give staff direction to
research that issue while they are negotiating this road
maintenance plan as part of the temporary use agreement. And
then bring it back to us with that piece of information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also to -- let's play this game
right -- keep the Wildlife Federation and the Conservancy in the
loop, too. So that there's no surprises and they don't come down
here not knowing what's happening.
Let them know what we're trying to do is to --
MR. PETTIT: I asked them to be here today that's all I will
say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They were here earlier. Well, at
least the Conservancy was here earlier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. No, you can't. We are
done.
MR. PETTIT: The whole point of the road maintenance plan
and the TUA, temporary use agreement, would be -- that, I think,
might satisfy the Wildlife Federation. Because as soon as soon
as I said the words "controlled grade," it was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not going to happen.
MR. PETTIT: They were unhappy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- We aren't going to get that, so let's
get what we can.
MR. OLLIFF: I think that's clear direction.
MR. PETTIT: That's clear direction. I will come back with
what I can. I think there is this issue of we have more potential
signatories to this agreement than just the Wildlife Federation
and the state.
We've got Bobby Clay and/or the Miccosukee Tribe, whoever's
going to own that. And we need to deal with them. And I guess
one of the questions is, my impression has been that Bobby Clay
wants money before anybody's going to be allowed to use the
road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like what we ought to be
talking to Bobby Clay about is lifting this lien in exchange for the
right to use his road. So negotiate that deal with him, for heaven
sake.
Page 157
March 27, 2001
MR. PETTIT: I will consider that. And we'll do it. And I -- I
would like, I guess what I would also like to do because this
continues to pend is, I think it would be helpful if we put a time
frame on let's get an agreement -- whatever agreement we can or
if we can't get an agreement, then move forward with the
prescriptive easement litigation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's try to move the state
forward to do their end. In other words, to settle in a fair and
just matter with the people out there by leaving it a little open
ended. And identify those people that we're talking about out
there, too, that are impacted by this particular move that will
take place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is 30 days an adequate amount
of time to try to negotiate something like this? MR. OLLIFF: I would say 45 days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, we want to really look at
that business of the roads we own out there. And one, would we
give them up, if we would have to give them up. Maybe there
might be some deal we can cut to keep some of them open for
access from the back end if it comes down to the end.
I'm a real big one on access. And boy I really agree with the
gentleman that was saying about what's the sense in having
these great big blocks of land if you can't get into them.
I mean you would have to be 20 years old or own a helicopter
to get back into them. And we need to have access, reasonable
access.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do you have other questions or
have you gotten what you need?
MR. PETTIT: I think I've gotten the direction, but I can't lose
the word temporary because we cannot enter -- the state is not
going to enter in a deal that gives us a permanent access.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless you. You don't work for
Al yet. So listen to us instead of him.
MR. OLLIFF: Michael, do you need a motion on that?
MR. PETTIT: I think I've got the direction I need.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're going to continue this,
right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are lust going to keep moving.
We're going to give him direction to solve the problem in
accordance with those --
Page 158
March 27, 2001
MR. PETTIT: My goal is be back here within 45 days and bring
-- hopefully bring back a written document that Florida Wildlife,
Bobby Clay and the state approve. And there's a loophole in
here. I'll put it on the record.
There are several people the state have not acquired yet.
They're in either contract with them or they've been defaulted by
me in the lawsuit. I'm not concerned about those folks. I think
they obviously -- one of the problems is they're lust not here, and
we can't find them.
It's the people who are here and the three principal people are
Mr. Clay, Federation, and the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Thank you, all of you
for coming all the way down here to keep us informed about
what's going on. We do appreciate it and you've got a real
advocate there in Commissioner Coletta, so stay in touch with
him because he's going to fight for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's already moved on something.
I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, actually we don't need a
motion. We just need direction.
Item #9C
RECOMMENDATION, PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 95-632, THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY AND THE RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO
RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT AN INDIVIDUAL
COUNTY EMPLOYEE SUED IN RICKETTS V. COLLIER COUNTY,
CASE NO. 2:01-CV-76-FTM-29DNF- STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED AND PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED
We'll go to 9C now which is the Rickets (phonetic) case, and
appointing outside counsel, and I hope that we would lust move
that item. It's appropriate.
I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also that includes waiving the
purchasing policy because of the special circumstances. Motion
and second. Is there any discussion?
Page 159
March 27, 2001
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously.
We will adjourn now for our -- oh, I've got to read all that stuff.
Item #9D
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION (KIMBERLY DALTON V.
ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT)
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, I have prepared for you the
appropriate references -- oh, I'm sorry, the appropriate
references for the record with regards to Items 9D and E.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since I thought that was going to
be Commissioner Carter's job, I didn't hang on to that.
MR. MANALICH: Okay. We've got some extras here.
MR. OLLIFF: Ms. Chairman, I need to point out again that we
still have two registered speakers under the Public Comment
under General Topics.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who are they?
MR. OLLIFF: Al Perkins and Emilio Baez.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, we're going to do this.
We're going to finish Item 9, and then we'll come back for that.
All right, here's what I've got to do. Read the entire 9D.
Agenda Item 9D: Closed attorney/client session of settlement
negotiations under strategy related to litigation expenditures of
the pending litigation case of Kimberly D. Dalton vs. Alec Fire
and Rescue District, a division of Collier County, a local
government. Case Number 99-534 CIVFTN 29 D and F. Pending
in the US District Court, Middle District, Fort Myers Division.
Persons in attendance will be the Board of County
Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, County
Attorney David C. Weigel, Chief Assistant Attorney Ramiro
Manalich, and Assistant County Attorney Michael Pettit.
This session will commence at the conclusion of the regular
meeting agenda.
MR. MANALICH: The other thing would be under Subpoint 2,
below --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was lust about to get to that. The
Page 160
March 27, 2001
board and the attending persons will convene in closed session
for Item 9D in the board's conference room. The closed session
is estimated to last from 15 to 30 minutes after its
commencement.
I have a really practical question. Is there some reason why
we can't do 9D and 9F and then -- just instead of shuffling back
and forth twice, can't we just go in there once and come back
out here once?
MR. MANALICH: That's a good practical question. We had the
same one, we talked to the Attorney General's office. They told
us no, this is interpreted very technically.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the board and the closed
session for Item 9D, after which we will return and discuss item
9E.
(Commissioners reconvene in closed session.)
Page 161
- Ellie J. Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Bradley
Monday, July 23, 2001 4:47 PM
Ellie J. Hoffman
Msg from Michael W. Pet"tit
Hey Ellie...Michael's e-mail not working right so he wanted me to relay
following msg to you..,"lt is ok to release the Dalton and Holmes
transcripts"...Have a good night...stay dry!
March 27, 2001
Item #9D
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION
286.011(8), FLA. STAT. TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN KIMBERLY D. DALTON V. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE
AND RESCUE DISTRICT, A DIVISION OF COLLIER COUNTY, A
LOCAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT, CASE NO. 99-534-CIV-FTM-
29DNF, PENDING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE
DISTRICT~ FORT MYERS DIVISION
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We will call to order the
closed session for item 9 D, and get our attorney to get us
started, please.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, this is an item related to the
case of Dalton versus Collier County. I'll give you a brief
background, but before I do that, we're allowed to meet in closed
session to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related
to the litigation expenses.
We are not permitted to come to any kind of decision in
closed session about anything. If a decision is to be made about
some action to take on the case, it has to be done in open
session. So we can't reach --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there is just questions?
MR. PETTIT: Anyway, this is basically questions and for me to
provide information that is sensitive but I think you would need
in order to make an informed decision related to any kind of
settlement negotiations or litigation expense strategy.
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: But we shouldn't say anything as Board
members in here that indicates how we're going to vote when we
get out there. We can ask factual questions, but that's it.
MR. PETTIT: This case arises out of allegations of sex
discrimination and hostile--
Before we start, why don't we just announce who's present,
for the record.
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney.
MR. MANALICH: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant to County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jim Coletta, Commissioner,
District 5.
Page 162
March 27, 2001
MS. FIALA: Donna Fiala, District 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom Henning, District 3.
MR. OLLIFF: Tom Olliff, County Manager.
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: Pam Mac'Kie, District 4.
MR. PETTIT: This case arises out of-- it's Mike Pettit
speaking -- arises out of allegations of sex discrimination and
hostile environment and retaliation made by a volunteer, a
former volunteer at the Isles of Capri Fire Department.
Around or on June 7, 1998, the fire chief learned from an
anonymous phone call that this volunteer had no driver's license,
but approximately at the same time, he also learned that she had
filed some sort of EEOC complaint or letter with the EEOC
complaining about sex discrimination and hostile work
environment.
He suspended her from her volunteer duties, as a volunteer,
because it was apparent she had been driving county vehicles
without a license. He later terminated her volunteer status in
September 1998 based on county driving policies, although the
practical reality was that she had returned to live in Venice,
Florida, so the likelihood of her being a volunteer at Isles of Capri
Fire Department was nonexistent at that point.
She's made a number of specific claims in the case:
derogatory remarks about women were made by the chief, she
says, jokes of a sexual nature. She received a plastic badge
rather than a metal badge. She wasn't permitted to drive certain
of the vehicles. She was refused participation in a rescue boat
activity, at least in one instance, she says. She observed a
so-called Playboy pinball machine brought into the firehouse.
She observed a calendar or annual poster of the Dallas Cowboy
cheerleaders and/or a woman with a fire hat and fire gear on, but
a bikini top and a hose. This is her hostile environment claim.
Let me tell you briefly what I think the evidence shows in
these claims. I found only one claim to have independent -- two
questions -- actually, let me put it differently. One of the claims
that she has independent corroboration for is, there were some
derogatory remarks made about women.
