BCC Minutes 09/25/2001 RSeptember 25, 2001
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25,2001 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 9:08 a.m. In
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 25, 2001
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 1NCLUDES 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
1
September 25, 2001
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
e
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
PROCLAMATIONS
Be
TIME CERTAIN 12:00 NOON. Proclaiming Tuesday, September 25,
2001 as "Naples Braves Softball Recognition Day".
Proclaiming the week of October 7-13,2001 be designated as "National 4-H
Week".
Ce
Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Planning Staff and the Select
Committee as the recipients of the prestigious Florida Chapter of the
American Planning Association Award of Excellence for the Community
Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Michael Cumm, Wastewater Collections
2) Pedro Rodriguez, Road and Bridge
3) Beverly Fields, EMS
4) James Wiggins, Utility Franchise
5) Diana Compagnone, Planning Services
6) Karen Arnold, Public Information
7) Jeffery Coar, EMS
Fifteen Year Attendees:
2
September 25, 2001
8)
9)
lO)
11)
12)
13)
Edward Morad, Jr., Code Enforcement
Jacinto Cervantes, Parks and Recreation
Constance Johnson, Community Development
William Flynn, Transportation Engineering
James Gammell, Wastewater Collections
William Bryant, Graphics Department
Twenty Year Attendee:
14) Harold Huber, Parks and Recreation
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. This item has been deleted.
Bo
Presentation of the Annual Telly Award to the Department of Public
Information.
Recommendation to recognize Don Jeffery, Community Center Aide, as
Employee of the Month for August 2001.
De
Recommendation to recognize Don Blalock, Technical Professional,
Community Development, as Employee of the Month for September 2001.
te
Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by State Senator Burt
Saunders and State Representative Dudley Goodlette of a Grant Award in
the amount of $130,328.00 from the Department of Environmental
Protection for the Immokalee Airport Park.
Fe
Presentation to Denise Kirk and Jim Royce for achieving the Golden
Web Award for the Recycling website.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics.
B. Public Petition request regarding Malibu Lakes PUD.
3
September 25, 2001
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-01-AR-1156,
Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Collier County Public
Works (Utilities) Department, requesting a Conditional Use for an essential
service within the Rural Agriculture Zoning District to allow for an
expansion of the South County Water Reclamation Operation for property
located on the West side of Wildflower Way and the East side of Warren
Street, in Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
B. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER
2001 BCC MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition VA-01-979, Terrance L. Kepple, PE, representing Shader-
Lombardo Properties, LLC, requesting an after-the-fact variance of 12.1 feet
from the distance between structures requirement as provided for in the
Vanderbilt Villas PUD from 20 feet to 7.9 feet for property located at 515
Roma Court and Lot 22, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been deleted.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-01-AR-
823, Mr. Tim Hancock of Vanasse and Daylor, LLP, representing the Sunset
LLC, requesting a rezone from "GC" Golf Course to the "RSF-4"
Residential Single Family Zoning District to allow for a maximum of 12
single family dwelling units for property located at the Northeast end of
Forest Hills Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.51 acres more or less.
C. THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23~ 2001
BCC MEETING. PUD-2000-21, Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P., of Hole
Montes, Inc., representing Robert Vocisano and Angelo Favretto, requesting
a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development
to be known as Terafina PUD for a maximum of 850 residential dwelling
4
September 25, 2001
units, golf course, clubhouse, and a maximum of 40,000 sq. ft. of
Neighborhood Village commercial retail uses, for property located
approximately 1.5 miles East of 1-75, one mile North of Immokalee Road
(C.R. 846), in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 646.5+ acres.
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23~ 2001
BCC MEETING. Consolidate the Utility Standards and Procedures
Ordinance.
E. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER
2001 BCC MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition PUD-2001-432 Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing
Kenco Development Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit
Development and "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development known as Indigo Lakes PUD to be known as Indigo Lakes
PUD for the purpose of increasing acreage from 140.85 acres to 181.37
acres and reducing density from 3.14 to 2.43 units per acre for a maximum
of 442 residential dwelling units for property located on Collier Boulevard
(CR 951), South of the existing Oak Ridge Middle School, in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER lit
2001 BCC MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
PUDA-2001-AR-702, Margaret Perry, AICP, of Wilson Miller Inc.,
representing Eagle Creek Properties Inc., requesting an amendment to the
Eagle Creek PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document to allow
self storage facilities and related accessory structures for the exclusive use of
Eagle Creek residents as a permitted use, for property located at 401 Tower
Road, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 298+ acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
B. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
5
September 25, 2001
Ce
Resolution condemning cowardly and deadly terrorist actions at the World
Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC.
De
Finalize the Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Manager and
County Attorney.
te
Resolution regarding Collier County's support of adequate funding for the
U.S. Farm Bill Agricultural Conservation and Stewardship Programs.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
11. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to consider
settlement in Dolphin Cove Development of Goodland, Inc. v. Collier
County, now pending in Certiorari Proceedings in the Second District Court
of Appeal (Case No. 2D01-3352) and also as a damages lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No.
2:01-CV-77-FTM-29DNF).
Bo
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to consider
settlement in Collier County v. Marshall, et al, Case No. 99-2009-CA-TB,
now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court (County's Prescriptive
Easement Claim for Miller Boulevard Extension).
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. FUTURE AGENDAS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL 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.
6
September 25, 2001
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Pelican Strand Replat 1-A".
2)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Strand".
3)
Request to approve that the Board of County Commissioners be a
Primary (Gold) Sponsor for the 2nd Annual Planning Symposium on
Smart Growth.
4)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Carlton Lakes Unit
No. 3B".
s)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Mediterra Parcel
120", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
6)
Approval of clearing and filling for 30 residential lots in Leawood
Lakes Subdivision.
7)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Habitat Village"
and approval of the Standard Form and Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
8)
Approval of an agreement with the Economic Development Council
of Collier County, Inc. (EDC) to execute continuation of the
Economic Diversification Program and provide a contribution of up to
$400,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02.
9)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and execute a Satisfaction of Lien arising out of an order imposing
fine/lien in Code Enforcement Board Case entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Ronnie Parks.
Authorization to amend the Consulting Services Agreement with
RWA, Inc. to include both the Rural Fringe Area Oversight
7
September 25, 2001
Committee and the Eastern Lands Oversight Committee for the
duration of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment Process.
11)
2001 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the Tourism
Alliance of Collier County regarding advertising/promotion and pecial
events.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve Bid #01-3258 "Vanderbilt Drive Beautification Grounds
Maintenance"
2)
Approve Bid #01-3270 "SR90 - US41 Tamiami Trail East
Streetscape Beautification, Phase B".
3)
Approval of Contract No. C- 12261 with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) for cost sharing to obtain
topographic aerial mapping in the Belle Meade Basin Area (Project
No. 31012).
4)
Request for speed limit reduction from thirty miles per hour (30
MPH) to twenty-five miles per hour (25 MPH) on all local access
streets in the Orangetree Subdivision.
5)
Request Board approval of a Right-of-Way Use Agreement between
Collier County and the La Playa Hotel development.
6)
Award of RFP 01-3253 "Installation, Maintenance, and Repair of
Traffic Signals".
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve Annual Rate Resolution to adjust Landfill Tipping Fees,
Transfer Station Fees, Residential Annual Assessments and
Commercial Waste Collection Fees for FY2001/2002.
2)
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Hazen and Sawyer, PC
for Engineering Services related to the North County Water
Reclamation Facility, Projects 73031/73067/73077/73950.
8
September 25, 2001
3)
Approve Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for Beach
Maintenance and Inlet Management Projects.
4)
Status of Near-Term Capacity Improvements at the South County
Water Reclamation Facility, Project 73128.
5)
Approve Budget Amendments for the Collier County Water/Sewer
District to recognize additional loan proceeds for the construction of
the North County Water Reclamation Facility 5-MGD Expansion,
Project #73031.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Acceptance of Library Current Year Action Plan and approval of
Library State Aid Application.
2)
Approval of an Agreement for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 funding
contribution to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Direct and authorize the County Manager to modify the existing Pay
Plan to include an additional pay grade.
2)
Award of Bid No. 00-3137 and Annual Agreements for Title
Commitments.
3)
Approval of the purchase of Property and Casualty Insurance and
related services for FY2002.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment in the Emergency Medical Services
Fund 490 to appropriate additional revenue and reserves.
2)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acceptance of an Agreement
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier
County regarding monies available in the Emergency Management
Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund
9
September 25, 2001
3)
Approve a Budget Amendment to recognize and appropriate
additional revenue in the Isles of Capri Fire Department Fund (144).
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Payment Authorization (Patterson Boulevard Fire-May 18-22, 2001).
Approved by the County Manager in the Boards Absence.
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-
516.
3)
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year
2000-01 Adopted Budget.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend NAACP
Annual Banquet.
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Certificate of Correction: NEED MOTION authorizing the
Chairman to sign Certificate of Correction to the tax rolls as presented
by the Property Appraiser's Office. RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
2) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Department of Transportation Highway Safety Fund Grant
Application Immokalee D.U.I. Enforcement Project.
2)
Department of Transportation Highway Safety Fund Grant
Application Traffic Safety Grant.
3)
To adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to
exceed $8,120,000 from the pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program
of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the
10
September 25, 2001
Le
Loan Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and
the Commission in order to finance the acquisition and construction of
the Immokalee Jail Facility to be located within the County;
authorizing the execution of a loan not or notes to evidence such
borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a covenant
to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues
as provided in the Loan Agreement; authorizing the execution and
delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such
borrowing; and providing an effective date.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
2)
3)
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 112 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Faith Bible Church of Naples, Inc., et al, (Immokalee Road, Project
No. 69101)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding expert fees in the amount of
$20,000.00, relative to the Easement Acquisition of Parcel 145 in the
Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Owen M. Ward, Trustee, et al, Case
No. 99-1291-CA, Project No. 65031 (Radio Road, Santa Barbara
Boulevard to Davis Boulevard).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 250/250T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. Juan C. Zamarripa, et al, (Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No.
63041).
Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
no more than $13,756.45 for outside counsel and professional services
including expert witness fees for services rendered in concluding the
County's litigation relating to the 1995-96 Beach Restoration Project
in the Lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County v. Coastal Engineering Consultants Inc., et al, Case No. 00-
1901-CA.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
September 25, 2001
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.
Ae
Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance 86-72, which created the
Sabal Palm Road Extension Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit;
providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for
conflict and severability; and providing an effective date.
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 2000-01
Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
September 25, 2001
September 25, 2001
Item #2
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I'll make the gavel work
yet. Welcome. Board of County Commissioners meeting September
25th. If you would join with me in the invocation and pledge of
allegiance led by Mary Anne Domer, Church of the Resurrection.
REV. NORNER: I would invite you to sing along with me a
prayer at this time, God Bless America.
(God Bless America sung in unison.)
REV. NORNER: My brothers and sisters of Collier County,
ever since the terrorist attacks of two weeks ago on September 11 th,
this patriotic song has been sung across our land and throughout the
world, on the steps of Capital Hill, in the parks and plazas, churches
and cathedrals throughout this country, and other lands people have
gathered to ask God's blessing on America at this time of our national
tragedy. Our lives have been changed forever. We are heart broken
at the enormous loss of life and the wider toll in human suffering and
dispair inflicted upon us as the result of the World Trade Center and
Pentagon attacks. We are angry that terrorists highjacked four of our
own civilian planes with the purpose of using them as instruments of
destruction against us. Who can begin to understand why these
militants plotted to destroy innocent people and symbolic buildings?
We are told that it was to send us a clear message that they are at war
with us because of our democratic core values: Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
Across our great country spiritual and political leaders have
risen to the occasion and delivered inspirational speeches and
sermons to help us through our grief and mourning. Americas are
Page 2
September 25, 2001
united as never before. Heros are emerging to give us examples of
how to overcome evil and hatred with the most powerful weapons on
earth, compassion and love.
Scenes of fire fighters, police, rescue workers healthcare
professionals, they are the heros of our first war of the 21st century.
People across the country are also donating blood, giving to charities,
and responding generously to those in need.
Today we gather to ask God's blessing upon our Collier County
commissioners meeting, all those gathered here and all those whose
lives will be affected by their decisions. God grant our
commissioners and all our government officials wisdom and courage
as they make decisions that affect our lives and the lives of those of
future generations.
We do not know what the future holds, but we know who holds
the future, and the words of Psalm 46, God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble, therefore, we will not fear, though the
earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the
sea, though its waters roar and foam, and though the mountains
tremble with its tumult. There is a river whose streams make glad the
city of God, the holy habitation of the most high. God is in the midst
of her, and she shall not be moved. God will help. The nations will
rage, the kingdoms todder, a God utters His voice, and the earth
melts. The Lord of hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge.
Be still and know that I am God. God bless America. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Commissioners. Good
morning, Mr. Olliff, Mr. Weigel, staff, participants, and our listening
audience. You are with us, and thank you for joining us this morning
for the board meeting. Let's go to the agenda, and tell us a story, Mr.
Olliff.
Page 3
September 25, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, good morning, Commissioners.
The -- the change list is fairly brief. I'll walk you through it. The first
item is a continuation, Item 3-B, which was a proclamation
proclaiming the week as National 4-H Week. We're actually going to
continue that to October 7th -- your actual -- your meeting of October
9th.
Item 5-E is an add-on item. It's being requested to be heard
prior to the proclamations, and it's a presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners by State Senator Burt Saunders and State
Representative Dudley Goodlette of a grant award.
Item 8-F on your agenda is being requested by the petitioner to
be continued to the meeting of October 9th at the request of the
petitioner, and I do need to note, Mr. Chairman, that there are two
registered speakers here who have requested to speak on that
particular change. I think that they are residents from the community
who would like to request the board not grant this continuance, but
frankly, in past practice the petitioner who has actually made the
petition request to the board, if they are asking for the continuance,
we generally grant that and then try to reschedule and make sure that
all those that are interested in participating are notified so that they
can be here to be able to speak and participate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand, Mr. Olliff, and I do
believe that's due process and the petitioner pays the fees to come to
the board. We will hear you at that date, any and all who want to
speak on that issue, but I cannot allow someone to speak on one side
of an issue and the other people have withdrawn or have continued
the item, because others may have been here if they felt that we were
going to hear the item. So, therefore, I would respectfully ask the
board that we do continue that and we will hear the speakers at that
scheduled meeting.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item is an addition, Item 9-F, which is a
Page 4
September 25,2001
-- excuse me. I'm going to skip that one. I believe Commissioner
Henning's decided we're not going to add that item to the agenda.
The next item is an addition of 10-A. It's a request to authorize
local fire districts to raise funds for fallen fire fighters in New York
City at four major intersections around the community this coming
Friday.
The next item is also an addition. It's Item 16-B, as in "boy," 7.
It's a recommendation to conceptually approve a contract amendment
to the agreement between the board and APAC-Florida, Inc., to allow
pipe replacement and repair on Golden Gate Boulevard. That's at
staff's request.
The next item is also an addition to your consent agenda, 16-B,
as in "boy," 8, and it is a resolution authorizing acquisition of
properties associated with two Livingston Road projects from Golden
Gate Parkway to north of Pine Ridge Road, and that's in order for us
to maintain construction schedules on that Livingston Road segment.
The last item I have on your change list, Mr. Chairman, is also
an addition. It's Item 16-C-6, and it is an approval of a budget
amendment for beach cleaning related to Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
We are moving some monies that will allow us to have some
additional crews go down and provide cleanup of the beach areas that
were damaged by Gabrielle. I do need to point out that this item has
not been reviewed by the Tourist Development Council, but because
of its emergency nature the attorney's office has indicated it's fine for
the board to go ahead and approve it today, and we will subsequently
bring it back through the TDC process as we do with all tourist-
related supported items.
Mr. Chairman, that's all the changes I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: None. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Henning?
Page 5
September 25,2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to add the contracts --
some language on 16-D-2 that is the agreement with David Lawrence
and the county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's D as in David?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
consent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Yes, sir.