The fire chief denies he made those. Several male fire
fighters have now corroborated that those statements -- either
former volunteers or paid fire fighters -- have corroborated there
were statements made such as, women don't belong in the fire
Page 163
March 27, 2001
service.
Interestingly, when I deposed the plaintiff and I asked her
about those remarks, she said, yes~ he did make a remark like
that in front of me, and he said he wouldn't want to trust a
woman to carry him out of a burning building. So he qualified,
and she reported it in her own deposition the state -- whether in
fact those remarks were made is going to be up to a jury to
decide if we go to trial, that there is some corroborating
evidence there.
Most of the rest of it is explainable and I don't think shows
any evidence whatsoever of hostile work environment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question. If such a comment were
made, women don't belong in the fire service, does that rise to
the level of hostile work environment~ sexual harassment?
MR. PETTIT: No. It has to be pervasive and egregious.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't even sound like derogatory,
quite frankly.
MR. PETTIT: Well, there's also a claim that he made the
statement that women were only good on their backs. Whether
that statement -- I, quite frankly, didn't go back and look at the
16 depositions we've taken to see if anybody corroborated that
statement in a deposition testimony.
There clearly was some corroboration about women don't
belong in the fire service. There is almost no evidence in the
record, other than her claim that jokes were told of a sexual
nature by the fire chief. She could not remember one such joke.
She just said that jokes were told.
Other people said the man has never told jokes, and other
people said they didn't recall that. So there's that issue. She
was observed to drive the vehicles.
The issue with the rescue boat, she was not allowed to go on
it because she was a certified emergency medical technician,
and he felt that she would be better used to take blood pressure
readings. There was an event going on on the Isles of Capri that
day, a kayak race, and he felt, you know, people were coming
around to the fire station, and they often give free blood pressure
readings then.
There was an incident where she went into a burn tower
where they set some things on fire. It was an exercise. She
panicked, began having breathing difficulty. She was taken out
Page 164
March 27, 2001
of the tower, she was treated. At that time, she told the treating
paramedics, who were female, and who was also a volunteer,
and I'll get to that in a moment, volunteer fire fighter but also a
paid paramedic with us at that point in time, that she had
asthma. She's denied that she's had asthma since then.
Clearly she was embarrassed by that incident, and the chief
made a decision that she shouldn't have fire bunker gear, based
on that conduct. He said, you can stay involved in the medical
side of calls at the firehouse, and that, I think, is one of the big
precipitating events for this lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another professional
question. Does her volunteer status affect whether or not we
can be liable?
MR. PETTIT: We're getting there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Well, get there first.
MR. PETTIT: I want to get you a couple other pieces of
information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: The Playboy pinball machine, I think the
evidence will show that the chief didn't bring binge that in.
Another male volunteer brought it in. His idea was, gee, if
everybody plays a quarter to play pinball, we'll take the money
and use it for volunteer activities. As I understand it again, it
was women in bikinis on the pinball machine. I think it did say
"Playboy" and it had somebody with rabbit ears on it. It was an
antique pinball machine.
The calendar and poster, it's a little unclear whether they in
fact were actually hanging at the time Ms. Dalton was a
volunteer. They clearly were there at some point in time prior to
that.
Whether they were there or not, some women, and I will tell
you there were women volunteers, other women volunteers
there, not one of the one, two, three, four other female
volunteers I talked to said that this man discriminated against
them on the basis of sex. One of them said that she was
unhappy with him because she felt he was perhaps inappropriate
-- he was married, and he perhaps interacted inappropriately with
women, not in the firehouse, but outside the firehouse, which of
course is not our issue.
But we have, you know, those four women. One of whom was
Page 165
March 27, 2001
a former EMS captain who I will guarantee you if anything had
been going on would have complained, and in fact, she had
lodged a sexual harassment of her own against somebody else at
one point in time. She said, I saw nothing. I was there a lot.
She was stationed there. She stayed overnight in the firehouse,
and she also volunteered. She felt that there was no disparate
treatment.
Volunteer issue, there's a Motion for Summary Judgment
pending. Under Title 7 -- let me explain very briefly the law that
applies here. Title 7 U.S. Civil Rights Act says you can't
discriminate against people based on certain categories in a
place of employment, sex being one of those categories.
You also have to be an employee to be eligible, or an
ex-employee to be eligible, to bring any kind of claim under Title
7. We have taken the position she was not an employee. The
case law is, I think, more favorable than not to our position, but
it's not crystal clear. That's in front of the Judge as we speak. If
we win that, what happens? Well, the case in Federal court goes
away. She has no basis to be in Federal court.
She did bring some state law claims. One is in the Florida
Rights Act, which is really similar to this Federal law, I would
raise the same issue in state court, that that act does not cover
volunteers. It might not be as easy to get summary judgment
there because that's not the way Federal court works.
She also has brought a public employee -- what I call a public
employee whistle-blower claim. I think that's barred with the
statute of limitations. I felt confident if I don't win on summary
judgment, I'll win at the end of the directed verdict on that.
Here's the problem in the case. Because it's all sounding
pretty good so far. Turns out that some of the other female
volunteers in particular didn't drive vehicles. They just
volunteered, and sometimes they would show up at the firehouse
and clean up. Sometimes they would go out and help on medical
calls. Sometimes they provided help with the books.
They did different things, and they did not drive trucks, and
her claim is she was also retaliated against because she spoke
out, and that -- putting aside the volunteer aspect of this a
moment, to show that you've been retaliated against for
speaking out under Title 7 or under the Florida Civil Rights Act,
you lust have to show that you participated in activity that's
Page 166
March 27, 2001
protected, and basically, making the complaint is protected. You
have to show that there was an adverse action. She was
suspended and then terminated, and you have to show that
there was a causal connection, well, it happened on the same
day, essentially.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it was because of her no
driver's license.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct. That's correct. I'm lust saying
that because -- there's a problem in the evidence because we're
saying, we don't want you here because you didn't have a
driver's license and you can't drive the vehicles, when in fact
which had other volunteers who were not charged with the
responsibility of driving those vehicles. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. PETTIT: And that is a matter that could, assuming we
lose on the question of whether a volunteer is allowed to be
there at all, get us to a jury and could lead a jury to decide
against us. Okay?
Let me talk about that. I think we have a 75/25 chance to win
on the sex discrimination claim. I think it's very weak. I think
there's a good possibility we would win at the end of her case.
I think we have a 75/25 chance to win on the whistle-blower
claim. I think it's barred by the statute of limitations.
If, if, the court sends -- either decides that she is for purposes
of Title 7, quote, an employee, unquote, -- there's a whole laundry
list of factors they go through -- or decides to send that issue to
the jury and the jury decides that she is, which are either
possibility, then I think our issue on the retaliation claim is close.
That's all I can say.
The reason -- we do have a valid reason for why we did what
we did. The problem is, it's not consistent, and we made our
reasons for what we did. We reduced them to writing, and we
didn't cover ourselves particularly well in that writing.
Let me talk to you about what are the other problems in the
case. We have very little control over most of these witnesses. I
will tell you that when we mediated the case, and I'll get to the
mediation, I told the mediator in private conference, and this is
how I'll describe it to you, you've all seen the cowboy movie
where the guy walks in the bar and hits somebody, and pretty
soon everybody's hitting everybody and nobody knows why.
Page 167
March 27, 2001
That's what these witnesses are like. They truly, some of them,
have done 180 degree turns, on her for the most part.
They originally made statements. They originally made
statements that made the fire chief seem to be in violation of our
sexual harassment policy or anti-sex-discrimination policies. In
depositions, some of them have fully recanted those statements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there on an offer on the table
from her?
MR. PETTIT.' Yeah. Let me get to the mediation. The other --
and that's really the two issues, I think, is if we ever get to the
your on the retaliation, it becomes a closer call, and then we
have this problem that you've got a lot of witnesses that are not
in our control. They're not our employees. They're volunteers.
They work for other people.
There's an issue that I do want to lay on the table. Some of
the males, and I want to say this to the fire chief's credit. Some
of the testimony about the derogatory comments came from
former volunteers or a former paid firefighter who were very
much in favor of the Isles of Capri Fire District being taken over
by the East Naples Fire District.
There clearly may have been other kinds of agendas at work
there, but they have said it under oath, so, whatever.
The offer on the table from them is $30,000. The history of
offers in the case, when the case was filed, they demanded
$85,000. We didn't respond to it. I didn't bring it to you. We
went to mediation. They wanted $125,000.
Mr. Walker, the risk manager, and I responded at $7,800.
They then responded at 30,000, and we responded again at
$7,800. Mr. Walker has, I think, told Tom Olliff he thinks the case
should stay in that range.
I talked with him as well last week. I am suggesting that this
case -- a counter offer should be made to the 78, but only up to
12,900, and beyond that, I think no, and beyond that, I think we
ought to tell her that it's on the table for seven business days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we need not to discuss
whether we agree or disagree with that. We'll go back out there.
MR. PETTIT: I will make that recommendation out there. I
want to give you my thought process. I just don't want you to be
disabused about one thing. I think that if she wins on the
retaliation claim, her damages will be small. She has no back
Page168
March 27, 2001
pay and she has no front pay because she never worked here.
Here's where the wrinkle is. If she wins anything, she get
attorneys' fees. There were 16 depositions taken in this case.
She's had -- her attorney's had to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. She's been down to Collier County at least
once. We've been through mediation. The trial will take 32
hours. I assume she'll take 60 to 80 hours to prepare for the
trial. We're looking at 57 to $60,000 in fees or costs easily if she
wins anything.
What could she win? If she wins anything under either Title 7
or the Florida Civil Rights Act, obviously the back pay and front
pay is not there, she would win compensatory damages, and I
think that award would be Iow because the facts do not show
that she was badly, badly treated.