You're pulling that from
Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're pulling 16-D-2 -- D as in
David-- and that will become --
MR. OLLIFF: 10-A.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 10-A.
MR. OLLIFF: Item 10-A, the first item under the county
manager's report on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. It would be B because
you've got the fire fighters.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. We added one already.
It would be 16-B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was what, 16 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 10-B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was 16 what?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was 16-D, as in "David," 2. Now it
will become 10(B) as in "boy."
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I did that without any cheat sheets,
folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good job, right. Any other additions,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
Page 6
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a communication item that
I'll need a reminder on that my missing the MPO meeting on Friday
-- and the reason for that -- just want to make sure that's all okay with
the board-- has to do with a mediation that I've been asked to attend.
We'll just add that as a communication item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: On board communications, right.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just--just one thing. I
don't think it's necessary to pull it, that would be 16-1-1 commissioner
request for approval for payment to attend NAACP Annual Banquet.
Pam Mac'Kie's name was mentioned. I would like very much to go
also if you could include my name on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I just happened --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a threesome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I've already paid my tickets,
so is it okay if all four of us are there?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. You can all be there. I wouldn't
recommend you all sit at the same table, but spread you around the
room so there's no inference of collusion or impropriety.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God forbid the majority of the
county commission want to support the NAACP, but it could happen.
It's a good thing. There's not a problem with amending that -- I
mean, once the finding's made for one of us, it's good for all of us. So
it's a great day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we have a foursome. Okay. All
right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anything else, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Whatever else I have will
Page 7
September 25, 2001
wait for comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I have nothing. So we
can proceed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make a motion to approve the
regular consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie. I have a second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 25, 2001
CONTINUE: Item 3(B) to October 9, 2001 - Proclaiming the week of
October 7-13, 2001 be designated as "National 4-H Week".
Item 5(E) to be heard prior to Proclamation£. Presentation to the Board of
County Commi~sioners by State Senator Burt Saunders and State
Representative Dudley Goodlette of a Grant Award in the amount of
$130,328 from the Department of Environmental Protection for the
Immokalee Airport Park. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE: Item 8(F) to October 9~ 2001 - PUDA-2001-AR-702, Margaret
Perry, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., representing Eagle Creek Properties,
Inc., requesting an amendment to the Eagle Creek PUD having the effect of
amending the PUD document to allow self storage facilities and related
accessory structures for the exclusive use of Eagle Creek residents as a
permitted use, for property located at 401 Tower Road, in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
298+ acres. (Petitioner request.)
ADD: Item 9(F) - Discussion regarding County Government's role in the
penny referendum. (Commissioner Henning request.)
ADD: Item 10(A) - Authorize charitable solicitations by the fire districts to
raise funds for fallen fire fighters in New York City. (Staff request.)
ADD: Item 16(B)7 Recommendation to conceptually approve a contract
amendment to the agreement between the Board of County Commissioners
and APAC-Florida, Inc. to allow pipe replacement and repair on Golden
Gate Boulevard. (Staff request.)
ADD: Item 16(B)8 - Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
condemnation of a fee simple interest in real property for the constructio of
roadway improvements for the phase two Livingston Road project from
Golden Gate Parkway to north of Pine Ridge Road, CIE No. 52 (Project No.
60071)~ (Staff request.)
ADD: Item 16(C)6 Approve a budget amend'ment for beach cleaning
related to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. (Staff request.)
September 25,2001
Item #5E
PRESENTATION BY STATE SENATOR BURT SAUNDERS
AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE DUDLEY GOODLETTE OF A
GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,328 FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT PARK
All right. Moves us to Item 3, and we're going to take
5-E as in "Edward" first. Senator Saunders and Representative
Goodlette.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the commission. I appreciate you taking us out of order
here a little bit. We have some redistricting efforts that are going to
be taking place this morning that I'm going to go to as soon as we
finish.
I want to congratulate the commission and your chairman on the
resolution that you presented to the redistricting committee last night.
The good news is I think that we're going to keep Southwest Florida
together as a compact contiguous congressional district, and I'm also
confident that we'll have good representation in the Florida Senate,
and that's in large measure to the message that you sent to the
committee last night, and I appreciate that. And I also thank the
community for that outpouring of-- of interest and support.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you, Senator. I thought
we had a great turnout, and I appreciated Chairman Webster allowing
me to speak orally because I had to go to the second district meeting
and had an opportunity to read that proclamation into the record
which if he thought I read it fast here, I think Senator Saunders will
say that I probably double-timed it through that, and what else could
they say but approve it?
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Well, the map -- also, quite frankly, I
Page 9
September 25,2001
spoke to a lot of members of the committee. The map that was
presented by the Republican party of Collier, Democratic party of
Florida is a map that makes a lot of sense and I think will be one that
is a starting point, if you will.
I'm here today to present to the county commission from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Recreation and Parks, Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program a check in the amount of $130,000 -- $130,328 to be used at
the Immokalee Airport, and this is really a tribute to the county
commission, to your park and recreation department, to your airport
authority, and to the people that are working out at the Immokalee
Airport in order to capture this grant. Representative Goodlette's
office is represented here by Sarah, and we're here just to present that
check, and I presume we will just hand that to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll take it, and we'll take it on
behalf of Collier County to be dedicated to that specific activity.
Thank you very much, Senator. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Here it is, folks. That's a lot of hard
work on the part of our elected representatives to assist and get the
things that are still necessary for Collier County. So, thank you,
Senator. Thank you, Representative Goodlette.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Mr. Carter -- Chairman Carter, just --
just for the record, though, that's not the real check, so don't give
that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't try to cash it.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: -- don't give that to Dwight. Thank
yOU.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #3C
Page 10
September 25, 2001
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING STAFF AND THE SELECT COMMITTEE AS THE
RECIPIENTS OF THE PRESTIGIOUS FLORIDA CHAPTER OF
THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AWARD OF
EXCELLENCE FOR THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER PLAN
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you. Now, we will
go back to regular order, and that will take us to Item C which I will
be able to recognize the Collier County planning staff. You say what
happened to A?
The Naples Braves will be here at noon. And this is an
opportunity to recognize our planning staff for such an outstanding
effort, and this is a result of community character which was an
outgrowth of the focus group. So there was a continuance, and
Commissioner Mac'Kie and I on the past board were big advocates of
getting community character in place. This board has supported all
those efforts and, believe me, this is just one of the great things that
Collier County has done, and this is where the focus needs to be on
success, and we are now being recognized nationally for this effort.
Now we become a model. Everybody comes here not because they
think we're doing something wrong; they're coming here because,
hey, you guys got it right. You're doing something terrific, so let me
read this proclamation.
Whereas, the Florida Chapter of the American Planning
Association presents awards of excellence and merit annually for
outstanding planning projects that exemplify the highest standard of
planning, practice, and pay setting in the state; and,
Whereas, Collier County and its consultant team were honored
at the association's 2001 annual conference in Orlando on September
Page 11
September 25,2001
22, 2001; and,
Whereas, many hours of intense planning were required to
develop towards better places the community character plan for
Collier County; and,
Whereas, the awards jury was composed of very qualified
committee of six excellent planners from diverse backgrounds and
specialties; and,
Whereas, the award of the test, that talent and perseverance of
the individuals involved in the project; and,
Whereas, the endeavors of these individuals has produced a plan
that will further enhance and maintain the quality of the community
as it meets the challenges of rapid growth.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed this 25th day of September
2001 that the Collier County planning staff and the select committee
be recognized as the recipients of the prestigious Florida Chapter of
the American Planning Association Award of Excellence for the
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, done and
ordered this 25th day of September 2001, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James D. Carter, Chairman.
I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Mac'Kie. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
efforts.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Opposed by the same sign.
Congratulations to all of our team
Amy, where are you?
Amy, get up here, girl. You're
Page 12
September 25,2001
not allowed to be shy.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you have to take special
congratulations for Amy. I mean, Amy was the staff person that
shepherded that project along with select committee and spent
countless hours along with countless hours of volunteers bringing
together a plan that did win national honors.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can I add to that just that
having -- you know, hearing from people who have served on the
committee and hearing just what a fabulous job you did, Amy, and
how grateful they were and what a good facilitator you were and how
you really helped pull it together, I want to add my congratulations.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Gee, I can't sing her praises enough. I
will tell you as the liason from the board to that committee, what an
outstanding group. Jim Rideoutte as your chairman and all the
others. I mean, this community should be out there just applauding
all of these efforts, and I think they are. The people really are
applauding what you did, so I thank you, Amy, for such an excellent
job. Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Congratulations. My name is Bob Mulhere,
and I currently serve as the chair of the promised land section of the
Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association. Just a little
background, over the past several years Collier County has really
come to be recognized by my peers in the planning profession as a
county that is dedicated to innovation in community planning. For
example, in 1997 the county was awarded the prestigious FAPA
award of excellence for the county's commercial architectural
standards, as you recall.
At this -- just this past week I was at the state annual conference
as well as several members of your planning staff including Irene
Szmorlinski, who's the county's architect, and she was conducting a
Page 13
September 25, 2001
session dealing with the architectural standards. I just wanted to let
you know that today I still receive -- and I know your staff does --
many requests from throughout the country for copies of those
standards, as they serve as a model for other communities.
In 2000 we received an award of merit from FAPA for the
Gateway Bayshore redevelopment plan, and as we move forward
with innovative redevelopment in this area incorporating many new
urbanist and smart growth concepts, we'll learn a great deal from that
process, and I think we can serve as a model for other communities
but for ourself as well as we look to apply those concepts in other
areas of the county.
And, finally, as you heard as the proclamation was read at this
year's conference, the county again received the prestigious FAPA
Award of Excellence for the development of the community
character plan appropriately titled "Toward Better Places." Victor
Dover happened to be a keynote speaker at the conference, and
Collier County was a primary focus of Victor's remarks. In fact, after
his presentation he indicated that he had copies of the CD-ROM
which contained the community character plan, and he was swarmed
by planners trying to get their hands on a copy -- a free copy of that
plan.
Innovative and cutting-edge public policy such as that that's
embodied in the Collier County Community Character Plan couldn't
really happen without support from the Board of County
Commissioners and from community leaders and without very
significant involvement from the public, from the citizens of Collier
County. And as a professional planner and a citizen of Collier
County, I am very proud of your commitment and this community's
commitment to innovative planning.
I have to also reiterate your recognition for Amy Taylor who did
a yeoman's job in a very difficult and a very long process. I also
Page 14
September 25, 2001
would like to single out Jim Rideoutte who's the chair of the select
committee who was really tireless, as were -- as were all other
members of the select committee in moving this plan forward.
Last but not least, certainly, I think the public, the citizens of
Collier County, deserve a great deal of credit for supporting these
types of innovative planning initiatives. We are continually striving
to reinvent ourselves and improve and to make this an even better
place to live. And while there's a lot of work yet to be done, I think it
is appropriate now to take a few minutes to recognize Collier
County's commitment to be the best with this presentation of 2001
FAPA Award of Excellence. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you very much. I
think that's a great place to leave that for the rest of the day.
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED
All right. That's going to take us to our favorite part of the
program and that is to do service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go on down.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as you're heading down towards
the floor, I'd like to take the opportunity to call up four employees
who will be receiving their five-year service awards this morning.
The first is Pedro Rodriguez with your Road and Bridge Department.
Second would be James Wiggins of Utility Franchise. Third is Karen
Arnold -- Katie Arnold from PIO, your Public Information Office.
And Jeffrey Coar from EMS. If I could get a hand for these
employees, please.
(Applause.)
Page 15
September 25,2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we should be congratulating
us for having them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations, Katie. You're just a
great lady.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next group of employees that
we're going to recognize this morning are 15-year attendees, and we
actually have four of those as well, and the first is Jacinto Cervantes
from Parks and Recreation.
Community Development.
those of us that work here.
The second is Constance Johnson from
I think that would be Connie Johnson for
The next is Bill Flynn from
Transportation Engineering.
And the fourth would be James Gammell from Wastewater
Collections. If I could get a round -- (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we also have the pleasure this
morning of recognizing a 20-year employee and well known to most
of you and most of the community as well, Harry Huber with your
office of Parks and Recreation is here to receive his 20-year award.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all your service awards this
morning. Thank you very much.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL TELLY AWARD TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Now, we have an
opportunity to do some presentations that, again, are just really
Page 16
September 25, 2001
terrific. And we have a chance to recognize some very key people in
Collier County who have done such a wonderful job in their
employment with us and, Commissioner Coletta, you have an award
called the Annual Telly Award.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, Commissioner
Carter, 22nd Annual Telly Award presented for the Dog Becomes a
Star Video program. The Department of Public Information has won
the bronze Telly Award for Dog Becomes a Star video program
produced for Channel 54 Government Access channel on behalf of
Domestic Animal Service Department.
The Telly Award is an organization that recognizes and honors
outstanding non-network and cable TV commercials. More than
11,000 submittals were made in the year 2000 with approximately 7
percent receiving awards. Among some of last year's winners were
Touchtone Pictures, Warner Brothers, Better Homes and Garden,
Proctor and Gamble, Polaroid, Ford Motor Company, and a host of
highly respected organizations including Collier County.
This video was developed by the Department of Public Works
Public Information in the Naples studio to promote pet adoption and
was broadcast on Channel 54. Could I have the representatives from
our video department come forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well deserved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's as good as an ice cream.
(Congratulations all around.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll have to start meeting more
often just to take time to accept all these awards. Amazing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MS. MERRITT: I have a couple of things I wanted to say,
Commissioner, if you don't mind. We have a couple visitors here. I
Page 17
September 25, 2001
want to introduce Jody Walters, head of our Domestic Animal
Services, and she's brought a friend with her. The purpose of this, of
course, was to encourage adoptions and showcase our new facility
out there. Thank you very much to our partner. Pam Hughes of
Naples Studio is also here. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Jean. I see we have a little
friend here that's ready to travel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't believe you can adopt --
is this, like, a Lhasa Apso?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Shih Tzu.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A Shih Tzu, for heaven's sake.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We actually get several of this
breed since they're popular pets. I would like to say that this film was
developed to educate our public and to promote the adoptions from
our shelter, and I think that we can safely say that we have
accomplished that goal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. That's great.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Every time they bring one of those in
here I always say, Jane, I am not going to weaken. I am not going to
take it home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. No. Now you got
grandkids.
Item #5C
DON JEFFERY, COMMUNITY CENTER AIDE, EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 2001 - RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know. Let's not go there. That's
enough -- I got enough to eat in one comer on that. Okay. Let me
Page 18
September 25,2001
now move to -- Commissioner Fiala, you have an award this morning
for Community Center Aide as employee of the month, Mr. Don
Jeffery.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I want to thank you for
letting me do this. Usually Commissioner Carter handles all of these
very important awards, but he was nice enough to let me do this one
because Don Jeffery works at the East Naples Community Park, and
I've worked with him over the years, and I felt so honored to have
him as employee of the month. Is Don here? Come on down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Come on up here. You have to be up
here with TV land. Get in front of the cameras this morning.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We are just delighted for all your
hard work. Thank you so much. Congratulations. Let me give you a
few things.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Start down there, okay, and then turn
around and put your -- thanks, Don.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Don.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've worked so hard there. We
are so proud of you.
MR. JEFFERY: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
MR. OLLIFF: Congratulations.
Item #5D
DON BLALOCK, TECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL, OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
FOR SEPTEMBER, 2001 - RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have the honors of doing the
Page 19
September 25, 2001
-- to recognize our second employee of the month this morning, and
that is Mr. Don Blalock. Don, are you -- I know you have to be here.
Don is one of these hidden people in the organization. He is a
technician in planning services. These are none of the people that
you hear about, but these are the ones that get the things to work.
They develop the web sites. They develop all the kinds of things
where you get up there on the net and you punch a few keys and you
get to find something.
Well, it's people like Don Blalock, they're the guys that -- people
that do that for Collier County and, Don, you have been recognized
by your peers as being a person who is, you know, just going that
extra mile to make that happen. I know you work in a tough division
and one that has had -- has been really short of staff in trying to get
the job done. And I can't thank you enough personally for doing such
a great job for us, and the least we can do is give you a little check
here this morning that says thank you very much. I think you'll find a
good use for that, and most important we're going to have a plaque
that you can put on the wall to recognize you for your outstanding
efforts. So thanks, Don, for an outstanding job.
(Applause.)
Item #5F
PRESENTATION TO DENISE KIRK AND JIM ROYCE FOR
ACHIEVING THE GOLDEN WEB AWARD FOR THE
RECYCLING WEBSITE- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That takes me to Item F,
presentation by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- Denise Kirk and Jim
Royce, are you here, and if you are you'd come forward. I'd like to
Page 20
September 25, 2001
ask our IT people to queue up this web site that we're going to be
talking about. You're going to see it in just a second and guess what,
I visited this web site, and if you do you get this little mouse pad
that's really cool, and I got one and I didn't even report it. It's a
general public is entitled to get it. It's okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hey, get your own mouse pad, folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I want to hold these up.
Look at this web site, guys, it's so cool. I really recommend that you
go to this web site.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Get it right side up, right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As one essential element of the
Solid Waste Management Department's public education campaign to
increase recycling and reduce waste, this web site has been
instrumental in providing county residents access to information 24
hours a day. Since the expansion of the recycling program, hits to the
web site have tripled. Information requests via e-mail and the
telephone have been generated directly from the web site, including
me. Residents have received free mouse pads made from recycled
tires for completing an on-line survey, and trained volunteer odor
monitors are able to complete their odor reports on-line. This web
site has also been featured in the international and statewide
solidwaste trade publications.
Congratulations to the Collier County Solid Waste
Department, Solid Waste Management Department, and to See
Globe, Inc., for creating an award-winning web site.
Colliercountyrecycles.com was reviewed and selected to display the
2001-2002 Golden Web Award by the International Association of
Web Masters and Designers representing 130 countries worldwide.
The web site is recognized as a respected professional creation and
for excellence in design, content, and originality, and it is really
noticeable. I mean, it's one of those that jumps out at you of all those
Page 21
September 25, 2001
many, many websites. This is appropriately received this award. I
really recommend it to you. It's fun. Thank you and congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations. Thanks for doing a
great job for us.
Well, as our president would say, make us proud.
They've already made us proud.
Item #6A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Okay. Let's go to public petitions and comments on general
topics. We do have a public comments on general topics this
morning. Do we have any speakers, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have two registered speakers. The
first is A1 Perkins. Mr. Perkins will be followed by Herb Luntz.
MR. PERKINS: Grandparents, parents, citizens, people of this
country, pay attention. The terrorists are not all in New York or in
Washington or in Pennsylvania. Some of them can be right here in
this room today. Some, I know, are watching on TV. Because the
instigation of fear has been put forth in these towns, and I take it
personally because my last name is Perkins, and if you checked the
newspaper, you find out we lost one.
I'm not here to win any popularity contest, and you people at
home that are too lazy to vote or half of you don't show up at the
meetings, you don't participate, you deserve exactly what you're
going to get, and you're going to pay for it too.
Now, last week I brought up -- or two weeks ago, because I was
Page 22
September 25,2001
here the day the bombing or destruction took place. At that time I got
a little testy about U.S. 41 being turned over to the park service
because the park service is under the control of the United Nations,
and guess who is involved in the one vote? We have one vote in this
country and Pakistan has one vote and Afghanistan has one vote and
Saudi Arabia wants one vote. Meaning, if you want troops on 41,
vote for it.
Now, I deliberately said grandchildren, children. Are we starting
a war that we're going to kill off our youngest? You can bet Peter
Bush, Jeb's son, he won't make it. They will divert that.
Now, you talked about Dover Kohl, $400,000 into Miami and to
Coral Gables. That just happens to be where Jeb Bush calls home.
Isn't that nice.
Now, there's people out there and there's people right here and
there's people that solicit and hustle these people right here and
throughout the whole thing to take your freedoms away. Take your
right of property ownership. Take away your homes and the fear of
their families, the fear of loss of their homes, the fear of loss of their
lands, the fear of loss of their freedom, and I suggest that you people
out there who are getting persecuted by the environmentalists go out
of your way to confront these people and share the fear with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ow, that sounds -- borders on
irresponsible.
MR. PERKINS: You're one of the problems.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you think that, but
you're --
MR. PERKINS: No. I can prove that. Thank you, Jim.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't be suggesting--
MR. PERKINS: This is my five minutes. Please keep your
mouth shut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't be suggesting violence.
Page 23
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, wait a minute, Mr. Perkins.
She's -- I'm going to let you have your five minutes. I'll ask
Commissioner Mac'Kie, let him have his five minutes and understand
how you can upset -- let Mr. Perkins have his five minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless, Mr. Chairman, I would
respectfully ask that you monitor comments that incite violence
against others and that we not allow this forum to be used for that
purpose.
MR. PERKINS: You just heard from a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure did.
MR. PERKINS: Right. You heard from two other lawyers this
morning giving away the South Florida Water Management money
which you people are not aware of. They took and turned $170,000
to the Department of Environmental Protection, and all of a sudden
here comes this money back for the -- for the Immokalee Airport.
God bless the Immokalee Airport, but you dummies out there, whose
money is this? And there's one big factor that you're overlooking.
Every time there's a transaction these people get paid right down the
line. You can't even trace the money if you went to Tallahassee.
And as far as the DEP, they're just as communistic as the day is long.
They want your land. They want your property. They want your
freedom.
With that, I'll quit and if there's any questions or any arguments
or any debates or whatever, I'm open to them right now for the
record, on TV, for the person over here taking in documentation.
Stand up, you people, because I've heard a word that was used,
sheeple. That's a sheep person. When do you wake? When does the
war start? Now, I'm too old for this crap, but at the same time I'm
going to do my damndest because years ago I took an oath to defend
and protect the Constitution of this the United States from all of its
enemies, both--
Page 24
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Perkins, your time's up, please.
MR. PERKINS: I thank you very much for indulgence on me,
but if any of you veterans ever took that oath to protect the
Thank
Constitution from not only enemies afar but domestic people.
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Herb Luntz.
MR. LUNTZ: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mr. Olliff,
Mr. Weigel, normally I come before you asking for money when it
comes to fun activities.
Today it's a little bit different. Before I get started, there is two
people that are out here in the audience that I want to have up here
with me, because without them this doesn't function. Mr. Jim
Thomas -- Jim, would you please come up here, and John Vibe,
would you please come up here. I know you don't like to, but come
on, this is important.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Spoken like a true commander.
MR. LUNTZ: These guys are my right arm and my left arm and
they've been that way for many, many years. I have a heavy heart
just like all of us do and when the situation occurred two weeks ago,
and then I found out that the Naples Concert Band was going to do a
concert the afternoon of the 1 lth of November at two o'clock,
something hit and something clicked. And I said, "Maybe we can
sandwich a parade in with the event down at the Cambier Park
Memorial in the morning on Veteran's Day, Sunday the 1 lth, and the
concert in the afternoon. And I called my folks and they said, "Let's
go forward with it." So we are doing that.
Last Wednesday we were honored because the City of Naples
City Council with a six-to-zero vote was kind enough to appoint me
as the overall coordinator for the parade. The parade is being called
the Greater Naples/Collier County Salute to America Parade. They
Page 25
September 25, 2001
gave us the authority to function. They also gave us the funding that
we need to handle our golf carts and things of that sort. So I am not
here asking this county commission for any money or anything today.
What I'm asking for is your support. Hopefully, there will a
resolution coming down the pike sometime in the future prior to the
event in which the commission can urge all of the citizens in this
county to come downtown on that day and also, hopefully, to attend
an activity that the county has been talking about which may take
place the night before out at Sugden Regional Park which may
include either some fireworks or a light show. I'm already in the
process of getting music, a singing group of about 25 strong, and a
concert band as well to help make that event what it should be on that
weekend. It's ironic that the 1 lth of November is two months from
the 11 th of September and, of course, those of you that were around
in 1991 know that we did a big rally for Desert Storm when
everybody was still over there fighting. And, of course, this is a lot
heavier and a lot more important.
So I ask on behalf of my people -- and, by the way, we already
have 48 folks lined up to marshal -- we're using a lot of fire fighters
from all of the districts, including dependent districts. They don't
know it yet, but they're going to be contacted by us. We've got 21 or
22 golf carts that we're going to use, and we have our radio
communications. We have everything.
The City of Naples has relinquished control of this activity to us,
so we will be running it in toto, and they will take care of the other
support that we need, the permitting, the insurance, the port-a-potties,
the barricades and local police. What I need from this group is an
appointment by you to allow me to be the overall coordinator for this
event downtown the 1 lth of November, and then we'll move forward
with the other.
I'm also proud to tell you that the school district is also involved
Page 26
September 25, 2001
with us. We're bringing in all layers of government. We have the
high school bands already. We're moving ahead. We're not bringing
any folks in from the outside. This is all local. So united we stand as
your sign says. You notice we wear ribbons. We wear all these good
things. We've got to stand up, folks, and be counted. This
community does it every time there's a crisis, and we have to do it
again this year, and this time we're going to do it on Veteran's Day on
the 1 lth of November. I would hope that I could get that support and
appointment from you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make that motion. Oh,
listen to us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would say that you have five
commissioners that unanimously said we want you to go forward and
do whatever is necessary on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners. We are truly proud of what you're doing and can't
thank you enough for your continued -- you know, kind of things that
you pull together just--just like that.
MR. LUNTZ: I have good people, Mr. Chairman. Without these
folks I couldn't do it, and a lot of them are in this room.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It takes the heart to do it and you're
the guy that's doing it. So I don't see any problem.
MR. LUNTZ: This man, your county manager, has been a
stalwart. Leo Ochs has been a stalwart. They gave me the
wherewithal to move ahead, and that's why I'm here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll ask administration what the
process is, but all we're going to say is, let's do it. You tell us how
we make it happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Proclamation.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm not even sure that you need that. I think the
full endorsement of the board is enough for me. I think Mr. Luntz is
generally going to be looking for some staff assistance and staff time
Page 27
September 25,2001
which I can administratively take care of. He'll -- I'll just ask Mr.
Luntz if he would just make sure that he coordinates with our office
and with Mr. Ochs on any plans in the future, and we'll support it in
whatever way we can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Mr. Patriotism, Herb Luntz.
it.
Our official Mr. Collier County,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for helping us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Well said. No question about
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Be there. But I have to tell you -- and don't get mad, folks -- we're
not going to put elected officials in convertibles in this parade.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. LUNTZ: What we're going to do is ask you folks as an
elected body to get on a CAT, get on the bus, along with the
constitutional officers, sign it, decorate it, put it -- make it together,
and you'll have one position in that parade. We're going to do the
same thing with the city, same thing with the school district. Some of
you are going to be with me in golf carts and making it all happen.
Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. I appreciate that. I'm also
honored to tell you that Senator Saunders told me earlier this morning
that he wants to be a part of this also. So he will be with us as a
parade marshal as well. Thank you. Thank you for your cooperation,
and we'll keep you informed through Mr. Olliff as we move forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Herb, you do good things. We're so
proud to have you.
MR. LUNTZ: Without these guys -- without these guys it
wouldn't work.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know any one of us will do
anything you want. All you have to do is ask. We're here for you.
Page 28
September 25,2001
Thanks. All right.
(Applause.)
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST REGARDING MALIBU LAKES
PUD- PRIVATE PARTIES TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS TO
WORK OUT THE PROBLEMS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That takes us to public
petitions on Malibu Lakes. Mr. Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning. Mr. Chairman,
commissioners, my name is Tim Hancock, vice president with
Vanasse Daylor. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the owners of
the commercial portion of the Malibu Lakes PUD, specifically Mr.
Daniel Monaco, trustee, Mr. Bill Keith, and Mr. John Cardillo who is
here with us today.
The basis of my request before you today is to ask that Item
16-B-1 from the May 8th, 2001, consent agenda be placed on a future
board agenda at least 30 days from now to be reheard. At issue with
that agreement is not the financial matters, not the roadway
alignment, none of the typical issues that may be addressed, but
within that agreement is an element that substantially alters the access
to my clients' property. That agreement was heard as a consent
agenda item to which my client had previously argued that the access
that was included in that agreement was not acceptable, yet the item
was heard on consent agenda without notice to my client of that
hearing.
Therefore, my client had no opportunity to address any concerns
relative to that proposed access, and as such we ask that the item be
reheard.
Page 29
September 25,2001
If we can go to the visualizer to give you a little bit of
orientation, the parcels we're referring to -- this center parcel here is
the parcel in discussion. This is 1-75 -- I'm sorry, 1-75 and
Immokalee Road, we're talking about the southeast corner here.
There is a proposed alignment here for Northbrook Drive and a
signalized intersection here that is part of this developer contribution
agreement.
In defense of your staff, kind of at the last minute they felt the
access issue needed to be included. They put it in, and what they
proposed is an existing right-in/right-out access which serves both the
Monaco parcel and the Crestwood PUD for Mr. Fred Pauley be
eliminated due to conflicts with traffic coming off of 1-75 and then be
replaced with what's called reverse frontage road.
It is our contention that reverse frontage road represents a
significant impact financially and otherwise to our parcel. We were
not consulted or made aware of that provision as part of the developer
contribution agreement and, in short, it is not my intent to go through
the details of that issue but simply to request that the matter be placed
on a future agenda a minimum of 30 days from now so the item can
be heard and my clients' voice can be considered in the final
agreement. Again, we have no issue with the financial element of the
agreement, no issue with the traffic signal itself. Ours is simply that
the access from my clients' property was affected by this decision
without their knowledge.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board? I have one
for legal, Mr. Weigel, in regards to what Mr. Hancock is requesting.
Did we not follow a due process in that area?
MS. ROBINSON: Good morning, Commissioners,
Commissioner Carter in particular. My name is Jaqueline Hubbard
Robinson, and I am the person who drafted the developer
contribution agreement that's at issue here. I'd like to state that the
Page 30
September 25, 2001
developer contribution agreement does not contain any reference
whatsoever to the closure of the access. I think I need to say that
quite clearly.
What the developer contribution agreement refers to, instead, is
a provision that provides an access to the property that would be
inaccessible otherwise. There is no mention in that developer
contribution agreement of any type of closure of the present access.
However, the county, as a condition of entering into the developer
contribution agreement, required of the developer that the developer
provide some access into those lower properties. It's very difficult to
visualize it from what's on the board, but essentially -- if I could
explain it to you. Let's see.
There is an exhibit attached to that developer contribution that's
taken from a proposed plat that was devised by WCI. It's not a final
plat, but it does give a graphic rendering of what we were talking
about, and essentially the county, as I understand it, when drafting the
agreement was concerned that the Florida Department of
Transportation may ask the county to require that that frontage road
be closed because of its proximity to the exit ramp at Exit 17 off of 1-
75. But that discussion never entered into our developer contribution
agreement discussions. So whatever happens to the access road,
whether it's closed or remains open, it's not a part of this developer
contribution agreement, and there is no reference to it in the
developer contribution agreement.
There is, instead, a reference to the developer dedicating to the
county a 60-foot-wide parcel for use as a potential roadway to grant
those parcels access in the event that frontage road is closed.
Frontage road right now still open, the developer contribution doesn't
speak to closing it. The county may or may not make a decision to
close it, but that was not my concern in drafting the developer
contribution agreement, and the developer contribution agreement
Page 31
September 25,2001
doesn't speak to that issue. The developer contribution agreement
speaks to the normal issues from developer contribution agreements
which is the contribution of our rights-of-ways and construction and
return of impact fee credits.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so I have two questions.
One, though, if we start talking about whether it's included in the
developer agreement or not, we're really reconsidering it and hearing
it on the merits. It sounds to me like that would be part of the
discussion, and it's important, Jackie -- and I appreciate you're
sharing that with us, but the threshold question for me is, is this a
procedure that's legal? Is it possible? Can we consider doing this, or
is it just completely out of the realm of possibilities?