She's not claiming -- this is important to understand -- that the
fire chief ever made any improper advances to her. She's
claiming he didn't want women in the firehouse, and so he didn't
give her a fair shake out there, essentially. And that is, to me,
contradicted by the fact that I've had a couple women come in
and say, you know, he supported -- on deposition -- he supported
me to the max in my efforts as a volunteer.
MR. OLLIFF: So you understand what Jeff's position is, I think
his recommendation is, you stay in that $7,800 range, primarily
because that would cover her current attorney's fees today, so
she could get out of this claim from our estimation a this point.
MR. PETTIT: It wouldn't cover it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is why would we offer
her anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a couple --
MR. PETTIT: Can I answer that one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. PETTIT: We would offer for two reasons. One is the
witness control factor that I mentioned, and the factor is that if
we get into a situation where the retaliation claim is heard by a
your, I believe that it comes closer to a 50/50 case.
That's one other factor I guess I should mention that I
discussed with you, and that is, we have a report that was done
by our HR staff on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: "You" being Ramiro, for the record.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. Ramiro. That report is not nearly as good
Page 169
March 27, 2001
as the record I've developed in depositions. That report has
been protected under a work product protection, and it has not
been sought, but it would show that some of these witnesses
who now are not very favorable for us, at least in one case, did a
double about face.
So that's out there. They don't have access to it. They
haven't demanded it, and they haven't tested my work product
claim.
Again, I go back to the factors I see. This is a case that you
could easily end up costing you 100,000, maybe, if we lose, but I
don't think it would be much more than that, and I think it's a
very weak sex discrimination case. In fact, I think it's one of the
weakest ones we've ever had.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anybody have any other factual
questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we have an employee's
manual?
MR. PETTIT: We did, but we didn't give it to our volunteers,
and we still don't, and it's an issue that we need to look at as an
organization, but I don't want to talk about that in here. I think it
gets us off the topic we are allowed to talk about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did anybody check her medical
records to see if that's proof out there that she has asthma?
MR. PETTIT: Not at this point, but we've got testimony that
she had asthma from paramedic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does she have a record of filing
lawsuits?
MR. PETTIT: No. She does have a record of being fired from
]obs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question is, is she working on
some sort of contingency where, you know, if she doesn't get
anything, the attorney doesn't get anything either?
MR. PETTIT: I think that's right. I don't know, but this is, I'm
almost certain, a contingency case, and at this point, attorney's
fees the hours that the attorney has expended far exceed $7,500,
but in order for her to get anything, we have to pay money of
some kind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I understand that. Just
one other question, there. I'm kind of questioning if we do pay
something like this, if we're not setting some sort of precedent
Page 170
March 27, 2001
for somebody else to follow right behind with something else.
MR. PETTIT: Well, that's -- I think that we don't set a
precedent that we're going to pay off volunteers who make
claims, if that's the question you're making.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why not? Why do you think that?
MR. PETTIT: Because I think you take each case on its
merits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But don't you think that if we pay
anything on this that it opens the door to volunteers, maybe
volunteers who might have considered that they didn't have
status to file a lawsuit, might think that they do?
MR. PETTIT: Depending on what they infer from the paper,
but I mean I guess I don't -- I don't assume that people who are
volunteering are looking for ways to sue the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the thing is, if this case is
settled so that the moneys come out favorably, it might be an
open door for somebody else to try the same thing. I don't know,
I'm kind of leery about anything of any kind of dollar amounts, to
toughing it out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, if we paid the $7,800 that you
negotiated, does that mean then she would be entitled to the
attorney's feels on top of that? CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE.' No.
MR. PETTIT: No. Right now, when we were at the mediation,
Mr. Walker and I said we would recommend to this board a
payment of $7,800.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they rejected that.
MR. PETTIT: They rejected that. They came down to $30,000,
and we recessed the mediation at that point, and I agreed to
bring this matter to this board because I will tell you, once you
get into the range of $30,000, you're talking about four days in
court, Federal court, you're talking about a risk of $100,000
judgment, counting her attorney's feels if she wins anything. And
that's an important point. She only has to win something. She
doesn't have -- she could win $10,000. The jury could say, this is
pretty weak, but we think that the chief retaliated against her.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then we have to pay the
attorney fees.
MR. MANALICH.' On that point, Mike, I think you mentioned
Page 171
March 27, 2001
that the mediator had an observation about some juries --
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. There have been some cases out there in
which the discrimination claim has been rejected by judges or
juries, but the retaliation claim has been found to be founded,
and one of the things that she might conclude from that is,
especially when a government is involved is that a your doesn't
want to see somebody's right to speak out squelched, even if you
think what they're saying is wrong or not very smart, or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you think we'd send out a good
message if we offered -- you originally 78 and they refused it, if
we gave you permission to go back and offer 78,000 and $17
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: $7,800.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me. 7,800 and $1. Then
that gives the message, you know, that you got $1 better, but we
don't think you have that much to work with. You think that
would send a message?
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I mean, the reason I came up with the
figure that I would recommend, the 12,900 is, it puts some
money-- it puts enough money in the attorney's pocket that they
can write off the time, is really what it boils down to, and if she
still wants to
roll the dice and go to court, she's going to have to work awful
hard for her money.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not going to change,
anyway. She's got to work awful hard for her money, period.
You mean the attorney might put new boundaries on it?
MR. PETTIT: My idea is to bring them down from 30 and end
it. I don't think it will -- I honestly don't think it will settle for
$7,800.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, 7,801. I don't know, I'm just
not excited about it, but I can understand. You already made an
offer, and I'd hate to go back and counteract that with zero. I
think that would be sending the wrong message, but 78 and 1
means that we don't think they -- we're trying to tell them, with
that kind of a message, we don't think you've got anything.
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: And we need to be careful that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you think? You're an
attorney.
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I think we have to discuss that
Page 172
March 27, 2001
kind of thing in the Sunshine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Yeah. I'm ready to go at it.
MR. PETTIT: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can leave our stuff here because
we're coming back. Right?
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: So, we'll adjourn this and return to the --
Item #9E
REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE CASE OF KIMBERLY DALTON V. ISLE OF
CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT, CASE NO. 99-534-CIV-FTM-
29DNF - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO MAKE A COUNTER-OFFER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $7,801
CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll call the meeting back to
order, and we're back in public session on Item 9E. This is a
request for board direction on settlement negotiations in the
Dalton vs. Isle of Capri Fire case. We have a recommendation
from our attorney.
MR. PETTIT: Yes, commissioners, Mike Pettit, I'm an
Assistant County Attorney from the County Attorney's Office. My
recommendation in this case is that we have had an offer to
settle this case for $30,000. And we've looked at that, analyzed
it, and that we think that a counteroffer at this point is
appropriate, I'm not recommending that we accept the $30,000.
Instead, I'm recommending that we counter that at $12,900. Fifty
one hundred of that to the plaintiff, $5,100 to her attorney and
$2,700 for costs that I'm aware of, that have been expended in
the case by her to date. And that would be my recommendation
as a counteroffer. And in addition to that, I would request that
our counteroffer be made contingent on being accepted within
seven business days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a discussion on that
recommendation? Well, I hate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate it, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think this case has merit.
And I don't think that we should be paying money on this case.
What I need to hear from you, Mr. Pettit, is what would it cost the
county to take it all the way through to litigation, I mean, not if
Page 173
March 27, 2001
we lost, but out-of-pocket, assuming we win, what's it going to
cost us?
MR. PETTIT: It will cost whatever it's going to cost us to
make sure that we get the witnesses to the courthouse that we
need.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means paying --
MR. PETTIT: That means -- that means subpoenas, and in
some cases mileage and witness fees, and off the top of my
head, it's difficult to estimate, and it's also going to cost,
obviously, copying costs to prepare for trial· COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your time.
MR. PETTIT: My time, and my paralegal's time. If you're
going to count the time, then it's pretty easy to say $12,000. If
you're not going to count the time, it would be significantly less·
There aren't expert witnesses in this case. So we aren't paying
expert fees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just can't buy this· We're
supposed to be responsible for the taxpayers' money, and this is
a frivolous lawsuit as far as I'm concerned. There's been an offer
that was refused of $7,800, as I understand.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct· We didn't -- let me explain·
That's not an offer. We recommended it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You originally recommended it.
It was refused· I would -- I would give them -- I would, myself,
recommend an offer of $7,801.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to send a message, and
that's it. If they want to go to court, let's do it. Let's make sure
we're not going to have a whole bunch of these frivolous ones. I
think in the past, we've been very agreeable when people have
been right to do the right thing·
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Coletta, of 7801 ?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
that
Yes. Is that a motion, then, Mr.
Yes·
And I'll second the motion.
Is there a further discussion on
motion? If not, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
Page 174
March 27, 2001
And now, I will read Item 9F. Closed attorney -- and I'm going
to read this fast, but you'll have it in print, so don't worry about
it.
Closed attorney-client session of settlement negotiations
and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures of the pending
litigation case of Maxie D. Holmes vs. Collier County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida. Case No.
2:00-CV-262-FTM-24D, pending in the U.S. District Court, Middle
District, Fort Myers Division. Persons in attendance will be the
Board of County Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W.
Olliff, County Attorney David C. Weigel, Chief Assistant County
Attorney Ramiro Manalich, and Assistant County Attorney
Michael W. Pettit.
This session will commence now.
So we will go and do that, then we will come back.
COMMISSION HENNING.' We have a companion item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With a companion item, it's lust
like the one we lust did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' We'll come back and make our
decision in public. That's the companion.
MR. PETTIT: And we're estimating 15 to 30 minutes.