MS. ROBINSON: Well, you've -- you've already considered the
developer contribution agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is,
Mr. Hancock's request that we hear this again on a future agenda a
month or so from today, can we legally do that if we want to? That's
my first question. Because I know the reconsideration thing is past.
Is there another way to do it?
MS. ROBINSON: Not that I'm aware of. The contract has been
executed, entered into, and approved by the commission at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I guess we could propose an
amendment to the contract or something -- I mean, if he wanted to do
that, how could -- that's the only thing I can --
MS. ROBINSON: Right. The only thing -- the only thing you
could do at this point is propose some amendment to the contribution
agreement, but the contribution agreement is not with his client. The
contribution agreement is with another party.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm getting there now.
MS. ROBINSON: And that party doesn't have anything to say
Page 32
September 25,2001
about the closure of this frontage road, and the county, to my
knowledge, has taken no action to close the frontage road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- and then I understand Mr.
Hancock's going to have something else to say, but there's two
questions. One is, can we look at this, and the answer is the only way
we could is if we get a proposed amendment to the contract. MS. ROBINSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then the second question is,
would amending the contract have any relevance on the issue of
concern to Mr. Hancock's client?
MS. ROBINSON: In my opinion it would not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So those would be the two
issues, Mr. Chairman, I'd want to hear from Mr. Hancock. I don't
know otherwise.
MR. HANCOCK: The comments you've heard-- unfortunately
she has the luxury of looking at the developer -- developer
contribution agreement. We have letters from your transportation
staff that indicate any proposed modification to the existing right-
in/right-out access are not going to happen unless another access is
put in place. This is not an isolated agreement. It is the result of
many months of work that went into this agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why don't you propose an
amendment to the agreement so that you can change the access
points?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, unless your staff is willing to amend
the agreement, the other party to the agreement Prime is not willing
to amend it. We have discussed this item with them repeatedly. Let
me read from special condition C of the agreement (as read):
"Developer shall provide a 60-foot right-of-way known as Brentwood
Drive as approximately shown on Exhibit H. This road right-of-away
shall be provided and conveyed in fee simple to Collier County at the
Page 33
September 25,2001
time of conveyance of Tarpon Bay Boulevard to Collier County as
depicted in Exhibit B, and to connect Tarpon Bay Boulevard to
provide public ingress and egress to the property formerly identified
as Mocake PUD in Collier County Ordinance 92-4. The right-of-way
for Brentwood Drive shall be conveyed at no cost to Collier County."
That by itself doesn't convey the entire picture. This is basically
preparing for the imminent closure to the right-in/right-out to my
clients' property. Your transportation staff, I'm sure, will be happy to
tell you that any request to modify that access will not meet FDOT
standards. We can talk around it till the cows come home. The
reality of the issue is that access by virtue of the negotiations that
occurred regarding the Northbrook Drive signal will go away, and
when it does this contribution identifies an alignment, a specific
alignment, that will be the access for my clients' property. To
separate the two now may be convenient, but it doesn't make it right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, could we, Mr. Chairman,
you know, ask our staff to try to sort this out and try to bring back
some kind of recommendation to us, because it's not unheard of in
county government that the left hand and the right hand aren't really,
you know, working together. I don't want to overstate that, but it's
certainly possible that legal and transportation don't understand how
their particular issues would overlap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to just ask a basic question.
You do -- you do have access, though, no matter which way this
goes. At first I got the impression there was no access after this thing
is changed, but you do have access; right? You're not landlocked.
MR. HANCOCK: According to this agreement, we will have
access, but the access represents, in our opinion, a reduced value to
my clients' property. We were not at the table when our future access
was being discussed, period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How unusual is that,
Page 34
September 25,2001
Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. What I need to point out is a couple of
things. First of all, this issue had been discussed at great length with
Mr. Hancock as well as with the folks that we developed the
agreement with. The point that's being made -- first of all, I need to
point out that that current access point is maintained, continues to be
maintained, but we have from the beginning reviewed with
Mr. Hancock that that is a design that was established when the
interstate was developed with real tight diamonds with an immediate
access point to a very low intense use access to property. Once and if
-- and we have nothing in front of us on the development scheme --
but once we have a development plan, presented -- we told -- whether
we address the issue over here that's being brought up today or not
that that access point could not be maintained in the future if there
was an intense development of that property.
With that in mind, we've tried to evaluate and develop an
alternative. In this case there was a unified PUD that then later broke
down, but nonetheless the issue of establishing that signal basically
across from Northbrooke and then establishing a requirement 300
feet south of the Immokalee Road for a 60-foot right-of-way -- in this
case Brentwood is being named -- but nonetheless a 60-foot right-of-
way. The only thing we've established is that it started 300 feet -- at
least 300 feet south of Immokalee. Its alignment is the issue at
question between the two property owners, which is not our issue.
The issue for us is to make sure that we have that
interconnectivity for the future knowing full well that that opening
which was designed really for agricultural use will probably not be
maintained once those properties start to develop. Today it is being
maintained. It is not intensive use. We will not take it away unless
the intensive use requires it to be moved for operation safety
Page 35
September 25,2001
concerns. We're only trying to provide for the future.
The real issue at hand is the concern that Mr. Hancock and his
clients have with the nature of how that access road is provided. In
the developer contribution agreement, it provides for 300 feet south
of-- it has, as was read into the record, it says, "generally provided
for and placed in a place by the first to come on board." We also
noted way back in January and February and on that whoever comes
on first pretty much will set the points of those connections. So it is
not our issue to address exactly how it's structured, rather to be
provided for; that's why we added that into the developer contribution
agreement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One thing, Norman, that you said to
me that -- that I -- that I find troublesome is -- not on your part, but
the fact that a decision-making process you said it was a unified
PUD, consequently, at that point I would think if I am in the
decision-making process and it's unified, that is far different than
after it is then altered and changed. If I am the primary holder and
then I spin off a couple sections but the decision was made on being
unified, then that raises an issue of, well, was everybody there? And
it may be between property owners to discuss, but I find it
troublesome to me that we were brought into this on one set of
circumstances and may later then be affected by a different set of
circumstances. To me that's troublesome.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman-- Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
concern. It did start off as unified, but I will point out that the issue
in our approach would still be the same recommendation to you, that
is not to close off the current access point. If, in fact, it intensifies
and this other didn't develop, we would have to find some alternative
access in this overall development or individual developments we're
trying to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I don't quarrel with
Page 36
September 25,2001
interconnectivity and any of that in closing certain things. I guess
what's troublesome to me -- and we're all part of the discussion
process and if they weren't, I don't know where we go from there, but
I just got to tell you it bothers me.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I do need to correct the
record. There was not a unified PUD on these three parcels at any
point. What there was is the developer of the Brentwood PUD had
my clients' property and the Crestwood PUD under contract when
they began negotiations with the county. It was not a unified PUD.
At some point in the middle point or after the decision of the
intersection here, they dropped the contract on this parcel and this
parcel (indicating). So that is what changed. When that changed the
access issues to my clients' property were no longer part of a unified
plan development. They were looking at the parcel or should have
been looking at the parcel individually.
Here's my clients' dilemma. He has an existing access, and he
has a letter from transportation staff that says, "Any significant
improvement to your site, you can expect that access to be eliminated
and replaced with this one." So when Person A comes in and says,
"I'm interested in building on that site, what's the access," we show
them, "Well, this is the current access, but when you go to build, we
think this is the access. We're not sure. Maybe it could be better.
Maybe it's worse, but we're really not sure."
So we have a letter that says, "Your access will be altered at the
level of any significant development." We don't have anything that
says, "This is what your access will be." If the county is going to put
us in that position, then the county needs to bear the burden of the
cost of that decision.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could point out, first of all,
there was a unified initial PUD but, nonetheless, the contract-- but
regardless there's discussion throughout, Mr. Hancock, representing
Page 37
September 25,2001
his clients, even his letter objecting to the approach showed that he
was aware of what was being discussed and what was being
presented well before it came to you.
Last item is we do not have any development proposal from Mr.
Hancock or his clients to even be discussing the issue of access
points. As we pointed out to him, if we had that, then we'd address
that issue from their perspective. Again, what we're talking about is
an issue of coordination between two development interests on access
point, and the question is, does the board feel they should get into
that issue as -- as the request is being raised to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning and then
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could this be addressed when
the final plat comes before the board? Is what I heard is the final plat
has not been recorded yet and --
MR. HANCOCK: Will we be notified? We weren't notified on
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think through this
discussion today I think you will be notified, you and your client, but
I need to get my question answered. Can this all be handled about
egress and ingress during the final plat?
MS. ROBINSON: I think the egress and ingress can be handled
during the final plat, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And on these final plats, you
know-- what department does it go through, all the community
development and including transportation? MS. ROBINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't see a problem
where -- I'm sorry.
Page 38
September 25, 2001
MR. HANCOCK: I do have a question on the matter of due
process. If a matter on the consent agenda, if there is a stated or
written objection to something that is an element or part of a consent
agenda item, is it not required to be pulled off the consent agenda?
Mr. Feder's staff was aware of our objection to the proposed
alignment. In fact, he had an alternative that we proposed in his
hand. If there is a written objection to an item, why would it be
placed on the consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Didn't
you say you were not even aware that it was coming before us on the
consent agenda, and now you're saying you were?
MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am, I'm not. I'm saying I was not
made aware it was on the consent agenda or that access to our
property was even involved; however, the exact same access that was
attached to this was objected to on behalf of my client months prior.
In other words, there was an unhappy camper out there already and
this item was placed on the consent agenda with full knowledge that
an adjacent property owner was not pleased with what was being
proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hancock, isn't it true -- my
understanding is if there is a protest of any item on the consent
agenda, that protest needs to go to the county manager.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, no, sir. It can't be because your staff
receives written comments from folks on rezones all the time, and
those comments result in items not being placed on the consent
agenda or summary agenda. The request does not have to be made of
the' county manager's office.
MR. OLLIFF: Now, those rules that he's referring to relate to
the summary agenda and do not relate to the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if there's an objection, it can still
stay on consent?
Page 39
September 25,2001
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Every day. What I hear here is
there is a little glitch in the process, again, and probably with regard
to notification that we're trying to resolve, but it -- it seems to me that
maybe we weren't factoring in the adjacent properties when we're
making these decisions, or is it just that the timing's off. Somebody
who knows the answer to this speak up, because it's --
MS. ROBINSON: Well, normally when we negotiate a
developer contribution agreement, the issues that it speaks to regard
the property of the developer and that developer's relationship with
the county, as did this one. The unusual thing about this one is -- if
you want to call it unusual is that the transportation department
wished to require some access into those lower properties, which his
client is one of the owners of those properties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what we directed him
to do.
MS. ROBINSON: And that's what we directed the developer
and the developer contribution to do, to make sure that there would
be access to those lower properties. The developer suggested an
access point. Any access point was acceptable, really, at that point to
the county south of the -- the intersection there at Immokalee Road,
and if the developer and this property owner wished to change that
access point on that road, then between themselves they could agree
to that. The county doesn't have a particular position on where that
access road goes as long as it's 300 feet below the intersection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's -- this is what I'm getting
out of this, and maybe one of the county's lawyers will tell me I'm
off, but sounds to me like there is this policy shift where we've told
transportation staff to try to provide this interconnection. They're
looking for a vehicle to do that. They've discovered this is a vehicle
Page 40
September 25,2001
by which they can require the interconnection, and an unintended
consequence of using this as a vehicle is that we might have a due
process question for adjacent or affected property owners. I think
this is worth looking -- having the county attorney look at from that
due process perspective because it's we're using -- excuse me -- we're
using a tool to effectuate a board policy that maybe should require
some notification because of it's unintended consequences. Seems to
me. I mean, that's just one person.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Mac'Kie, in
noting -- I think that the county attorney office, it's not a question of
the attorney not working arm and arm with the transportation
department. We are the technicians. We help them achieve what
they need to in the agreement which obviously affect the use of land
and the county's goals of interconnectivity and other policy issues
that become implementable. But in regard to the due process aspect,
I would at first blush be hesitant to say that we have a due process
problem, per se, in regard to this document.
But the fact is I think we see from our discussion today that --
and we learn this in our work continually, inclusionary as opposed to
exclusionary solves problems. So if we see that there are other --
other related property interests that with that little extra care could be
included would be fine.
Now, it may be that there will ultimately be an issue of position
for access, and this is the transportation call, not the attorney call, that
there will be a loggerhead with some party in regard to safety,
position, convenience, et cetera, and that is something that Norman
and his staff will bring forward and defend. But, additionally, it
seems to me that there is a distinction that the staff has, call it
predilection, a desire based on safety and other aspects, to effectuate
a change on property that's -- well, it's the -- the access. It's outside
of the contribution agreement with its concerns with impact fees and
Page 41
September 25, 2001
interconnectivity.
So I don't think we have the worst problem in the world, but I do
think that by inclusionary we can tend to minimize or mitigate these
things.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's go back to site
development plan. If all parties have a chance to be notified and look
at it, this could be part of the inclusionary process to get this issue
resolved. I tell you what really bothers me, put the spotlight on this
one. I will guarantee you transportation, legal, and planning services
will follow this through, but I have the haunting feeling as I sit here
this morning, two months, six months from now, I'm going to get the
same opportunity. Technicians are wonderful, but please get out of
being technicians and think about being totally inclusionary and big
picture. I'm not saying this as a criticism, but I know it's a frustration
to Tom. I know it's a frustration to David. It's a frustration to the
administrators.
We've got to do this, because to me this whole damn thing could
have been settled if we'd have used a little common sense, with
everybody sitting down and taking a look at it. But everybody's
doing a dance here, and we get dragged into the middle of it.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, along with
transportation, Mr. Ed, what I need to point out to you is this. As I
noted, the only requirement we place is at 300 feet south a 60-foot
right-of-way -- public right-of-way be provided for future connection
purposes. The issue at hand is not that. The issue at hand is that Mr.
Hancock's client wants that road to become a frontage road and come
down on the property. The other party doesn't necessarily want that.
My question for you at the time of site plan and now. Is that an
issue for the county to address between the two property owners?
And if the answer is yes, this party would like for you to intercede on
that because they weren't successful talking to the other party, and
Page 42
September 25, 2001
that's the question at hand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the last place we want
to go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't want to be there, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's a dollars issue.
That's a financial issue of who's going to pay for what.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All I think there has to be is
notification that's going through the process. They'll have to fight it
out among themselves in terms of that, but really -- well.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you don't normally take public
speakers on public petition items, but you do have a speaker slip
submitted by the adjacent property owner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know Mr. Yovanovich is jumping up
and down out there and wants to speak to this issue. What I really
want to know is what this board wants to do in dealing with it. We
can hear from him, but I don't want to get into private sector business
of making decisions interconnectivity when I can avoid it. I just want
to make sure our process is inclusionary, everybody is at the table
and has some input on it.
Again, I don't really like what happened here, and I'll tell all
parties that. If you're all adjacent landowners next to each other, and
interdependent on each other it might be a good idea if you sit down
and talk to each other and really understand what everybody needs
instead of somebody saying technically I can do this and legally I can
do this. Well, thanks a whole bunch, folks. Now you dump it in our
laps.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, my
recommendation is -- and what I hear is this is -- was not the venue
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- do this, but what I
Page 43
September 25, 2001
understand is it can be done during the final plat.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the county's not going to be
in any better position then than we are --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're not going to be a judge and jury
in that. We're going to tell them to move it this way or that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not going to tell the property
owners in each case where they're going to put their road. They have
to work that out amongst themselves is what we hear; right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I hear from transportation is
here's the guideline. This is what we can do. This is what legal says
we are required to do, and that's our job in government is to set the
parameters. I guess my annoyance, is of which I've expressed, is
whatever happened to property owners working together in an area
where they are dependent on each other.
Mr. Yovanovich, I will give you five minutes because I think I
owe that to you this morning. What I would like to do is move on. I
don't know if we can get this resolved or not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I -- for the record, Rich
Yovanovich. The reason -- only reason I want to speak is because
some of the comments regarding your staff not looking at a global
integrated solution I think were -- were not accurate of what
happened. There was a discussion.
In layman's terms, the access to that Mocake PUD is a dog of an
access. It's not good access. It was intended for access to a less
intensive use. Your staff required the neighboring property owner,
my client, to accommodate free of charge access to the neighbor,
which we readily did. We worked with the neighbor to provide them
access at no cost. The location of the access between the two
property owners became in dispute. That happens all the time.
Mr. Hancock's client would prefer that we give them a frontage road
right on Immokalee Road and then bring it down the side of our
Page 44
September 25,2001
property and then connect where staff told us we had to have it, 300
feet back from the intersection.
We said no. That was too much of an impact on our property.
Then the problem that you have is you don't have very good access.
You're not going to dictate to us the solution, and we said we will
provide you access to an intersection, a better access, in our opinion,
than you had in the past, and we're not going to charge you for it.
We did everything we could to work with our neighbor, and we're
at a loggerhead, and you're being dragged into this dispute where you
shouldn't be. This is not your dispute, but to in any way indicate that
our client did not take into consideration our neighbors is not a fair
characterization. To in any way indicate that your staff did not take
into consideration the interconnectivity of the client is not fair either.
All of those factors were considered.
They -- Mr. Hancock's client didn't get what they wanted, so
they want you to reconsider this whole thing and bring this to the
arena, which we think is an improper arena. You know, the
reconsideration ordinance -- all that time frame has passed. We are
going through our site planning. We could have come through with a
plat on the Brentwood PUD, put the road there, and this would never
have come to you other than on a consent agenda item, or we could
have done a site development plan for the property. This never
would have come to you. It's administrative.
All of those factors were considered, the neighbor and us. I'm
sorry that you're being dragged into this, but this is a -- this is a
dispute, if there is a dispute, between property owners and not the
county. Your staff did everything I think proper and considered
everybody's issues regarding access, and I felt like I had to support
staff because they did look at this globally, both your attorney's office
did and your transportation administration staff did to the highest
levels of transportation.
Page 45
September 25, 2001
This was not anything that was not properly considered. The
right hand did know what the left hand was doing in this case, and I
think you need to now let the site planning process resolve itself and
get it out of the board level. I don't believe that you want to be
brought into every site planning decision that is going to occur out
there as to where there is or where there's not going to an
interconnect, what the road looks like. And if we cannot resolve it
privately, then Mr. Hancock's client will have --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would like--
Mr. Yovanovich, I'd like you to really resolve it properly. Our staff
had to do what they had to do. I'm not totally comfortable with
integration of communications between the departments on this.
Doing the best that they can under some pretty trying circumstances.
I'm not going to go -- I'm not faulting that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But while we're-- while we're
expressing our dismay, I'm going to say one more time -- and I've
said this I bet once a month -- that I think items show up on our
public petition agenda that just don't -- just don't belong there. I
really do. I don't see why this is here if there's not a dang thing we
can do about it, and it's inappropriate for county to get into a private
dispute. Please just don't schedule it for a public petition if there's
nothing we can do, 'cause we sit here and hear a problem and -- and
leave frustrated.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is -- I'm not going to take any
more input on this unless the board direction wants it. I think we've
listened and, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I've heard you, I've heard other
commissioners. Anybody wants to speak to this thing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to move on to the
next item.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am an interested
party, if I may add something to this.
Page 46
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You spoke through your
representative, sir. This is a petition process, not a hearing, so I'm
sorry. I'm not going to take anymore.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
any comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I, too, wonder about the
appropriateness of timing of this coming at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. What I'm hearing from the
board is that we -- the staff direction is only to be as to review it on
the site development plan, look to the private parties, continuing to
negotiate and work it out. I would also ask private parties to take a
look at the community character plan and see if that might be part of
what you could take and look at this site and see how you could
integrate the best parts of a community character plan into your final
resolution understanding between parties.
Other than that, any other comments? We're going to move on.
I apologize to the board for a little bit of frustration with this.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think your minutes' recorder
would like to take a break if it's an appropriate time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thank you. It's 10:30 and before--
our next item up will be Board of Zoning Appeals. We'll resume at
10:45.
(Short recess taken.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
We're back in session. I apologize we took a little longer break than
usual. We're going to speed it up.
And let me just say a couple things. Any time you come in for
public comment, you're welcome in front of this dais. We encourage
it. Let's be ladies and gentlemen dealing with ladies and gentlemen.
I will defend to my last breath your right to disagree with me, but that
doesn't mean you have to be disagreeable. Separate the person from
Page 47
September 25, 2001
the situation. Talk about whatever it is that's on your mind, but do
not attack a member of this dais. They're doing the best job they
know how, and anybody that wants to attack somebody up here, I'm
going to ask you something. Would you like to trade places? Would
you like to sit up here week after week, the workshops and do what
we do?
We're here because we chose to -- one, A to run for office, B,
you -- you elected us here to do the best job that we know how. You
have a right to change any of us any time you want through the
election process, but in the interim we have to do what we think is
right in, the occasions and situations that come in front of us. We're
human beings. We do the best that we know how. So all I'm asking
is remember ladies and gentlemen dealing with ladies and gentlemen,
and we'll get along just great. So let's kind of make that as a motto
and particularly in this period of healing. This is not what we're
trying to do is hurt each other, and let's work with each other.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2001-374, PETITION CU-01-AR-1156, ROBERT L.
DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, 1NC. REPRESENTING COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS (UTILITIES) DEPARTMENT,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR AN
EXPANSION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION OPERATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF WILDFLOWER WAY AND THE EAST
SIDE OF WARREN STREET- ADOPTED
So with that, let's move on to the Board of Zoning Appeals
which always become a very interesting discussionary process for the
commission, and we're going to do A. And, Mr. Bellows, you're
Page 48
September 25, 2001
going to be the one that leads us through this process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this 7-B?
MR. OLLIFF: 7-A.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 7-A.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to swear in everybody that's
going to participate on this. (Oath administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Public hearing is open.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see some perplexed faces out
there. Did everybody who wants to speak on this matter stand and be
sworn? This is 7-A, and this is the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 7-A. I may have said 7-B. If I did, I
correct myself. It's 7-A, first item under Board of Zoning Appeals.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We might want to swear people
in again.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's swear you again and make sure
you're all inclusive.
(Oath administered.)
MR. WEIGEL: Are there any ex parte communications on this
item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
None.
I certainly have heard a lot since
I am the petitioner -- the county's the petitioner here on the South
Water Plant but, actually, other than the public discussions here in
this forum, I haven't had any discussions with anybody about this
project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would -- I would concur with
Commissioner Mac'Kie's assessment. I have talked with staff on and
off about this from time to time and there may have been other
members of the public that have been involved with those. I do not
Page 49
September 25, 2001
recall specifically their names, but I have been familiarized totally
with this situation. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've also asked questions
from staff and talked with people about this. I haven't really been
with anybody from the outside.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that staff-- I have had
no other contact on this issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with Planning
Services. The petitioner's requesting a conditional use for-- to allow
for the expansion of the South Collier County Water Treatment Plant.
As you can see on the visualizer, it's located on the east side of
Wildflower Way and just south of St. Andrews Boulevard.
The conditional use will allow for the expansion of the facility
to 16 million gallons a day. The other improvements with this
expansion will reduce the impacts of noise and odors and also
improve traffic circulation in the area as noted in the executive
summary. I have listed the pros and cons with the project. It is
consistent with the future land use element and with the Land
Development Code. The -- there are no traffic impacts associated
with this conditional use.
Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on
September 7th, and they unanimously recommended approval and
forwarded conditional use to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the
recommendation of approval. I received one letter in opposition from
the Lely Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association,
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions from the board? Having no
questions, we need to -- we have public speakers, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have one, Mr. Chairman, Howard
Page 50
September 25,2001
Matson.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would entertain his comments at this
time, please, Mr. Matson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: After Mr. Matson may I ask a
couple questions?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you.
MR. MATSON: I am Howard Matson. I'm secretary/treasurer
of Lely Country Club Property Owners Association. When Public
Notice CU-2000 -- 2001-AR-1156 zoning change to accommodate
expansion of South County Water Reclamation facility to 16 million
gallons was published, we sent a letter to the Collier County Planning
Board attention Mr. Bellows, and in this -- this was -- date of the
hearing was supposed to be September 7th, 2001.
I'll read the context of the letter (as read): "Lely Country Club
Property Owners Association wishes to file a complaint against this
proposed zoning change. Request for the zoning change is needed to
accommodate the South County Water Reclamation facility
expansion to 16 million gallons. This approximately doubled the rate
of capacity of the present plant as noted in dedication brochure dated
November 19th, 1998. Proposed zoning change is premature and
recommend that it be disapproved and not be resubmitted until the
following is accomplished.
"One, complete construction and place in operation the large
equalization tank which goes about 2 1/4 million gallons, holding
tank for incoming wastewater from pumping lift station to equalize
time of day, time of year, closed to the treatment plant.
"Two, design and construct a complete closure for truckloading
dock for dewater sludge being loaded into uncovered trucks at the
docks waiting transport to a disposal site some 80 miles away. This
is possibly the main source of unacceptable odors that have been
Page 51
September 25, 2001
reported to us within the past couple of months by neighborhood
residents and others playing golf at Royal Palm Country Club in the
area west of the loading dock.
"B, sludge holding tank. Construct any necessary safeguards to
ensure that unacceptable odors are not coming from this building.
"C, the aerial photo in the attached dedication brochure shows
the close proximity of homeowners along St. Andrews Boulevard
through the west as well as homeowners in adjoining Naples Manor
to the east. The odors are unacceptable from the present $21 million
state-of-the-art plant dedicated November 19th, 1998.
"Three, the Lely Manor drainage ditch, canal, adjacent to the
south side of S-C-R-- S-C-W-R-F is part of Collier County $120
million plus stormwater drainage project on the current agenda to be
addressed and completed before any type of meaningful expansion
through this South Water Plant be considered. The 8/24/95 storm
dumped four -- fourteen point twenty-eight -- five inches of rain in
nearly as many hours seriously flooding our LCC area and SCWRF
area for nearly a week.
"The project was programmed by the county in 1995 and has not
been started pending permits and other approvals. Lely Country Club
Property Owners Association recommends disapproving the zoning
change in return for possible consideration after the problems have
SCWRF in East Naples Stormwater drainage problems as pertains to
East Naples, Lely Drainage Ditch at Lely Manor draining ditch
ourselves.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think that's a reasonable
request. Let me -- let me just give a little bit of history to my fellow
commissioners and to those in the audience. People say, well, why
did you move by the sewer plant in the first place? The thing is when
this started it started as all other wastewater treatment plants, with a
Page 52
September 25, 2001
small little package plant as all developments start off with, and then
normally they're closed up and you're joined to the major facility --
treatment facility. Whereas, what happened in Lely was they became
the major treatment facility. So this -- this sewer plant that started out
at .2 -- .2 million gallons per day is now being proposed to go to 16
million gallons per day.
Now, these people aren't even saying, please don't do this.
They're saying please stop the smell, and the reason they're asking
this is because what they're saying is, "We don't see you cleaning up
the odor as it is, and you want to enlarge this plant doubly. Well, we
want you to first solve the problem so we won't have anymore of it,"
and that's exactly what you're saying; right, Mr. Matson?
MR. MATSON: Let me add one more thing. As far as the
stormwater, that is self-explanatory. That has been going on, and it's
been going on and on, and all we're hearing -- John Boldt had a
workshop. Nothing happened though, stormwater drainage. He
proposed the project. Three of the commissioners were there. You
heard it over TV.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. MATSON: And the other commissioner was traveling
someplace. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe -- maybe what I can do is --
MR. MATSON: Let me just add one thing. There's three things
that have got to come together here on this: Stormwater,
transportation, and sewage. Now, there is a project going on right
now to expand U.S. 41 south six lanes. All right. This crosses the
Lely Drainage/Manor Drainage Ditch crosses this road. Now, there
can be no expansion on that road until there is bridges put in and that
canal is expanded.
Number two, transportation. There's been many issues on
transportation on trying to open up Polianna and Santa Barbara. This
Page 53
September 25, 2001
is all part of the same problem. It's opened up more land out to the
drainage. It's not able to carry it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me -- let me see if we can't get
a response, please, if you don't mind. May I ask for a response from
John Boldt on this and what the time frame is, and then we'd like to
hear from Jim Mudd as well. Okay?
MR. MATSON: I'm finished as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- oh, you're finished, did you
say?
MR. MATSON: My comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MATSON: I have complained against it. This is my --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question before Mr. Boldt
starts. What does this do with the item that we're discussing, if
anything?
MR. BOLDT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Will it have anything to do with the
item in front of us in the zoning issue?
MR. BOLDT: For the record, the Stormwater Director. Well,
it's indirectly related in that one of our major facility drainage
systems traverses the south side of this plant and, indeed, this is in the
area that has had a flooding history and, indeed, we've been working
on it for a number of years very diligently, and at this point in time
we have applications in to get a conceptual permit for the whole Lely
area stormwater project plus a construction permit for phase one.
The reality of it, though, is the contributing drainage area that
flows by this particular plant is, like, 2,700 acres. This site is only
about 30 acres of developed property. It has little or no impact on the
flooding in the area. Whether that 30 acres was there or not there,
was all grass, was all concrete, you know, the amount of stormwater
Page 54
September 25, 2001
contribution is insignificant to the total, and so this plant could be
fully developed. It wouldn't adversely impact the area. And, say,
we're moving forward in trying to implement this plan, and we'll be
back to you again probably after the first of the year with our total
stormwater program and how we propse to finance it and fund it, and
you know that will move us forward on this.
In addition, you know, they've -- they're using state-of-the-art to
modem criteria on this particular property. They're putting
stormwater retention/detention on it. They're going to have a control
structure that's going to limit the discharge to a couple small orifices
so they're storing all their stormwater on-site and not contributing to
the -- to the total. You know, I share his concern about, you know,
the flooding in the area, but really this little 30 acres has little or no
impact on the total.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So to answer your question,
Commissioner Henning, it has little or no impact on this project. It is
a question that's been addressed now for the future. So other
questions that you want Hole Montes to answer on this or any other
questions by members of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- just what are they doing to
stop the odors?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a report.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's -- Mr. Mudd, I think, will
address that for you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Mudd, you need to be sworn in.
MR. MUDD: Real quick. I didn't raise my hand.
(Oath administered.)
MR. MUDD: I'm Jim Mudd, Public Utilities Administrator. As
far as the odors are concerned, we are taking everything that Mr.
Chisolm and Mr. Matson's group are bringing to us as suggestions,
and we are making sure that we control those odors and they stay
Page 55
September 25, 2001
within the site, the facility site. I've taken every commissioner here
on a trip to that site. We've gone by those sludge trucks. I made you
open the windows of my car and say, "Okay, smell this. What do you
smell?" And in each particular case you say, "It smells like it's fresh
cut grass" or something like that. Okay. It doesn't have that strong
odor that you get from -- from manure or from that kind of solid
waste. We take it off site.
We are looking at those particular areas and the sludge holding
tanks. We've gone in and we've already made modifications. We put
new piping in so that we flush the system when we're finished with it
in the evening so that when we start it up it, it doesn't have remnants
in it so if there's a whiff that you get; that's all done the night prior.
So it isn't sitting there overnight so it doesn't have a smell to the
neighborhood in that process.
I will also tell you in the last year our logs have indicated we've
had two odor complaints in the last year on that plant, and that's why
I had John Pratt come up and talk to me. I said, "John, tell me how
many odor complaints we've had." I think we've been good
neighbors. I think we're going to continue to be good neighbors. I
have not put a -- I have not put any kind of physical constraints on
our folks at that plant or any other plant we have when it comes to the
good-neighbor policy, and you've been very, very appreciative and
approved those -- those measures that we needed to do in order to
control anything. As far as the site -- unsightly condition or an odor
issue or whatever to -- to -- to basically pass those requests, no matter
if it's a plant or the landfill or whatever, so we will continue to do
those good-neighbor-type projects. Ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's -- that's what I ask. These
people have -- I mean, we're impacting their neighborhood. They
never bargained for that, and now they -- they all bought their
property in good faith, and now we've expanded it. And what I ask
Page 56
September 25, 2001
from you is let's treat them with care and kindness. They haven't
complained. They're just saying take care of us, stop the odor. So I
want to work very closely with them and with you to make sure that's
done. Okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, we have these two
complaints last year, were they followed up? Were they valid?