Page 175
Ellie J. Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Bradley
Monday, July 23, 2001 4:47 PM
Ellie J. Hoffman
Msg from Michael W. Pettit
Hey Ellie...Michael's e-mail not working right so he wanted me to relay
following msg to you..."lt is ok to release the Dalton and Holmes
transcripts"...Have a good night...stay dry!
March 27, 200t
Item #9F
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION
286.011(8), FLA. STAT. TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN MAXIE D. HOLMES V. COLLIER COUNTY, A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.
2:00-CV-262-FT,-24D, PENDING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT, FORT MYERS DIVISION
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got a quorum. Okay. We'll
come to order in this closed session meeting, and ask our
attorney, well, first, let's state who's here for the record. I'm
Pam Mac'Kie, District 4.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Donna Fiala, District 1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jim Coletta, District 5.
MR. MANALICH: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County
Attorney.
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney.
MR. OLLIFF: Tom Olliff, County Manager.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And our chairman, Mr. Carter, is
absent, and our other member will be joining us momentarily.
We'll announce it when he comes in for the record. Who's going to tell us about this case?
MR. PETTIT: Again, commissioners, we're here in closed
session to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related
to litigation expenses. Under the Sunshine Law, you can't come
to any decisions here. It's really -- it's informational. I'm actually
seeking some advice from you on how to proceed. And it's
informational. So that you can give me good direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the record, Commissioner
Henning just joined us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had to stray.
MR. PETTIT: This case arises out of an allegation of age
discrimination by plaintiff, Maxie Holmes. Mr. Holmes was 65
years old. He applied to be an EMS helicopter pilot. He was told,
erroneously, that he had to have 250 hours in type, mining in a
particular type of plane, or factory school training in type, to be
interviewed.
The reason I say erroneously, is because we had an imposed
Page 176
March 27, 2001
adequate requirement on others. He had previously, however,
volunteered to go to the factory school to learn how to drive the
particular helicopter we were using at the time.
Mr. Holmes had a great deal of experience as an airline
pilot, at least up to 1987. He retired. He didn't fly for six or
seven years, and then he began flying again off and on, but more
for pleasure, not as employment.
Mr. Holmes was finally interviewed, and he was
recommended for the job by an interview board of persons in the
helicopter operation. And he came in to HR and began to fill out
his paperwork, and at that point, his pilot questionnaire and
other information was sent to our insurance people, our
insurance broker, I need to be specific, because that's important
later. And they notified the Risk Management Department that
they felt that the insurance carrier would have difficulty insuring
this man for three reasons; a prior helicopter accident -- a prior
accident, which was many, many years ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Flying accident?
MR. PETTIT: A flying accident. Recency of flying
experience, and his age. The issue of the accident was taken off
of the table pretty early on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because?
MR. PETTIT: Because he was too old, and actually he was
commended for the accident, because his conduct in the
accident, it's my understanding, is his conduct in the accident
prevented it from being a lot worse than what it was, at least
that's the information that we have.
The understanding -- when the broker told our Risk
Management Department that the carrier wouldn't want to insure
or would have a problem insuring this gentleman, because of the
recent experience and his age, that was relayed then to Mr.
Holmes. Mr. Holmes began to investigate that, and to call people
to get an explanation, and I need to add here that one of the
reasons he was very interested in this job, is his son also flies in
the helicopter operation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here?
MR. PETTIT: Here. Which is another piece to the puzzle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's this gentleman's last
name?
MR. PETTIT: Holmes. H-O-L-M-E-S. Eventually he contacted
Page 177
March 27, 2001
with Mr. Walker and had a discussion with him, and Mr. Walker,
again, contacted our broker, and it was certainly Mr. Walker's
understanding that the carrier wouldn't insure this gentleman.
He wrote Mr. Holmes a letter that says our carrier is adamant,
they won't insure you, I'm sorry.
Turns out, though, that the broker and the -- and that Mr.
Holmes' actual pilot questionnaire information had never been
sent to our carrier. The broker had had a telephone conversation
with the carrier on October 5th, the day Mr. Holmes had come in
to fill out his HR paperwork, and the carrier said in sort of
generic terms, general terms, said, we're not sure we would
want to hire somebody that's 65 and doesn't have this kind of
experience. There was no paperwork to document that
conversation. No paperwork was sent to the carrier. And so we
clearly were wrong or incorrect when we wrote to Mr. Holmes
and said, our carrier won't insure you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question at that
point. Had we done our ]ob, I mean, can we shift this liability
now to the broker? Had we thoroughly put the question to the
broker and the broker failed in his duty to get the answer from
the carrier?
MR. PETTIT.' Well, I'm not happy with the carrier or the
broker in this case. And I'll explain that, whether -- this is an age
discrimination case. I don't think the broker can be held liable
for age discrimination, because it's under the -- he's not -- this
guy was applying for employment with us. The broker, as I said,
and Mr. Walker certainly had the understanding from the broker
that the carrier had been -- had turned Mr. Holmes down. What
we have found out is -- from the carrier, that they would, in fact,
have insured Mr. Holmes. What they say, though, is this, and
what they told Mr. Walker two days after he wrote the letter to
Mr. Holmes in a meeting, in our helicopter hangar was, and
again, unfortunately the discussion was not some -- there's not a
lot of indication it was specifically about Mr. Holmes or his name
was used. It was more generic than that, about pilots age 65,
and so on and so forth, was you hire -- if you demanded that we
hire this man, we would do it, we would go ahead and give you
the insurance, okay, but your premiums would likely increase.
There would be a possibility -- a possibility that you would not
get renewed, which is big problems in this side of an operation,
Page 178
March 27, 2001
because there's not that many insurance underwriters for this
kind of operation. And if there was ever an accident, it would
increase your liability, because people would say, well, gee,
commercial airline pilots retire at age 60, what are you doing
hiring a guy 65 years old to fly your helicopter, you know, flying
your helicopter operations.
Understand, we have no rules under either the FAA
guidelines or internally, limiting the age of our pilots.
Mr. Walker heard that and felt, well, it's unfortunate that
there was this error in understanding, but he would've made the
same decision anyway, because he couldn't risk having our
premiums raised, or having us lose our coverage, if there was an
accident, or even if there wasn't an accident, if for whatever
reason there was a decision made by the carrier at the end of the
policy period to not go forward.
I've got to say that Mr. Holmes has seized on some of these
incidents and made the point that's he's been shabbily treated.
He spent $8,000 to go to a factory school. He was told that he
had to have that to be interviewed. That was inaccurate. In
fact, we in the past, prior to Mr. Holmes, including with Mr.
Holmes' son, Mr. Holmes' son went to the factory school and we
reimbursed him for it, and, of course, he already knew that.
Mr. Holmes has argued, of course, that, you know, it's clear
that there was something going on, because the insurance
carrier has said we would not -- we would not have declined him,
if you would have told us you wanted to hire him.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they said we would not have
increased your rates?
MR. PETTIT: No. No, they haven't said that. Holmes has
also admitted that one of the motivating factors in this case is
that in December, a couple of months after all of these events
occurred, his son -- or actually, January of 2000, a couple of
months after these events occurred, these were events in the fall
of 1999, his son was disciplined and actually was recommended
to be discharged and that recommendation was overturned by
one of the division administrators who heard it, but within two
days of the recommended discipline, the recommendation for
discipline, Mr. Holmes filed an EEOC complaint.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he's admitted that that was
part of his motivation.
Page 179
March 27, 2001
MR. PETTIT: He's admitted that part of his motivation was
that. And he's also admitted off the record to Mr. Walker that
fact, his attorney doesn't know that, but we know it. Mr. Walker
can testify truthfully to that fact, that something to the effect
that he wouldn't have done this if the EMS chief hadn't messed
around with his son, or whatever to his son. His son certainly
will be an ally in this lawsuit, because he's given him all of the
information about everything that we've done with pilots, from
time immemorial, that's at least my inference, I can't say he said
that in his deposition. But I'm sure that's -- and so he knows that
people have been hired without the factory school. And he
knows that people have been interviewed without the factory
school, and so on.
What are the problems in the case, we have no control over
the key witnesses or the insurance broker and the insurance
underwriters. They're respectively in Atlanta, Georgia, and
Melbourne, Florida. I've got a question whether they're even in
the subpoena power of the federal court. I have gone up to
Atlanta and took their depositions. They had their lawyer in tow.
They didn't do -- I'm not happy with them. I mean, here we are
paying them money, and they wouldn't step up to the plate.
There was testimony there that in many ways helped us. There
was also some testimony that hurt us. I think the thing that hurt
us most is that one gentleman, who's suffering from melanoma
and I actually deposed him in his home in Atlanta, testified that
Mr. Walker -- and he had a conversation, and on November 30th,
after a number of these other events that occurred, and Mr.
Walker asked him to -- expressly asked him to decline to insure
Mr. Holmes. Mr. Walker would explain that, and I understand the
explanation is you are putting me in an intolerable situation. You
are telling me that if -- you will insure this man, but if I do all
these consequences will occur. You need to give me better
direction.
I should add that that gentleman also said that he concurred
with the decision of the county, for the reasons I've stated; that
there was going to be risk if there was liability, and that there
was concern about non-renewal or raising premiums, and that
the advice we got from our broker, even if it wasn't completely
accurate in the sense that we construed it, as stating that the
carrier had said, we won't insure the guy, was accurate. That he
Page 180
March 27, 2001
correctly inferred that the carrier would've had problems and
there would'ye been business consequences.