MR. MUDD: Well, one was from a group that was on a T-box
about a half mile away from the plant and as soon as we got the
complaint, we went around the sites. We went around to all our lift
stations, and we're trying to figure out where it was coming from.
Now, you could get -- you could get a little backup from somebody.
I'm not even talking about the plant. I'm talking about a different
drain or whatever. I've golfed in different places in the county and
gone by and go (indicating), what's that smell? I can't tell you
exactly where it's emanating from, but you walk 15 feet away and
you don't have that smell anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- is the expansion of this
plant going to increase -- in your opinion increase odor complaints?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think it's going to -- basically, on the
design that we're doing on it, we're doing a lot of things to get at any
potential odors. We put a lot of innovative products as -- as far as the
sludge holding tank is concerned. The equalization tanks we're
putting roofs on them so that we're containing that process. The
equalization tank that Mr. Matson mentioned, we did the pour for that
tank and the one that's going to sit next to it for equalization here
about two weeks ago.
We're trying to do everything we can from the time of doing the
pours with the neighborhood and trying to work out the construction
Page 57
September 25,2001
so we minimize their disruption. We plan to be good neighbors, and
if we did have any odor complaints this last year it was because it
was during high season at the rush and when we were at the peak,
and the plant is a bit undersized right now for what we're receiving as
far as flows are concerned. And when we give you the annual
inventory report and you get to see that, you'll notice on the south
side we are short this year and next year until the expansion comes
on-line as far as our treatment capacity. And when you have a plant
that's right there at the top as far as its limits are concerned, that's
when you can get an odor issue. And so I think this plant will do the
neighborhood well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's no other questions or
public speakers, I'm ready for a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I have to close the public
hearing.
MR. MATSON: I wish to make a couple more comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, sir. But I will ask you to be
brief.
MR. MATSON: It will be very brief. The objections were filed
in here, and all that was done was to ask the Collier County board to
forestall any approvals for expansions of plant until the said items are
taken care of. Now, you know -- you realize sewer problems are not
related to the north plant and the south plant. You realize that there's
other problems that's got to come on-line and the efforts to be
directed to start Plant No. 3 be up -- up at Orange Street or wherever
it goes. All I'm saying, before you do any expansion of this plant,
you consider the long-range plan to take care of the town or of the
county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I believe we have
addressed that through the expansion to the north, final expansion to
the south, and the projected expansion at Orangetree. Mr. Mudd.
Page 58
September 25,2001
MR. MUDD: In Mr. Matson's regard, there is a master plan --
wastewater master plan. We were just completing it. We will give
you that master plan the first meeting of October, and in that master
plan there is a four and five plant plan as far as the growth for the
county is concerned.
We are in the process of doing an appraisal right now on the
Orangetree area just to the -- just to the east of the fairground area
about 145 acres, and we're going -- as soon as we get done with the
governor's consent order thing on planning, when that gets to him in
the spring and we work the water sewer district boundaries, we will
go through with a purchase for that land and start plans to build that
plant, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. We'll look forward to
that report, and thanks again for the continued great effort that you're
making on those areas. I'm going to close the public hearings and
entertain a motion from the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning. I have a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #7B
PETITION VA-01-979, TERRANCE L.KEPPLE, P.E.,
REPRESENTING SHADER-LOMBARDO PROPERTIES, LLC,
REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 12.1
Page 59
September 25,2001
FEET FROM THE DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE VANDERBILT
VILLAS PUD FROM 20 FEET TO 7.9 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 515 ROMA COURT - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN
THE MEETING
Now we will move to next public hearing item, which is B as in
"boy." This was an item that was continued from September 1 lth,
and it's -- anybody participating in this needs to stand and be sworn.
(Oath administered.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, by way of
disclosure I had a brief meeting this morning with the I guess they are
the petitioners and just a very brief meeting in the hallway with the
opponent's attorney.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I met
with the petitioner and his legal representation and also Ms. Stewart's
from the neighborhood attorney.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've also been briefed and in
conversations with the petitioners and with the people representing
Vanderbilt Building A, their legal counsel, and also there was another
attorney in this. I don't remember his name. I think he's from
Roetzel & Andress. He also -- we had a telephone conversation.
So I have -- I think that's everyone that I have had contact with
and with staff, unless one of you has appeared at some other public
appearance somewhere that I didn't recognize you. I was in that
meeting, but we never had a conversation about it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I met with Ms. Stewart and also
with petitioner, with Mr. Lombardo, Mr. David and David -- I can't
remember, Lombardo and Rosenberg. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also been -- I also had visits
Page 60
September 25,2001
from the petitioner and the -- Ms. Stewart during that time and had
numerous conversations with staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I think that clears the decks.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm presenting
Petition VA-01-AR-979, Terrance Kepple, requesting an after-the-
fact variance of 12.1 feet from the Vanderbilt Villas PUD
requirement of 20 feet, which is a distance between structures
requirement, to 7.9 feet. As you can see on the visualizer, the site is
located on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive just north of Roma Court.
We're dealing with the multi-family tract shaded in yellow.
The petitioner is requesting a variance as a result of construction
of Building 2 highlighted in blue here which was just recently
constructed. Building 1, which was constructed in '89, highlighted in
yellow here has a covered access walk and staircase in the reddish
color. When the Building 2 was built, it didn't meet the 20-foot
distance between structures requirement between the steps and the
covered access walk which is the red color. It does meet the distance
between structure requirement from the outside wall of the main
structure.
Based on staff's review of the events that led to this situation, it
appears that the original site development plan 90-60 indicated a two-
story building as approximately located here (indicating) encroaching
into the distance between strutures requirement with the steps. The
survey submitted with that site development plan did not indicate the
steps or covered access walk of Building No. 1. Staff when
reviewing the site development plan determined that based on the
information permitted -- or submitted that it met the distance-
between-structures requirement and the SDP was approved.
Subsequently, this petitioner took over the project, amended the
site development plan, submitted some new additional information,
Page 61
September 25,2001
revised the plan. The building is now a three-story building here, and
it still ended up being with -- and built with -- consistent with the
approved site development plan with this encroachment.
The same information on the survey of Building 1 was
submitted not showing the stairs and access -- covered access walk;
therefore, staff approved the amended site development plan not
knowing that there was this encroachment the building was
subsequently constructed in accordance with the approved site
development plan. It was only prior -- just prior to being completed
that that was discovered that we had this problem with the
encroachment, and petitioner was required to come in and file for a
variance. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions for Mr. Bellows? How
many public speakers do we have, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: There are about eight or nine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we ought to go to public
speakers, because as I understand the issue here is, you had a site
plan. You had a space for a building to be built upon and whereas
the, quote, main building maybe on there the stairwell, et cetera, is
not included in that and that's why the request for variance. So I
think we need to hear from the public speakers. Board can ask
questions of them and then we can move forward.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I would just like to point out the
Planning Commission heard this on September 7th, and they
recommended by a vote of 5 to 2 for a denial of the variance.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, just I -- I have
some understanding of this petition having had a brief meeting but --
well, you're the chairman. I just don't understand how we're really
going to know what the question is if we start with the public
speakers. I'd rather hear from the attorneys of-- you know, the
Page 62
September 25, 2001
petitioner and then the opponent -- opposing attorney's rep. Is that
something you can consider?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's certainly a logical
request. I don't know if I have to take them in order, but if there's
somebody that's speaking for a group, it certainly would be helpful
for the board to hear that. I understand there's -- see, I don't know
how many legal counsels there are in the room, but the question I'm
going to ask when they're done -- they can speak to any part of this --
is have they all sat down around the table together and said, "What do
we have here and how can we resolve this?" And if they haven't
collectively done that, that to me says, gee, folks, maybe you should
have gone off and done that before coming here. But I'd rather hear
from the legal counsel's -- I'm with you-- if they're representing a
group, however, they may not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least the petitioner's counsel,
I believe.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. Petitioner's counsel we ought
to hear from.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, typically we hear the presentation
from the petitioner following the staff, so the petitioner is actually
Terry Kepple, and if Terry and others representing the petitioner want
to make their presentation now, that would probably be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Yeah. Maybe we could do it in
that order and try to keep some sense of organization for us. So if
you would speak for the petitioner, sir.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my
name is Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress here in
Naples. I would like to speak for the petitioner, but I would ask your
indulgence to allow the owner of the property and the engineer and
the surveyor an opportunity to address you so that you could hear it
straight from them as to how we got here. I do -- I also would ask
Page 63
September 25, 2001
that I be given -- I think under your rules there's a provision for --
time for rebuttal and some final comments.
The staff report and the testimony of Mr. Bellows we have --
actually have no complaint with the testimony of Mr. Bellows today,
and we have very little complaint with the staff report. One of the
things that we do, of course, is go through the staff report and see
whether or not there's any -- any areas of disagreement, and in going
through it I found that we were in agreement with most of it.
Out of eight general guidelines in the Land Developement Code
for granting of variances staff has concluded favorably to applicant
on -- I count 5 2/3's, and that's because one of them has three parts to
it, but specifically on B, C, D, 2/3's of F, and G and H. On the ones
where there are differences only in conclusion I would say as follows.
On A it says, "The staff concludes unfavorably," but if you look at
the last sentence of the staff report, it says, "Based on these unusual
circumstances, there may be some justification for giving special
consideration to this property." So that's, I guess, technically a
negative, but it's full of a positive.
And on E the special privilege branch consideration it says that
it would confer a special privilege; however, all variances grant
special privileges, and so I think that is somewhat ameliorated by --
by that. And it also goes on to say that the building complies with all
of the other setbacks. On F, that's the one where there are three
branches and the negative finding only is that it's not in harmony with
the Land Development Code. And I would submit to you, of course,
that a variance is part of the Land Development Code, so perhaps that
can be taken in context. But it does go on to say it's unlikely that
there's -- there is any detriment to the public health and welfare, and
it's not injurious to the neighborhood. I think that's why you saw the
language in there that the staff felt that it was constrained from
recommending favorably, but I don't think that you are constrained
Page 64
September 25, 2001
from doing that.
Mr. Bellows has given you the outline of what the situation is. I
would only point out that this was -- I guess I can -- I'm not used to
using this and I'm left-handed so bear with me, but this line here is
the (indicating) -- where the yellow starts is the principal structure
area as it was understood and that everybody was looking at the time
the second building was to be built. What this is -- what you're
looking at is an overlay of the new plan -- site plan over the original
site plan for showing the existing building. So this is Building A or
Building 1 and this is Phase 2, this is the second building. And had it
not been for the steps that were added and the walkway that was
added, everything would have been okay.
I do want to indicate and bring home a couple of things. One,
Mr. Lombardo was not the original developer. He purchased the
property from Mr. LaGrasta who was the original developer in Phase
1. I say Mr. Lombardo, Shader-Lombardo, LLC, but Mr. Lombardo
purchased that some ten years after the original development was --
was done and I had a -- had no knowledge -- and he's here to testify
and assure you that he had no knowledge or indication or belief or
intention of trying to do something that was not appropriate. And
Mr. Kepple's here and he can testify. He is the engineer and Mr.
Allen, the surveyor, can all testify also how they went about doing
the measurements, and they did that in good faith.
I would like to indicate to you-- and I think Mr. Bellows
indicated this -- that this didn't come up until the building was
substantially built, and the first thing that happened then there was a
letter. This was in something like January I believe. A letter did
emanate from the staff indicating to a complaining person in the first
building that there did not appear to be a problem. Now, granted, that
was not -- that was not -- the complaint was not particular to the
building distance, but even back as late as January of this year there
Page 65
September 25,2001
was no indication that there was any problem; therefore, the building
went ahead. It was finished. Technically it was CO'd in June, but the
COs were held on the last end units here pending getting this
resolved.
I'd be glad to answer any questions, but if that's okay with you, I
would like to have you hear from Mr. Lombardo directly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. That would be fine.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
MR. LOMBARDO: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning.
MR. LOMBARDO: David Lombardo, Naples, Florida,
representing Shader-Lombardo Properties. If I may use some visuals,
some site plans that were given to me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Put them up on the board. Is that
okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a microphone there on
the side. Mr. Bellows will help you.
MR. LOMBARDO: The first one I'd like to point out to you is a
public records site plan. It was approved by Collier County in 1990,
and it specifically shows the distance between the outside walls of the
buildings being 21 feet. Doing a due diligence period I pulled the site
plan up and looked at it, and that's why I believed that's what I was
able to build. This site plan was prepared for this variance by Terry
Kepple, and it shows different dimensions in through here. I'm going
to let him go over that with you. Okay? But on all these site plans,
the stairway and the covered walk are not shown. They have little
planters outside that also -- that I think it just speaks for itself. This is
part of the public records in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ask a question at any point you want.
Page 66
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you buy this property only
looking at the old site plan, or did you actually see the property and
the building that was on it when you purchased it?
MR. LOMBARDO: I saw these -- I saw the property, the
building and also got a letter from the county on how many units I
could build there. There was a availability of building 38 units and I
built 36.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when you saw the property and
saw the site development plan, you didn't notice that there was a
difference between stairwells and no stairwells?
MR. LOMBARDO: No. I didn't notice that. I did notice that --
you know, in my -- a lot of times in construction stairwells and
driveways and things of that nature are not considered part of a
structure in many cases. I did notice the 21 feet. I had it surveyed
several times to make sure I was within-- you know, it's close, and
I'm not going to deny that, but within reason, and I have some other
documents on the overhead I would like to present to you also.
This is a copy of the condominium documents that are public
record, Collier County, State of Florida. This is just the front cover
page. This page basically will show you the property that I
purchased. I'll start here, come down, and these are the stairwells in
question, and they are abutted almost up to the property line and this
is part of the site development plan that they showed in the condo
docs, and when some people -- when people purchase a
condominium in the State of Florida, they are to be provided with
condominium documents, and they have a 15-day recission period
whether they want to buy or not buy.
What I'm suggesting to the -- the commission here is that people
that purchased these units -- 16 units, they got these documents.
They reviewed these documents. It shows the stairways. They show
the building that's coming in. This one -- this site plan shows three
Page 67
September 25,2001
buildings. I only built two because I eliminated some units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And ifI may interrupt, that --
and I've told the counsel for the adjacent property owners that's very
persuasive to me because, you know, we're not a court of law, but if
you were a property owner in the area and you reviewed your
condominium documents before you closed, which you're presumed
to have done by the law, then you would see that here are those
stairwells sticking out and there is the building that is -- that wasn't
there at the time, but it is there now and, you know, what we're really
talking about here, they knew there was -- they knew the stairwells
were there. They had to because they were there before they closed
on the condominium, and they knew that there was a building coming
at the location where there is presently a building.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think that's the issue here,
Commissioner. I think the way I understand it they knew a building
was going to be there, but they incorrectly assumed that it was going
to follow a setback which a lay person is not going to look at a
condominium document and go out and step off the footage to the
next building and say, "I wonder if this is okay and is there going to
be encroachment of a stairwell on it." I just don't think lay people
would do that kind of thing.
They see a building's there, but the perception is -- you know, I
think that's a perception problem which they would be struggling
with. So I understand legally it may say that, but I am questioning
whether or not in my mind that people would -- would follow that. I
don't know, but that's where I see it at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the question really.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's the question. But continue, sir.
I didn't mean to interrupt. With all due respect to my fellow
commissioners, she makes an excellent point.