Mr. Holmes is a interesting person. He, I think, probably is a
good pilot, as far as I know, but there's some interesting facts
about him. He, as I said, retired in 1986 from TWA at the age of
52. He didn't begin flying again until '94 or '95, and then only for
pleasure. He did hold a job in Hawaii for a couple of months
doing sightseeing tours around the island, and he also held a job
in North Carolina for a couple of months doing some flying for the
division of forestry there. To my knowledge, he's been offered at
least two jobs since the job he didn't get here flying full time. He
hasn't taken either of them. So I don't think he's mitigated any
damages he's had. And he's moved around back and forth
between Hawaii and North Carolina, and he's made a big point
that it was his dream, lifelong dream to get down here and work
with his son, and yet, obviously, Mr. Holmes doesn't need a job to
live, and in any event, there's an airport over here with lots of
corporate jets flying in and out, and I don't see him moving here
to take that job. So there's some --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that admissible?
MR. PETTIT: Oh, yeah. This will all -- this all relates to his
damages claims. The other thing that recently come to light, and
I don't know where it will lead, but we have information that
leads us to believe that Mr. Holmes may have falsified some of
the experience he claimed he had.
Now, that information is not based on a sworn statement,
yet. Because I'm a lawyer, it's only going to really mean
something to me once I have the sworn statement. So once I get
that, that could change the picture. I haven't disclosed this to
Mr. Holmes' attorney. I will, regardless of whatever the board
decides here, and tell him that it's something that he needs to go
to his client and talk to him about, because it's -- it could be
significant, and I think Mr. Holmes has put his experience in
issue in this case, because one of his arguments is, and this is a
quote, I could'ye come in and helped your inexperienced chief
pilot with all of my experience.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what's your source of that,
then? How much can you --
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Holmes testified that he had done all this
flying recently in Hawaii, and so a couple weeks ago, I started
Page 181
March 27, 2001
having my paralegal start calling these people. And in one
instance he testified that the signature in his pilot logbook was
by a particular gentleman, that to signing off that he had done
this flying and the gentleman -- we faxed him the signature, he
says, it's not my signature. I never flew with him.
We've got him set up for a deposition if the case isn't
resolved. And I will tell you in my experience that these kinds of
things sometimes don't pan out to be as powerful as you think
they might be, and there may be all kinds of good explanations. I
can only tell you that it's a lead we're going to run down, and it
would hurt Mr. Holmes' case, obviously.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there an offer on the table?
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. Let's talk about money. In January, Mr.
Holmes made a demand of $220,000. Let me tell you a little bit
about Mr. Holmes' attorney. Mr. Holmes has got a very good
attorney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is it?
MR. PETTIT: It's a gentleman named Neil Chonen from
Miami. And this is what he does, and interestingly he's about 64
or 65. And we can see where that's going to go in this trial. And
he's sharp and he's a successful plaintiff's attorney. I've got a
lot of respect for him. He's a fair man. And he will be interested
when I tell him about the potential false information. I would not
-- there are certain attorneys I wouldn't tell that to, I'm going to
talk to this one, because if there's anything to it, he would -- it
might help us.
I say, well, obviously, we're not going to respond to that,
that's too much, I mean, the man has had no -- has done nothing
to mitigate his damages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, what was the amount,
again?
MR. PETTIT: Two hundred twenty. I want to give you the
background of the settlement discussion. And let me explain
something, this is important to know. This ]ob was a job bank,
part-time position. No benefits. We're not talking about a
full-time pilot's ]ob. He would'ye basically been on call.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And paid by the hour?.
MR. PETTIT: Paid by the hour, and I'm going to get into
some of that money here in a minute. I said, we can't respond to
that, and we didn't. And then we had some more depositions,
Page 182
March 27, 2001
and we -- he was here in my office with Mr. Walker and I one
night, and it was about 6:30 or quarter till seven, and I remember
it well. And it got to the point where we were too tired to do any
more depositions, and we sent one of the witnesses home, and
we talked about resolving the case at that juncture, this is, of
course, before we knew about this false experience possibility,
and he said, I can resolve -- I know I can resolve this case right
now for $100,000, but if I have to do a lot more work, I'm not sure
that number will be on the table. And Mr. Walker and I at that
time said, we will recommend to our Board of County
Commissioners to resolve this case for $25,000, but we will not
recommend any more. And he said, well, Mr. Holmes won't take
that. And I won't take that either. We think you clearly
stereotyped the man. You violated the age law, because the only
reason you didn't hire him is because of his age, and that's where
we're going to go with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what are his damages, even
if we were to lose?
MR. PETTIT: Well, let me go to the settlement discussions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: More recently, I've had another discussion with
Mr. Chonen and he lust simply said there's a 100 on the table,
you've never gotten back to me, if there was anything more than
25, he said, I think he can get Mr. Holmes to take less, but,
again, I've got -- you've got all this discovery for me to answer, if
I've got to do that, and I've got to start preparing for a trial, that's
not going to be there.
And let me talk about the damages. Under state law the
most Mr. Holmes can recover is $100,000, total, for everything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Including attorneys' fees?
MR. PETTIT: Including attorneys' fees. That's how the state
civil rights act works, and that also -- well, under the federal law,
he can get back pay, front pay, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees, but he can't get compensatory damages, which
was what he can get under the state law.
Let me explain the difference. Back pay is the money -- if
you had hired me on this date~ it's all of the money I would'ye
made up to the date I got a judgment. Front pay is, if you
would'ye hired me on this -- it's going to be difficult for me to get
a job now, and recognizing that factor, it's only fair that you pay
Page 183
March 27, 2001
me some money into the future.
Liquidated damages are generally in an age discrimination
case double the back pay award. Mr. Holmes' back pay, as best
as I can figure, and I'm basing it -- we hired a woman, who by the
way was, I think, in her 40's, 41 or 42 for the pilot position, and I
looked and based on my calculations she's made about $20,000
at most in the ]ob and so -- so let's suppose -- in liquidated
damages, how do you get those? He's got to prove that
knowingly and willfully intentionally violated the age
discrimination employment act, something bad. It's a form of
punitive damages.
So let's suppose he gets that, that's $40,000. Let's suppose
he gets compensatory damages from the state law claim, and
let's suppose he does very well. I'm going to give you a worst
case scenario now, $40,000, $50,000 from the compensatory
damage claim. He's at 90,000. And then let's suppose -- let's
look at fees and costs, I'm saying 75.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thousand or hundred?
MR. PETTIT: Seventy thousand dollars. So I think we're
looking at somewhere, worst case, we're looking 180 to
$200,000 as a worst case. Why, given some of the things I've
told you, could he get that, again, we don't have control of the
witnesses. We look a little bit sloppy here, I mean, we made the
guy -- we told the guy he had to do certain things to get an
interview that, in fact, wasn't the rule. We told the guy our
insurance carrier said they're not going to insure you and now
they're not saying that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we told them based on their
telling us that.
MR. PETTIT.' The broker, based on what the broker told us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand why we can't
go back against him, then, if we have to pay anything.
MR. PETTIT: He didn't say that, he said that we'll have
trouble insuring the guy. I think that's probably the more
accurate quote, and then -- but, I think when Jeff had the second
conversation with him, I think it was his understanding that
clearly the carrier was saying, no. You know, we can look at
costs on the case, I think you could add, like I said, I think
$200,000 is the worst case scenario on this. Mr. Walker has
revised his view of the case down -- he thinks it's a $10,000 case.
Page 184
March 27, 2001
Like I said in January, he was willing to recommend 25.
I will tell you that this is a case that could go very sour,
depending on who's on that jury, and how appealing Mr. Holmes
can make himself appear to be. That's my opinion. On the other
hand, we made -- this is also from a lawyer's point of view, an
easy case to try, and I don't want -- I don't know how far I can go
with this, but easier than a case where people are all going to be
saying a whole bunch of different things. Because I know what
everybody is going to say. And I know generally what my theme
of my case is, we made a business decision.
So from that point of view, I'm comfortable trying this case.
This is not a wild west kind of case. This is a case where
everybody is pretty much going to say what they've already said.
I don't have full control over the witnesses, and the only
negative there is I may not be able to get them in court, and we
may have to rely on their depositions, but they said what they
said in their depositions. But it could go -- it could go the other
way. And I will tell you, as I'm going out there, and I can only tell
you this case won't settle for less than $50,000. I don't think
they will take less than $50,000. And I will not recommend that
we pay 100. And I, frankly, am uneasy about recommending
paying 50. I can only tell you that there is a downside to this one.
If Mr. Holmes has an explanation for what -- the problem with
the flight reports, a jury could get somewhat angry at Collier
County on this one.
That's my best assessment of it, but I'm having a difficult
time telling you -- giving you a number.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
MR. PETTIT: And that's one of the reasons I wanted to come
in and have this meeting. And I will tell you Mr. Walker thinks it's
a $10,000 case at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I was going to say now
before you make the offer, are you going to divulge about his
flight record?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I'm going to do that regardless of what
happens here today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that might have a little
tendency to take steam out of their --
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to do -- and I'm going to do that, it's
Page 185
March 27, 2001
like something, I'm going to do it -- I'm judging it on the character
of the lawyer I'm dealing with. That might bother that lawyer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what the commissioner is
saying, or what I'm inferring is we might not -- it might be more
prudent not to make any offers until we have that disclosure,
flesh out that information and see if it goes away, because of it.
I mean, this lawyer might not be willing to represent this
individual.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, but there's expenses, you
know, lawyers and depositions and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we make -- is it possible to
have a two-part instruction to you that, one, is you tell them that
information and flesh that out as fully as you can. And then if
that turns out not to resolve the case or if that turns out not to
be--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See, you can't do that, I mean,
once you give it away, your position --
MR. PETTIT: Now, let me think about how that -- I mean this
is one of the -- now, we're talking about settlement strategy and I
think it's perfectly legitimate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why we're here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought we had to discuss it
out there.
MR. PETTIT: No. This is strategy. We're talking about
ideas, about how to best achieve. If we want to settle the case,
how do we best achieve that, or if we should settle the case. It
could be that that discussion and the deposition should take
place, because one advantage I have in this case is this case
isn't scheduled for trial until October. So it's not, yes, he may
have to do some more work, and he may then think he's got more
invested in it, but it may be worthwhile understanding what --
what response will be given to us, when he first bring that up and
then it may be even be more worthwhile to go ahead and get
these depositions, which are going -- we're going to take them by
telephone, because the people are in Hawaii.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I don't think we should offer
anything until we get that information.
MR. PETTIT: Well, I could, but, I mean, we're talking two 20
minute depositions. So I don't think you want to send me to
Hawaii for that, but if you do. Maybe, I want to try -- I want to
Page 186
March 27, 2001
talk about, there's some legitimacy to that strategy, because
right now, clearly, I think -- think if that information pans out,
then Mr. Holmes' case is hurt. And here's why it's hurt, he has
put his flight experience at issue. He's told me in the
depositions, over and over again, and he's ballyhooed how
experienced he is, how much more experienced he was, than a
lot of the people we've had in the past, what a much better pilot
he would'ye been. And this -- I think he does have a lot of those
hours of experience back in time. I don't think that's in dispute.
What we're talking about is what he's done recently.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And without saying in here, what
I would say -- I lust want to put a question to you, is it a
possibility that we could give you a two-part instruction? One is
to further address this issue in depositions and come back to us,
if necessary, in a month or in a week or two weeks.
MR. PETTIT: I think I can make a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again?
MR. PETTIT: I think I can make a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can tell us in here what your
recommendation is going to be, if we don't comment on it?
MR. PETTIT: I think my recommendation would be that the
board direct me to conduct additional discovery and report back
to the board on this case in two meetings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other further factual
questions? If not, we'll adjourn and reconvene in the board room.
*** END OF CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
Item #9G
REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE CASE OF MAXIE HOLMES V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:00-CV-262-FTM-24D - COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO SEEK ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND REPORT BACK TO THE
BOARD IN LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll reconvene the meeting and
go to Item 9F, and see if we have a recommendation from our
attorney.
MR. PETTIT: Is it F or G?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's F.
Page187
March 27, 2001
MR. PETTIT: This is now G. Thank you, commissioners,
Mike PETTIT, Assistant County Attorney here on the matter of
Holmes versus Collier County. As you know, Mr. Holmes has
made an offer to settle this case for $100,000.
At this time, my recommendation to the board is to make no
further response to that offer until we have had an opportunity to
do some additional discovery in the case. And then I would then
report back to the board, either at the last meeting in April or the
first meeting in May. And I would add that this case is scheduled
for trial in October. So we do have some time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need a motion or just a
direction?
MR. PETTIT: I think a motion to give me that direction, if
you're in agreement or want to change that recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to give the county
attorney direction to take depositions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Discussion? If not, all in favor,
please say aye. Opposed?
(No response.}
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Item passes unanimously.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #11 C
PUBLIC COMMENT - AL PERKINS, EMILIO BIAZ, AND MR.
MORRERA ON VARIOUS TOPICS
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can go now, I guess, to
public comment on general topics.
MR. OLLIFF: On general topics, you now have four
registered speakers. First speaker is Al Perkins, followed by
Emelio Biaz.
MR. PERKINS. Good afternoon, commissioners, people at
home, listen up, and everybody that is not in the audience. It's
getting late. Everybody's getting tired. My subject is
communication censorship. Two meetings ago of this Collier
County Commission, I either heard from Pelican Bay people, or
Page 188
March 27, 2001
I've heard from Oil Well Road, the mining people. The topic was
when every one of these people came up, they said, we didn't get
the word. We didn't know about the meetings. Nobody told us,
over and over and over again. I heard that from people. The
people on Oil Well Road do not have cable television. They do
not use computers. And at the same time, too, they do not buy
or read the Naples Daily Proctor, so they couldn't possibly know
what's happening to them.
So for the rest of the county, especially you people in
Pelican Bay and over on Marco Island, Everglades is left out of
the spin, and so are the people in Immokalee. The television
system needs to be changed and fixed. Even to the point where
if you need to rearrange the people who are running this, I would
take and direct the county attorney to fix the problem. Clean
house. Because it's not getting done.
Information is the way to go. Let the people know and the
people will take and come in here and tell you. Earlier today
Commissioner Coletta said, well, where's all the people. The
people were all working, because they can't afford not to work,
because they have to pay the taxes, and it's coming up in April.
Okay. They can't afford to be here. They can't afford -- we're in
the season. Everybody that's out there working is working right
up to the nines right now, trying to earn a living. Trying to take
care of the kids, and doing all of the rest of the stuff.
Now, if you're talking about a retired person that can sit on
their rearend at the beach or wherever playing golf, tennis and
all that, that's fine. But that's not the people who are being
really affected by a bunch of the decisions. Pelican Bay was a
big issue. It wasn't videotaped and there was no camera there
by the county. It was not a county projection. We should have
been able to take and see what's going on in Pelican Bay. They
belong to this county, just as well as anybody else.
At the same time, the meeting that Mr. Coletta had out at
the library about the Dover Cole wasn't videotaped. The rest of
the county doesn't know what they're spending $400,000 for, and
that's only the tip of the iceberg. And the people who live out
there, don't know that that meeting was going on. I want to take
and get the county involved. Spend some money for all these
people who can't get informed. I want signs up on the telegraph
pole and tell your code people to stay away, because this is
Page 189
March 27, 2001
important. When you don't know, you cannot react. You cannot
-- put up an argument about it, because you don't even know
what it's all about. Yet along comes the decision made in this
room that affects their lives and their wallets. Put it up. Put it in
every store. Put it at the Winn Dixies, and the Publix and all the
rest of it. Get the message out. Get the message out that these
people are not being told what's going on.
Now, a little twist in this. The Golden Gate Civic
Association and the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association does
not represent all of the people that live in Golden Gate or in the
Estates.
Now, to have those people participate, because of the
hours, they run from dawn until dark, they're working. Now, they
cannot participate in those meetings. So now, we're going to
leave them out of the spin, or are we going to take and fix the
meetings.
Now, we have got on April the 4th, the Corps of Engineers is
going to be at the Golden Gate Community Center. I want the
thing open ended and videotaped. I don't want any time limit on
the back side. In other words, nine o'clock can come and go, ten
o'clock can come and go, two days can come and go as far as
I'm concerned. Give those people an opportunity to have input
into the meetings that are going to take and affect their lives and
their wallets. There's no reason why, and you people have the
ability to take and do this. I'm sorry. I'm going to keep on going
just for a second.
The fact is, that these people are being put down. Now,
everybody looks at them, say, hey, fine, I don't drive a Rolls
Royce, I don't drive a Cadillac and I don't drive a Jaguar. But I
drive a pickup truck and it's a little bit old and a little bit beat up,
and you're right, and I haul whatever I can and I do what I can.
Don't let these people down. Don't let them down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Perkins, thank you, you make
some -- a really good point.
MR. PERKINS: Well, the real points that I want to make, is
we spent enough money and you know, Pam, because you were
involved in getting this television system and there's a quarter of
a million dollars in and counting. It was put in with the intent of
having the kids from the college and the schools, that they could
participate in this building, to learn government, to learn how to
Page 190
March 27, 2001
use the equipment, so that we're going to give them an
education down (sic) this, and it's not being done.
Now, if you can spend $400,000 on a stupid survey out
there, spend $400,000 on behalf of our kids to get the message
out. There's no reason why not, because bottom line is we're not
going to be here forever. I know that I'm not. But hopefully the
following generations will be here, and maybe what I do today
can affect them down the line, such as my grandchildren and my
great grandchildren, and that also applies to you people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I -- Al and I had this
conversation about the Corps of Engineers coming to Golden
Gate Community Center and it is important to a lot of people that
are not able to get out, and they need to be aware of what -- how
they could be impacted. So I hope that everybody could agree to
have staff and the cameras down there, and we'll get some fliers
together, and, Al, you'll be agreeing to pass them out.
MR. PERKINS: We have an organization in place just about
right now to take care of fliers. We have stores involved. We
have got all kinds of service people involved. Okay. There's a
bunch of people who are willing, that they can go forward with
this and pay, not pay, but provide signs. We're not dealing with
any kind of money whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me see if I can get those
fliers to you by the end of the day.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. There's one other subject that I want
to touch on, quickly. Portable microphones. Okay. Now luckily
enough I can push this thing out -- this thing up. This has been a
pain in the neck over the years, but when the man has to take
and jump and grab a portable microphone -- could use -- he can
only get as far as that cord. There's no reason why we can't
provide portable microphones in here and at the public meetings
that are being held.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA; That's excellent. That's
absolutely excellent. You're right. I know it's costless, because
I own two sets of them. They're about $150, you get them from
Radio Shack and they tie right into the system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excellent idea.
MR. PERKINS: This is a toot-de-toot (sic), okay, six years
Page 191
March 27, 2001
ago I pressed the button and I forced, forced Jeb Bush that they
could participate at Golden Gate Community Center, and at that
time I leaned on everybody and their brother, I had the portable
mikes, I had the setup in there, and I got all the information on
how to do this from Porter Goss to make it happen.
So when any of the agencies or any of your groups or any of
your people here, staff, say it can't be done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call Al.
MR. PERKINS: Something else with the TV, all of the things
that are going on in this town, that we don't know about, such as
the link for the -- from the city. I can't watch the city meetings
any more. And why should I? Okay. Because I'm paying for
those damn rocks on that beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if you've stayed in a
hotel room lately, but I get the point.