MR. LOMBARDO: This is just another exhibit in our condo
Page 68
September 25, 2001
docs that, once again, shows the building's there and the stairs being
right there (indicating).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is -- I wish I could -- is the
building as constructed exactly where it shows here or is it, in fact,
closer to that stairwell that's projected that's shown there? Is it there
or is it closer to that little stairwell?
MR. LOMBARDO: I think -- in my honest opinion, I think it's
there, and I'll leave that up to my surveyor and my engineer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a critical question for me,
because if it's exactly where that drawing shows that it is, I don't
know that's too hard to figure out, but I've still yet to hear the other
side.
MR. LOMBARDO: In spite of all that, there was a question on
whether or not we have tried to get to a round table and negotiate
this. I negotiated with the attorney and the Board of County
Commissioners for Vanderbilt Villas 1 for approximately nine
months. We had what I called an unhappy number and as much as
we made an arrangement, the day that arrangement was going to be
signed, it was -- everything was cancelled and a new attorney was
representing them, and we have not been able so far offbase -- been
able to get to a good solid point of saying, okay, here's where we go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's -- there's some
amount of money that they feel would be adequate to compensate
them for this, or there appeared to be at one point and now there's
not?
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
If I may, I have a question.
Commissioner Coletta.
If we were to rule against this
variance, you would at that point in time not be able to do anything
Page 69
September 25, 2001
but make the corrections, is that correct, or would you still be able to
have some avenue, or you would be able to reach some understanding
and bring it back to us for reconsideration?
MR. LOMBARDO: Sir, I don't know. It's a legal question I'm
not prepared to answer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we better find out
because I hate to see that we burn a bridge behind you if that comes
to be without you knowing that answer. Could you tell us, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe I can, yes. Now, this variance petition
before you today if you were to rule on it one way or another, it could
not come back as a new petition for six months. That's under the
rules of the Land Development Code. If you were to not grant the
variance, then the property would be officially in a position of not
meeting our code. It would be subject to citation, violation under the
code enforcement provisions of our Land Development Code, and
there would be a requirement on the petitioner to respond in that form
in the code enforcement forum potentially as subject to fines. But,
also, again I won't speak for that board -- the Code Enforcement
Board -- but typically would not look for a fine, a continuation of
fines, or additional fines with a static condition. They would be at
risk at being -- having a requirement to alter the site to bring it into
conformance at some point in the future.
Six months, though, to come back again for a new review of a
variance upon your having made a definitive decision today. If you
were to continue this for a period of time, I would opine that you
have not made a definitive decision. It would require
readvertisement and come back at whatever time arrangements could
be made to do so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And who would pay for that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would suggest it not be the county.
Page 70
September 25,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would concur, Mr. Weigel. I think a
continuance as parties may have to have a discussion, we rule up or
down, it's finished with us. And depending on how you rule, if you
rule and say negative, I'm got going to allow a variance, then it may
end up in a court procedure with private parties having to resolve
whatever they're going to do, but I don't know. I haven't heard
everybody yet, but that's only an assumption of what could happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have another question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the engineer ever say to you,
"David, this building is awfully close. I think it's getting kind of
crowded" -- I mean, so that they would alert you. I realize you don't
live here so you couldn't see, but didn't -- didn't they ever say that it
was a little close and maybe we ought to stop till we make sure
everything conforms.
MR. LOMBARDO: There was one point where we did stop and
measure, and they -- I was told that we were within the setback
requirements as per the site development plan as approved, and they
were also -- like to say that during the nine months of negotiating
with everybody and getting to an unhappy number, what we're going
to do to make it uniform and bring, you know, the whole
neighborhood up to a good standard. It was never once said to me,
"Your building's too close." Not once. I had several meetings with
them, and that item was never ever brought up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then why, sir, would you all have
been together talking?
MR. LOMBARDO: Trying to make things uniform, use of the
pool. You know, when you try to go into a neighborhood, you try to
be cordial. You try to be polite. You negotiate and we were going to
do some improvements to their building and do some landscaping
and then also enlarge the pool area, repair the asphalt drive so it
Page 71
September 25, 2001
would all look -- we wanted it to all look new instead of, you know, a
12-year building and a brand-new building.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe we have -- you have others to
speak now.
MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance
Kepple. I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida
with Kepple Engineering. I did do the site development plan
amendment for this project. During preparation of that, I did go back
to the county's records, pulled out the county's SDP files, went
through them fairly substantially because there was an existing
building, and how it was approved and how the site plan -- the 1990
site plan that Mr. Lombardo put on the wall here, how it compared to
what Mr. Lombardo was going to do.
Basically, he was planning to put the footprint in the same
location as the 1990 building. He was modifying the building
somewhat. Part of it was going to go to three stories that had not
originally planned three stories but was permitted by code, some
things like that. We upgraded the site plan essentially to conform to
the current landscape codes, fire codes, things of that nature, parking
codes, because those codes have changed since 1990. Setbacks had
not changed, height requirements had not changed, any of those PUD
or other land development codes had not changed. So we updated the
site development plan upgrading it to today's standards, putting the
building in basically the same location it was planned ten years ago
and proceeded from there.
Again, we did check the SDP records. Those records have the
site development plan and building footprints of the original Phase 2
building zone. Those stairs which were the same as the Phase 1
building were not included in any of the setback distances. On the
Page 72
September 25, 2001
site plan you'll notice -- I know you can't see it from there, but all the
setbacks go to the -- either the walkway or the building proper, not to
any of the stairs.
That building for Phase 2 is the same as the building for Phase 1.
Based on that information that we'd reviewed in the county's files, we
had -- we determined that for whatever reason the county in 1990 --
and we presume that the county would stand with that decision today,
we did not check it with the county because we're sure it was correct,
that the stairs were not part of the principal structure.
The code requires 20 feet between principal structures so the
question really is, are the stairs part of the principal structure or are
they an attachment to the principal structure? Yes, they are a
structure, no doubt, because they are covered. If they were not
covered, I believe the code says they are not a structure. So then we
wouldn't even be here if they were not covered, but because they are
covered, they are a structure. Are they part of the principal structure?
From our review of the records, county records, we determined that
in 1990 when the SDP was approved they were not considered part of
the principal structure because the distances went between walls to
walls, not to the stairways.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Carter?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The question I guess
would be when you were reviewing this and, obviously, there must
have been some questions in your mind 'cause you were going in
great detail, did you ask for a determination from planning and get it
in writing from them?
MR. KEPPLE: I did not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not?
MR. KEPPLE: I didn't think it was necessary, but from my
review of the records it was clear in my mind that the -- the distance
Page 73
September 25,2001
between principal structure -- again, we're talking principal
structure --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You just said the principal
structure if the stairway was covered that became part of the principal
structure, did you not?
MR. KEPPLE: I don't believe I said principal structure. It
becomes a structure and the real question is there is not a definition
of principal structure in the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You've been a professional engineer
here for some time; right, Mr. Kepple? MR. KEPPLE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have you in the past when you're
doing other things if anything was, you know, like this came up,
would you have gone to our planning people and say, "Gee, I want to
make sure I'm okay here"?
MR. KEPPLE: If the records weren't clear on it, yes, I do. I -- I
was certain that through my review of the records that it was quite
clear as to what was intended for the setback.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But why was the definition
between being covered and not being covered -- you said if it wasn't
covered we wouldn't even be here today.
MR. KEPPLE: If it wasn't covered, it's not -- the stairs, I
believe, are not considered a structure, does not meet the definition of
a structure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the word "structure" and
"principal structure" are two different things?
MR. KEPPLE: Well, there's -- there's a definition of structure.
There is not a definition of principal structure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The building itself is
Page 74
September 25,2001
considered a structure?
MR. KFJPPLE: The building is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the covered stairwell is
considered a structure?
MR. KFJPPLE: It's a structure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the covered stairway would
be the end of the building, which you would measure from there. At
least, this is what I'm trying to get a grasp on. I'm sorry. I don't have
your background and education in the subject, so I'm trying to put it
in the simplest of terms for myself and my fellow commissioners.
Can you explain where we are with that, principal structure covered?
MR. KEPPLE: Well, there's another-- another issue here is the
covered walkway. In the code the setbacks for a covered walkway --
a covered walkway is allowed to encroach into a setback up to three
feet. This covered walkway separates the stairway from the principal
structure, if you would, the main structure of the building. So now
we've got an issue. We've got a covered walkway which can
encroach into a setback separating the principal structure from the
stairway structure. What does that make the stairway? We've got
something separating this principal structure from the stairways.
How can they both be the same structure if they've got a separation
between them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they have the same roof?.
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
tie to the structure?
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Can I ask a question?
Does the stairway -- stairway
I think it's part of the structure.
You know I'm not a professional
Page 75
September 25,2001
engineer by any shape of the words, and I know I listen to all of this,
and you know, I'm kind of like you Commissioner, I say, "Gee, I
wonder if this would trigger anything off my mind. Maybe I ought to
go down to planning services and have a little conversation with them
to get some of this stuff cleared up," or we have a county attorney's
office that might have said, "You know, I really ought to just go
check this out." And, you know, maybe if all your things that you're
doing, sir, that didn't enter your mind but, see, for us sitting here
we're going, "Well, gosh, we're not experts in this, but you sure
triggered a lot of questions off in my head."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially if the material he's
looking at is 11 years old. I mean, I would want everything updated.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let him-- I don't know. In all
professional courtesy, sir, we want to let you finish your discussion
with us.
MR. KEPPLE: In retrospect I would have gone and talked to
county staff. No doubt. At the time it was clear in my mind that the
intent of the code and the PUD was the distance between the wall to
wall of the building and there was no need to go to talk to staff. We
were over 23 feet wall to wall of building and in excess of the 20 feet
required. I don't believe I've got anything else to say if you've got
any other questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I appreciate you-- I mean,
your honesty said this is how you perceived it and, sir, I wouldn't
question a man's or any person in front of me saying, "This is what I
thought," and I admire you for not trying to change any of that. And
you just stated it as you saw it, so I thank you for that. If you don't
have anything further, any further questions from the commissioners,
then I think we need to hear from the person representing the other
side so that we can get that perspective.
MR. KEPPLE: The surveyor may have some -- a couple of
Page 76
September 25, 2001
comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
leave out the surveyor.
MR. OLLIFF: And, Terry, I've also got David Rosenberg
registered to speak. Is he still intending --
MR. ROSENBERG: That's yet to be determined.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So we are going to hear from
the surveryor. Could you just identify yourself for the record.
MR. ALLEN: My name is Mark Allen. I'm a licensed surveyor
in the State of Florida. I'm second generation. My dad was William
R. Allen. Been here since 1960 operating here in town. And
Vanderbilt Villas is a unit -- phased unit that takes in about three
acres, has been partitioned by sale. I was hired by Jim Therner, the
contractor for Mr. Lombardo, to position these buildings.
And I just would like to go through the procedure how we did
this. There are some statements being made by planning and others
about the survey. I think there's some confusion there that needs to
be cleared up one way or the other, whether it helps this -- this
particular hearing or not, but I have two documents which are very
similar to those except they're my original. If I could put them on the
board, I would feel more comfortable showing them to you if I could.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go right ahead and then, Mr. Olliff,
you said following the surveyor we have --
MR. OLLIFF: You have one other attorney registered for the
petitioner, and then you have two additional speakers registered after
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And I believe one of those is
probably the attorney representing the -- MR. OLLIFF: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, we have a noon
time certain.
Page 77
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know. I know. We've got till noon,
so let's stay with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We may have to take a brief
interruption at noon. We have a very, very special presentation to
make to the Naples Braves.
MR. ALLEN: Anyway, my task was to position these buildings,
and this was the approved site plan that was given to me by the
contractor, and my goal was to place the comers of these two -- two
buildings. And as you can see I have -- if I appear to be nervous, I
am. I'm very sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're doing a fabulous job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're doing fine.
MR. ALLEN: But, anyway, as you see from the lot line to the
building, I was required to have 42.3 feet. I did that. I was required
to have a 50-foot width with 51.4 feet to the lot line. I accomplished
that. I took the length of the building 240 feet 8 inches. I placed this
comer. I had 55.7 feet from this rear lot line. This gave me an
envelope for the large building on this site.
The next was the little building. We maintained the 15 feet with
a 5-foot offset. We placed the four comers of it, and as you notice
from here, here, here, and here in every case I have a dimension from
the building to the lot line. In this case, I don't. The only thing --
only way I could find that I was in the right place is by the
dimensions shown from the building to the building and it shows 23
feet on this drawing. At that point we measured 24.55 feet which is a
foot and a half larger than the 23-foot requirement.
So at that point in time we felt we had accomplished our
mission. We had not squeezed this. We were in the proper location
all the way around. So at that point we left the job site. The
contractor continued, dug the footers, placed the steel, put in
Page 78
September 25,2001
everything.
And then there's a safety net the county has; it's called a spot
survey. Believe it or not that was coined by my father. It was coined
by my father, Bill. But what's interesting I keep hearing here the
surveys don't show this, the surveys don't show that. A 1 O-day spot
survey is a safety net so that this foundation, when it's poured and
this foundation is poured, you can go to the tie beam and then you're
stopped until you have this spot survey. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. ALLEN: And I keep hearing that, well, the stairs weren't
shown and the cantilever wasn't shown, and this -- well, it was
nonexistent at that point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a spot survey.
MR. ALLEN: Right. But I keep hearing that independent. So,
anyway, we did the spot surveys and knowing that Johnny Gephart
and Ed Perico at the building department would not accept a
dimension from building to building, I know they would not do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
MR. ALLEN: Because the setback always comes from a lot
line. So we issued a spot survey showing the 2.73 lot line to
building, 3.04 lot line to building. I was convinced we were in the
right place. We were not encroaching. We had exceeded our
setback. Convinced we were in the right place. So we -- we issued
the spot survey.
Time went on, the building went through. We did elevation
certificates. Went three floors. And then all of a sudden the phone
starts ringing eight months into construction talking about the stairs
being too close. Well -- and they were -- the comment was how
come you didn't locate the stores -- stairs next door? Well, they're not
on our site. They're not on our phase. They're outside of our
boundary. I thought I'd met the goals of what I'd been asked to do.
Page 79
September 25, 2001
I'm not crossing the lot line.
So, anyway, we did do that, and as you can see Mr. Kepple has
made another drawing showing that effect. The thing that concerns
me -- once again, I measure 24.55 feet from foundation to foundation.
If you take off the four-foot walkway, you now have 20.55 feet which
exceeds the 20-foot code. Now, that takes care of the cantilever, but
it does not address the stairs -- does not address the stairs. The stairs
were not there. They did not show in the survey. There, again, I feel
like the stairs were built by this parcel and maybe without concern for
the future parcel.
So I don't know how they got there. This was a previous
developer. I don't -- I don't know about the code about it. I know
where we put it, how it's positioned, and that's exactly where it is
today is exactly where it was designed. So I guess this is the first
time I've ever had to come up and say, "Hey, things are pretty good
out here." So I understand that it appears close. It does meet the
requirements as far as the plan that was given to me and approved by
the engineer and by the planners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you see the property, sir?
MR. ALLEN: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. It is horribly close.
But when you go to these condominiums, they are that way. You go
to Bear's Paw and Retreat, you go to the others. They are
condominiums. They are divided by floors and interior walls. I
understand it's close, but-- and I can understand their grievance but,
then again, I don't think any of us have done that. I don't think we've
created that. We may have created physically, but this is what we
were told to do. If I did anything other than what I've done here, then
I would be in error.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand that, sir, and I thank you
for your time and for your information you presented this morning.
Page 80
September 25,2001
As a matter of procedure, Mr. Weigel, I have something that's a time
certain because of the young people, Naples Braves, we want to do
the honor. Can we interrupt this public hearing so that we can take --
take care of that pleasant business and then come back?
MR. WEIGEL: You certainly may. You may close the public
hearing for a motion to table to a time certain or whenever you would
like to reconvene.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I will move that we close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to table.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need a second by Commissioner
Fiala. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
for--
Motion carried. We are tabled on this
MR. WEIGEL: For a time certain, though, because as an
advertised item, you never want to close it out that it's coming back,
so you may want to tell a time certain. You can be as specific as such
and such on the clock, or you can say "at the conclusion" --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we'll close this public hearing
by the clock on the wall at twelve noon and we will resume as soon
as we have the pleasure of dealing with the Naples Braves and
awarding these fine young people for a job well done.