MR. PERKINS: The point is information. Let the people
know what's going on. There's no reason why we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' We've got your fliers. We got
them right here.
MR. PERKINS: You're about 5,000 too short.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the way, you've got 10
minutes on your five minutes.
MR. PERKINS: I apologize for running over, but I think on
behalf of the people that can't make these meetings and who will
try to make these meetings if they are long enough, with
notification. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Our next
speaker.
MR. OLLIFF.' Next speaker is Mr. Biaz, followed by Agosta
Morerra. And I think we're doing our part in trying to make our
meetings long enough.
MR. BIAZ: Hi, my name is Emelio Biaz and on February 18th,
Naples Daily News came out with this wetlands protection, and
what I've been told is that, I mean, most of this area, all of the
area is northern Golden Gate Estates, the working people, and
that means if you have to get mandatory flood insurance, that's
800 to $1,000 per household that people are going to have to pay
and most people were like, we didn't see that, we didn't see that,
I mean, why aren't these things brought up by more than one
notice in the Sunday paper?
Page 192
March 27, 2001
And that's all I have to say, if you-all could try to address
this, the people in northern Golden Gate Estates, most of them
don't know what's going on out there. Because I've been with
the -- all of the petitions that we got, I explained it to them, and
they're like, we didn't know that. But I'll make it short. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's getting rough out there with
the wetlands and the environmentalists and the government, you
know, and it's really getting hard for the working people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speaking of communication,
according to what Al just said, maybe we could give that
information to the Golden Gate Gazette, and to the Golden Gate
Chamber, and both civic associations, so if they can publish it in
their newsletters, then, you know, people have at least four
different ways other than that to see it, according --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea.
MR. BIAZ: Thank you very much. It's a great idea.
MR. OLLIFF.' Next speaker is Agosta Morerra followed by
Guadalupe Morerra.
MR. MORERRA: I don't really have that much more to say,
just all of a sudden I don't feel that good, and it seems like it's a
waste of time, whatever you speak anyway, everybody's in a
hurry to go home, but I just want to -- if somebody's listening out
there, that you need to come to these meetings. You need to get
informed, you need to preoccupy (sic) because, you know, three
or four people here, we're not making a heck of a difference. We
need a lot more people. We need everybody to get involved. And
we've been trying to do this, you know, just other petitions we
have, we also have fliers too, and we're going to encourage a lot
of people. I'd like to somehow get a meeting with you, Mr.
Coletta, about the issue we spoke to earlier. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. MORERRA: And maybe we can come up with some kind
of a way to inform everybody of what's going on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got the ways to do it.
MR. MORERRA: What's going to happen is, I think it's going
to be a big problem when the people wake up and realize what's
happening.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' You're right. You always need
Page 193
March 27, 2001
the interaction of the people with government or else it don't
work. Al Perkins has got that one right.
MR. MORERRA: And it's a lot easier if we try to inform them
now, so that we can work every issue and not lust run into a big
problem, because I think it's going to be a big, big problem when
everybody really wakes up and knows --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't mean to have a dialogue
with the person on the podium up there, but I lust wanted to say,
you're real correct on this whole thing, but we're crisis driven.
We don't react in this community until there's a crisis. So we got
to wake the people up out there like Al's been saying for years
now, that there -- the wolf's at the door, we're at the 11th hour,
we have to do something. And this is the time we're going to do
it, and we're going to get some meetings together. We're going
to discuss this thing. We're going to bring the appropriate people
in there, and see what we can do, and know what's going to
happen. How we can change things.
MR. MORERRA: Good. And one thing that I want to say,
that's what I wanted to say earlier today, I want to bring up to
your attention, okay, someone mentioned earlier today that the
government had no intention of tearing down Miller Road, that's a
lie. They told us they're going to tear it out, they're going to tear
up Miller Road and, you know, how I know it for a fact, too, they
paid $220,000 for two and a quarter acres, because it was a
house on Miller Road. When they offered this man $190,000 for
50 acres. Isn't that ridiculous? Eighty-seven acres, I'm sorry.
Two hundred twenty thousand dollars for two and a quarter
acres, that are only about, what, a mile and a half, two miles
away from your 87 acres. How do you explain that? I'd like to
know that, that explanation. That tells me that they going to do
something with Miller Road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are. It's coming out.
MR. MORERRA: And we need to get ready for it. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: I think he was trying to buy some time,
because Guadelupe was on her way, but Guadelupe Morerra is
your next speaker, and I don't think she's arrived as yet.
Page 194
March 27, 2001
Item #14A
COUNTY MANAGER SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD MENTION
UP-COMING EVENTS FOR ADVERTISING DURING OPEN
SESSIONS IN LIEU OF REQUESTING SAME THROUGH THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. All right. Well, that will
conclude our public comment, and we'll go to staff
communications. Mr. Weigel, oh, Mr. Weigel, Mr. Manalich. MR. MANALICH: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Just one brief thing, two actually, the item that
Commissioner Henning brought up was one that I had requested
that, in fact, I was going to bring it up if he didn't, several of you
have had items where you've requested the PlO staff to do some
advertising for a particular meeting, and my only request is you
need to recognize you put us in a box when you go down to PlO,
in most cases and ask for the staff to do some work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we have to ask you, right?
MR. OLLIFF: That's why I'm asking you -- and trying to clarify
that that you bring it to these meetings, and get board direction,
because as much as this one is probably a no-brainer, in terms,
of the Army Corps ElS type meeting at the Golden Gate
Community Center, for some other meeting that may be a
particular cause, or some issue that may be important to you and
your district, I can't get caught in the box, nor can my staff, of
doing some work unless I get full board direction for that.
So I'm just asking you to recognize that, if you would, and
bring that up at board meetings and get the full board support for
it, because I've yet to hear anything come up that I don't think
the full board would support, but I'm trying to preclude the
precedent in the future when the issue does come up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for clarification, if the
board has, like, for example, I don't know if it's PlO or
Development Services, but some staff people publicize greatly
the Bay Shore Gateway Redevelopment meetings. I assume
that's permitted, because the board has endorsed that -- MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- as a policy, and we're trying to
Page 195
March 27, 2001
do redevelopment. So it would only be something that is a new
and novel idea that if it's previously approved by the board --
MR. OLLIFF: I'll give you a specific example, and I don't
think Commissioner Fiala would mind. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. OLLIFF: She had a particular program, which I think
was very laudable, in terms of doing some clean-up efforts in the
Bay Shore, area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, Naples Manor.
MR. OLLIFF: Naples Manor, I'm sorry. Naples Manor area,
and wanted to do some fliers throughout the neighborhood about
a clean-up program, well, until I get some board direction on
that, it puts us in a particularly difficult spot, even though that
one was positive, had it been something else that one of the
commissioners may not have supported, it would'ye put us in a
position where we don't want to be.
So I'm just asking for even those very positive things, if
you'll bring those to the board, and get some direction, it
protects you and it protects me, as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you said something,
because, you know -- and these things are good direction for us
so that we can learn right away the right way to do things.
Thank you, Tom.
Item #14B
COUNTY MANAGER TO BE ON VACATION FROM MARCH 30
THROUGH APRIL 6, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Second item is just, again, officially to tell you
that I am taking a long deserved, needed break next week. So as
of Friday, I will be out of town through the next week. Timing
wise it's never a good time, but Mr. McNees has already been
assigned to play point on the wastewater issue, so he is every bit
as aware of the details on that particular issue, and if we need to
call a special meeting on Friday, I have no hesitancy in Mr.
McNees's ability to be able to bring you to closure on that item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you bringing your cell
phone?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
Page 196
March 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going out of the
country?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Get away from it all.
MR. OLLIFF: I will be in country, and I will have my cell
phone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But don't call him, for heaven's
sake, unless it's an emergency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think I have his number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, you do. Commissioner
Coletta, do you have any communication items?
Item #15A
NAPLES MANOR CLEAN-UP TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 21, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, first I want to say I hope
that Tom's taking his wife with him. The other thing that I
wanted to mention, as we were mentioning Channel 54 and the
access for the outlying areas, speaking especially about
Everglades City and Immokalee, we are working in that direction
to supply Channel 54 to those communities, and I hope it's going
to be a lot sooner than later. We got some very good direction
going for us. The line has been run to Orange Tree and from
there, we're hoping we can get it to -- right into Immokalee.
Everglades City is in a negotiation position right now for a
number of channels. They're asking for the same service the
rest of the county has. They've been offered Channel 54 and a
number of other channels, but it isn't quite the same package,
and so, justly so, they're holding out. But for reasons that
sometimes escape me, they do want Channel 54 down there. I'm
kind of pleased.
And other than that, that ends my communique.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Anything, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a little something, and that is
this Naples Manor cleanup that's coming this week, Thursday,
this isn't the cleanup, I'm sorry. This is our first meeting before
the cleanup. The cleanup, and we're encouraging all Naples
Manor residents and anybody else who's interested to be there
on April 21st, which is a Saturday, for the cleanup. This
Thursday, though, we're going to have our code enforcement
Page197
March 27, 2001
people, the Sheriff's Office, our Waste Management people, and
also our parks and recs. people at Naples Manor, in Lely High
School as we try and begin to unite the community and get them
all to work together to improve the area that they live in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent work, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have anything. I'll maybe
make a motion if you don't have anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have anything.
COMMISSIONER
adjourn.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
HENNING: I'll make a motion that we
FIALA: Second.
MAC'KIE: There you go. It's done.
**** COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE MOVED, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HENNING AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THAT
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS UNDER THE CONSENT AND SUMMARY
AGENDAS BE APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED:*****
Item #16A1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN ESTABLISHED UPON RECORDING OF AN
ORDER REDUCING FINE/LIEN IN COLLIER COUNTY V. HOMER
BETANCOURT
Item #16A2
RES. 2001-90 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT AND ASSIST STAFF
WITH THE RESTUDY OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN
Item #16A3
CARNIVAL PERMIT-2001-05 RE PETITION CARNY-2001-AR-441,
PEGGY RUBY, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL
(COUNTRY JAMBOREE} FROM APRIL 6 THROUGH 7, 2001, ON
COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AT THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY
PARK SITE LOCATED ON ARBOR BOULEVARD - WITH WAIVER OF
Page 198
March 27, 2001
CARNIVAL FEE, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY BOND
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF "CEDAR HAMMOCK UNIT THREE" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT
OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
ADDITIONAL SENIOR PLANNER POSITION IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, AND THE ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT TO THE
ADOPTED FY 01 COUNTY BUDGET
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN ARISING OUT OF ORDER IMPOSING
FINE/LIEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. WILLIAM E. AND BEVERLY M. MURPHY
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES ELKS LODGE #2010"
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF "TRE TIERRA" AND APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES PHASE 1-A" AND APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Page 199
March 27, 2001
Item #16A10
WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR GLEN EAGLE CART BARN -
RELEASE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S AGENT
Item #16All - Moved to Item #8A3
Item #16A12 - Moved to Item #8A4
Item #16A13 - Moved to Item #8A5
Item #16A14 - Continued from the March 13, 2001 Meeting
FINAL PLAT OF "JUBILATION" AND APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Added - Item #16A15
RELEASE OF PURPORTED LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE -
RESOLUTION 98-308
Item #16B1
FUNDING OF FOUR NEW VEHICLES WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE NEW VEHICLES
Item #16B2
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS FROM THE
FOUNTAINS CONDOMINIUMS THAT WILL FACILITATE THE
COUNTY IN MAINTAINING AN EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT
NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD
Item #16B3 - Moved to Item #8B1
Page 200
March 27, 2001
Item #16B4
POLICY ALLOWING COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO PURCHASE
MONTHLY BUS PASSES THROUGH PAYROLL DEDUCTION AND
THAT THE COUNTY PROVIDE A 50% MATCH AS AN EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT
Item #16Cl
WORK ORDER PUED-MS-29 TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR ROYAL PALM IRRIGATION
PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACT 00-3087, PROJECT
73916 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,960
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PIPING
REPLACEMENT, PROJECT 70890
Item #16C3
UTILITY EASEMENT FROM IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC. THAT
FACILITATES THE COUNTY IN UPGRADING AND IMPROVING AN
EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER MAIN, PROJECT 74015
Item #16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE TRANSFER OF MONIES
FROM FUND 001 - PARKS AND RECREATION TO FUND 195
Item #16D1
BID 00-3198 TO LEO'S SOD TO RENOVATE THE BALL FIELDS AT
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK - IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,400
Item #16D2
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES AND
TECHNOLOGY ACT GRANT, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF
Page 201
March 27, 2001
THE BCC TO SIGN CERTIFICATION FOR THE GRANT
Item #16D3
PURCHASE AGREEMENT W/JENNIFER M. ROWLAND AND
MARGUERITE R. JOY TO ALLOW FOR A WALKWAY, BIKE PATH
AND GREEN SPACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR RECREATIONAL
PURPOSES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000
Item #16D4- Continued Indefinitely
EASEMENT AGREEMENT W/ALMA OLIVIA FLEMING, TRUSTEE OF
THE ALMA OLIVIA FLEMING TRUST FUND TO ALLOW FOR A
WALKWAY, BIKE PATH AND GREEN SPACE TO BE
CONSTRUCTED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
Item #16D5
A LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES JUNIOR CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, INC., APPROVING USE OF SPECIFIED COUNTY-
OWNED PROPERTY FOR CONDUCTING A JULY 4TM FIREWORKS
FESTIVAL - TO BE HELD AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK
Item #16D6
COMBINE TWO PART-TIME POSITIONS TO ONE PERMANENT
FULL-TIME POSITION - FOR THE OUTREACH COORDINATOR
POSITION
Item #16E1
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN COST CENTER 100130 AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO OPERATING EXPENSES -
FOR LEASING A COLOR PRINTER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Item #16E2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. TWO FOR RFP 97-2675, "PRE-
Page 202
March 27, 2001
EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS AND DRUG TESTING" -
W/COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS
Item #16F1
RES. 2001-91 PROVIDING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A TERRORISM ANNEX TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
CONDUCT AN EXERCISE TO VALIDATE THE ANNEX
Item #16F2
AMENDED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS~ LOCAL 3670
Item #16F3
RES. 2001-92 AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAID
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FUNDS TO
BE USED FOR SHELTER ENHANCEMENT AT GULF COAST HIGH
SCHOOL
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #01-205; #01-213; #01-226; #01-229
Item #16J1
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 203
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 27, 2001
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FII,E FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Collier County Mosquito Control District - Annual Financial Report for FYE
1999-2000 and Audit & Management Letter FYE 9/30/00
2) Cow Slough Water Control District - Annual Financial Report for FYE 1999-
2000 and Audit & Management Letter FYE 9/30/00
3)
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Annual Financial Report
for FYE 1999-2000 and Audit & Management Letter FYE 9/30/00, Minutes
of October 9, 2000 meeting and Financial Statement - unaudited - August
31, 2000
4)
5)
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Annual Financial Report
for FYE 1999-2000, Audit & Management Letter FYE 9/30/00, Schedule of
Regular Meetings FY 2000-2001 and Minutes of October 9, 2000 meeting
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes for the
November 30, 2000 and January 24, 2001 meetings and Financial Statements
Unaudited- 10/31/00 and 12/31/00
6)
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes for the
October 9, 2000 meeting, Financial Statements Unaudited- 7/31/00 and
Schedule of Regular Meetings FY 2000-2001
7)
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes for the October
25, November 7 and December 6, 2000 meetings and Financial Statements
Unaudited- 10-31-00 and December 31, 2000, Minutes for January 24, 2001
meeting
8) Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District-
Agenda of February 28, 2001 meeting
Bo
9) North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District - Schedule of Regular Meetings,
Registered Agent and Registered Office, District Map and Facility Record
Minutes:
1) Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Agenda for January 26,
2001
H:Data/Format
2) Select Committee on Community Character and Design - Notice of January
30 & 31, 2001 meetings
3) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for February 22, 2001 meeting
4)
Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Notice of January 31
and February 14, 2001 meeting, and Agenda for January 31 and February 14,
2001 meetings and Minutes of January 17, 2001 meeting
5) Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for February 12, 2001 meeting
and Minutes of December 11, 2000 meeting
6) Isle of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board - Agenda for February 1,2001
meeting
7) Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 7, 2001,
Minutes of January 3, 2001 meeting
8)
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight committee - Agenda for February
26, 2001 meeting and Notice of February 26, 2001 meeting and Minutes of
January 22, 2001 meeting
9) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda for February 28,
2001 meeting and Minutes of January 31, 2001 meeting
10) Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Notice of February 23,
2001 meeting
Other:
1) Collier County Fire Control & Rescue Districts - Summary of Plan Review
Activity for December 2000 and the Average number of Days in Fire Plan
Review.
H:Data/Format
March 27, 2001
Item #16K1
PAYMENT OF MEDICAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH KEVIN
SAUNDERS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $164,099.61
Item #16L1
SETTLEMENT PROVIDING PAYMENT BY THE DEFENDANTS TO
COLLIER COUNTY IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN
FORECLOSURE ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
CHRISTINA DAVENPORT, ET AL., CASE NO.: 96-2319-CA
Item #17A
ORD. 2001-14 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
2001-03, THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Item #17B
ORD. 2001-15 RE PUD-2000-19, GEORGE L. VARNADOE, ESQ., OF
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A.,
REPRESENTING ANTARAMIAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "C-4" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS SANDPIPER VILLAGE PUD FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST (U.S. 41)
Item #17C
RES. 2001-93 RE V-2000-34, DON KIRBY AND SUSAN YOUNG
KIRBY, OF CONSTRUCTION COURIER SERVICES, REPRESENTING
HANDY FOOD STORES INCORPORATED, REQUESTING A
VARIANCE OF 20 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A GAS STATION CANOPY
AND FUEL PUMPS TO 30 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2902 LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD, IMMOKALEE
Item #17D
Page 204
March 27, 2001
RES. 2001-94 RE PETITION V-2000-36, CRAIG R. STEPHENS OF
STEPHENS DESIGN GROUP REPRESENTING ADCO GROUP
REQUESTING A 35 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT REAR
YARD REQUIREMENT WHEN ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY, TO 15 FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON
RAILHEAD BOULEVARD
Item #17E
ORD. 2001-16 RE PETITION PUD-99-21, MR. WILLIAM HOOVER OF
HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING LLOYD G. SHEEHAN,
TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL
AND "GC" GOLF COURSE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERIAL
PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE BOULEVARD AND APPROXIMATELY
ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US-41)
Item #17F
ORD. 2001-17 RE PUD-98-14(1), GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE & ANDERSON, P.A.,
REPRESENTING GRANADA SHOPPES ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR "GRANADA SHOPPES" FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND
IMMOKALEE ROAD (S.R. 846)
Page 205
RECEIVED
March 27, 2001
leari ef Cauet~ Coe,dsslo~ers
*k W 'k "k *k
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S} OF
SPECI~ER ITS CONTROL
~ ~CARTER, Ph.D, ~-~A~M-~
"ATTEST:
.DWIGHT.E,g.. BROCK, CLERK
$$~ture
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY BLECHA, DAWN
BREEHNE, TONI SHEARER AND DAWN McCONNELL
, as
Pag® 206