MR. WEIGEL' Great.
Item #3A
Page 81
September 25, 2001
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25,
2001, AS "NAPLES BRAVES SOFTBALL RECOGNITION DAY"
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's hear from the Naples
Braves.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, this is your
show, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you take three of
those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take three and pass them is
what I have been told to do. Come on down here, you guys.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Take three and pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me get ready here if I'm
reading.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: TV land you know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Face TV land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before I read this proclamation,
I would like to say that I think we all are proud win, lose, or draw of
these -- these fine young ladies as they represent us as they travel the
country and perform great tasks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I like your cap, Commissioner. You
look like a real coach. You look like -- you know, let's go guys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Whereas the Naples area was once again represented by the
Greater Naples Little League Senior League Braves in softball
tournaments in Oviedo, Florida; Fort Myers, Florida; and Kirkland,
Washington during August 2001; and,
Whereas, the Naples Braves captured their second consecutive
Page 82
September 25,2001
world series and an unprecedented 13th championship in 21 years;
and,
Whereas, by their exemplary performance and personal
dedication both on -- on and off field, these young ladies have served
as role models for the young people of our area; and,
Whereas, Collier County community is very proud to be
represented by these outstanding young Collier County citizens.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, September
25th, 2001, be designated as -- as Naples Braves Softball Recognition
Day done and ordered this 25th day of September 2001, signed by
our chairman.
Ladies, we have a few--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, ladies, if you turn around,
we have a few gifts for you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. It's okay if we give things to
you. It's our pleasure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I never autographed a softball
before.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: None of us handle these things well.
You have done a beautiful job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great job, ladies.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. You have done a
Page 83
September 25, 2001
wonderful job. We are really, really proud of you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys need those shirts
about, "I run like a girl. I catch like a girl." I love those shirts.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Really make us proud. Thank you.
Thanks to the coaches, too. Great job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sure, Coach, you have a few words
for us.
MR. IAMURRI: On behalf of Greater Naples Little League, I'd
like to say thank you to the commissioners for recognizing these
young ladies. The report cards came out. Of the eight that had it that
missed the first week of school, all of them are over 3.0.
(Applause.)
MR. IAMURRI: We expect the same from the other four once
they come out, but we're very proud of these girls and their families.
They're born and raised in this county. I'm glad to be part of this
program representing our county. They do a fine job everywhere
they go. They're a class act. Again, we'd like to appreciate, and we
appreciate you recognizing these young ladies again. Thank you.
COURT REPORTER: Could you identify yourself, please?
MR. IAMURRI: Robert Iamurri, I-a-m-u-r-r-i.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're the only person in town
that doesn't know how to spell that name.
MR. IAMURRI: Thanks.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They look so demure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They're cool, you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you need a day off from
school, just let us know. We'll give you a note.
Page 84
September 25, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great job, Coach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a dynasty. Oh, that's
awesome. There's a dynasty right there too. Absolutely.
Item #7B
PETITION VA-01-979, TERRANCE L.KEPPLE, P.E.,
REPRESENTING SHADER-LOMBARDO PROPERTIES, LLC,
REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 12.1
FEET FROM THE DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE VANDERBILT
VILLAS PUD FROM 20 FEET TO 7.9 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 515 ROMA COURT- CONTINUED TO
OCTOBER 9, 2001, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Now I need to have the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to remove the item from
the table which -- let's see. I should probably say what item -- 7-B.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Public hearing has
now been reopened. Proceed.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you. My name is David
Rosenberg. I'm an attorney with the law offices of Scott Grant here
in Naples, and we represent Mr. Lombardo and his entity Shader-
Lombardo, LLC. I'd just like to add a few points of clarification
Page 85
September 25, 2001
here. I know you've all heard quite a bit on this topic.
Throughout the course of Mr. Lombardo's construction, there
have been over 100 inspections on the property of various natures,
but there's been no shortage of county, state personnel reviewing his
building. I would like to call attention to the fact that it was brought
to Mr. Lombardo's attention that he install a two-hour rated fire wall
on the westernmost wall of Vanderbilt Villas II which is the wall
most near to Vanderbilt Villas I.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What triggers that need?
MR. ROSENBERG: I believe that was due to the fire inspection
that occurred. I can't speak any more specifically than that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is -- and this is an
important one to me from the issue of the county's estoppel, slash,
culpability, you know, because we inspected as you said this building
several times. Did we inspect it, say, "This building is very close to
the one next door; therefore, it has to have a particular kind of fire
wall installed." And if we did that, did we measure that from the
stairway, or did we measure that from the building? That's a question
for staff, and it won't come off your five minutes. Sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's my
understanding discussing with the fire department that when they
were making their inspection of the construction, they determined
that it was too close to the stairway which is still part of the principal
structure and, thus, requiring proper fire rating wall. When the site
development plan went through the original review that the fire
department looked at, it didn't show the staircase, so they didn't have
that comment at that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
spot survey or much later than that?
MR. BELLOWS: Much later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
So -- so they noticed it at the
Okay. Thank you.
Page 86
September 25, 2001
MR. ROSENBERG: David Rosenberg again. Two other points,
the first of which we've used the word "structure" and "principal
structure" repeatedly. In the PUD which governs this property, it is
defined that the principal structures shall be no less than 20 feet apart.
However, the PUD fails to define what a principal structure is.
Similarly the land code and the ordinances that predate that also
failed to define what a principal structure is.
Now, admittedly, it defines the term "structure;" however, based
on Mr. Kepple's interpretation, it's my understanding that the PUD --
people who wrote the PUD and who have implemented the buildings
have taken principal structure to mean living wall to living wall and
not including the stairs which are the issue before us.
And, lastly, I believe in regards to Commissioner Carter's
concern about negotiations, Mr. Lombardo as well as my office have
had extensive discussions with the prior counsel for Vanderbilt Villas
I, I believe extending nine, possibly ten months or more. We were
desirous of coming into the neighborhood as a good neighbor and
upgrading the property of Vanderbilt Villas I which at that time was
approximately ten years older than Mr. Lombardo's recent
construction.
Unfortunately, as our negotiations were about to climax, so to
speak, Vanderbilt Villas I released counsel, at that time a gentleman
named Richard Lyons, and at that point hired Ms. Stewart. At this
time we've had some continuing negotiations with Attorney Stewart,
however, we are, we believe, very far apart. Ms. Stewart is as of
Friday seeking a sum of approximately $500,000 from Mr. Lombardo
and his project in order to compensate her clients, and it is our
position that $500,000 is not only unjust but it's a windfall for the
people of Vanderbilt Villas I, and it's just not economically feasible
given the constraints of this project. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
Page 87
September 25, 2001
sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board. Thank you,
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We now need to hear from
Ms. Stewart who is the counselor for Vanderbilt Building 1 or A,
however it's referenced.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, your only two remaining
registered speakers are Pamela Stewart and Freddie Zmick.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe we can take them after we hear
from Ms. Stewart. You may speak at this microphone, Counselor,
whatever you like. Wherever you want to be.
MS. STEWART: I am right-handed so ...
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's fine.
MS. STEWART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Before I
begin I would like to hand to you some photographs which will make
it much easier to see what I'm going to present.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They become part of public record.
MS. STEWART: Yes, Chairman, and they are already part of
the public record because they are identical to things that were
submitted several weeks ago. I have also submitted to you a
photographic index. Not all of the photographs listed on the
photographic index are in your possession; however, the ones that are
are circled, and I would like to go through those very quickly.
This is Photograph No. 1. It is -- the original building is to your
left, right over here. This is at the bottom of the stairwell. It is a
planter. Back in the very back you can see the other stairwell on the
other side of which is sunlight. As you will note the entire distance
between the first stairwell and the second stairwell is in shadow from
the Shader-Lombardo building. The -- I'm not sure I said it. For the
record, my name is Pamela Stewart. I represent Vanderbilt Villas
Condominium Association, Inc., which is the original building.
Page 88
September 25, 2001
Okay.
You will see there is sunlight also at the bottom of the
photograph; that is where the shadow of the building ends.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ray or could somebody help
because the photos in the visualizer what she's pointing to isn't
showing up, and plus sometimes you've got to a put a piece of paper
on the top to hide that glare. It's just hard to see it. Right there. If
you'll put a piece of paper right there. Just sit it on there; it'll hide the
glare. You'll need to back it out so we can see the whole picture.
MS. STEWART: Okay. All right. It looks a little out of focus,
actually. This is a yardstick. It is a 36-inch yard stick, and I'm going
to show you a closeup of it which you also have in your possession.
This is Photograph No. 2. As you can see, it is 36-inches wide.
It's from Home Depot, nothing special. This area between the planter
and the staircase, the building of Shader-Lombardo is 50 inches. You
can also see plaster that was splashed up onto my client's building
and never even cleaned off.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I've got to get
oriented, but looking at this photograph the new building is pink and
white and the old building is beige?
MS. STEWART: No. The new building is beige and the
original building is pink and white.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. STEWART: And this is a sharper contrast of the shadow in
the sunlight in the building.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MS. STEWART: All righty. Photograph No. 3, this is another
view of the corridor between the buildings. You can see that the
staircase -- the yardstick was right at the edge of the -- on the other
side of the pavement there between the planter and
Mr. Shader-Lombardo's building.
Page 89
September 25, 2001
This is Photograph No. 4. This is a view from the new building
stairwell showing the original building's mulch washed onto the
gravel by the water from the new higher elevation flowing down past
the drains into the planters onto my client's sidewalk. You can see
the water stains on the sidewalk right here (indicating) and then being
carried back towards the drains and dragging my client's mulch with
it. The drainage is a very big problem there. I'll be showing you
other photographs. One of the problems is there's no rain gutter on
the Shader-Lombardo building.
This is my client's view from their stairwell. This is the wall of
the Shader-Lombardo building. It's not sky. In fact, you can see the
seam where they seamed the building.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In fairness, it wouldn't be sky if
it were the appropriate distance; right?
MS. STEWART: No. No. I was just pointing out it -- it looks
white like a sky and it's not. It's very difficult to tell. You've got
some black-and-white photographs, and in many of them it looks like
it's open space and it's really a blank wall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I get your point now. I
apologize.
MS. STEWART: Okay. No problem. All right. Now
Photograph No. 6. This is a view from Unit 107's doorway. You can
note the roof line over here. Remember, I said there's no rain gutter.
You can see that there isn't there. These are water stains that I had
pointed out previously on the sidewalk from the water coming down
and washing back. So you can see this is the walkway that Mr.
Kepple was referring to, and it is covered by the roof line. Over here
is one of the stairwells (indicating). I find it difficult to figure out
how you could get -- if there was no walkway there, how you could
get off the stairs. They ended right into the wall. So I think that's
part and parcel.
Page 90
September 25, 2001
This is the drain stop for my client's building where it ends up.
It used to drain off of their roof and into open space between where
my client's building was and where the new building was supposed to
be. It drained downward. Now it is useless because it can't drain up -
- the gravel is at a higher -- much higher elevation. So it's just sitting
there. You can see the sand accumulated in the little trough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And would that be different if
the building were set back farther? Would the slopes change or
something?
MS. STEWART: Yes, they would. The gravel is at a very high
pitch. In fact, one of your planning commissioners almost fell when
she went out to do a site visit because of the steepness of it. And,
yes, it would be. I would -- I would think. I'm not an engineer, but I
would think the more space you have the easier your slope would be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's a question for staff too.
You can answer it later and not interpret her again.
MS. STEWART: Okay. This is the view of the wall of the new
building from the top floor of the original stairwell. And this, once
again, is this wall. One photograph that you don't have is -- this is a
view from the new stairway directly into Unit 106. You can see the
mulch on the steppingstone and the moisture stains as well from the
water rushing back and forth.
I'm going to skip through some of the photographs. Your next
photograph that you have is No. 14. Right. This is another -- this is
looking down onto my client's building from the stairway. You can
see the roof-- the roof line covers the walkway there. It also covers
the stairwells. Let me see if I've got a specific picture of that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we've got a pretty good idea,
Counselor.
MS. STEWART: Okay.
this portion up. That's not it.
All right. Then I will quickly wrap
Okay. This is another angle from a unit
Page 91
September 25,2001
entryway on the first floor looking up. You can see this is the
stairwell right here. There is the roof line of the Shader-Lombardo
building. And, last, I wanted to show you the Shader-Lombardo
building. The original site plan that the Mister -- one of the
LaGrastas submitted showed this as a six units here two stories, and
on the far side it was three stories and 24 units. Currently there are
12 units here instead of the original 6, and it is all one large three-
story structure. Okay.
At this point I'd like to quickly address some of the concerns of
the counsel. Mr. Pritt said that their building is not injurious to the
neighborhood. I question that remark in that there is no access for
fire trucks. You can't get a fire truck through that area there. It is
also taking away my client's legal right to air and sunshine which
they are given under Florida law. It has also taken away their
investment backed economic expectation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Stewart.
MS. STEWART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying there is no air
in between those spaces?
MS. STEWART: No. I'm not saying there's is no air. I'm
saying there is a lack of movement of air. I would like to -- I would
like to show you very graphically -- I have been to county records. I
have certified copies of the -- of pertinent pages of the condominium
documents. This first one is Exhibit B, and I believe you've already
seen it, but I'd like to point something out to you on it.
First of all, if you look at this, you will see no scale whatsoever.
There's nothing to show how many feet, distance. This building over
here is the Phase I building. That is my client's building. You will
notice there are four sets of staircases on them. You will also notice
this end staircase unit is approximately in the middle of the
petitioner's building. Okay? This is not an accurate depiction of
Page 92
September 25, 2001
what ended up.
The petitioner's building comes right out to here (indicating).
Sorry. Stop. Right out past the middle of that second stairwell, so
what has happened here, in effect, you've created a box. Okay? So
not only -- Commissioner Carter had a good point. You would not --
the normal person does not realize what space there are between
buildings, and they would assume it's in accordance with code. There
is, like I said a moment ago -- and I want you to hear this
Commissioner Carter. There is no scale on this condo doc to indicate
how far away it is. Not only that but the petitioner's building is built
out to approximately here (indicating) creating a box in there which
restricts airflow.
Even if it was as close as it is, it would still be a problem, but at
least you would have airflow coming in from either side and you'd be
without that box effect so ... This is certified by the Clerk of Court,
and I will enter it into evidence, but I'd like copies. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. STEWART: Okay. This is just the Vanderbilt Villas
Condominium Association, State of Florida. All right. Speaking of
the condominium documents, this is also part of the condominium
documents, and it is certified. It very clearly shows the stairwells.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is that dated?
MS. STEWART: This was dated -- I know there was a good
reason for this page, 14th of April, 1989. Okay. This is -- I believe
this is one of the pages that was shown to you previously. It is very
difficult to read, and I don't see a scale on it either. It's of the entire
complex. It's -- pardon? I'm sorry. Can you hear me? (Speaking from audience.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, I'm sorry. I can't have you interact
with the presenter. Thank you. I recognize your exhibit. Thank you.
MS. STEWART: Okay. I'm trying to address the issue of prior
Page 93
September 25, 2001
notice. This was also included. This is the -- it says site plan on it
which shows my client's building and the stairwells, does not show
the rest of the property at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE' That's part of the condominium
documents?
MS. STEWART: Yes, Commissioner, it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. STEWART: And it's certified as well. I take issue with the
fact that this subject matter didn't come up until the building was
substantially built. There was a -- one of the condominium residents
who attempted to advise various people, but to no end.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's talk about that. To advise
county staff people?
MS. STEWART: I don't think he started with staff. I think he
started with you commissioners, but I believe that staff then advised
you that there wasn't a problem, to the best of my knowledge, on that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If I recollect, ma'am, there was some
correspondence from somebody there which I turned over to staff
which addressed the issues.
MS. STEWART: Yes. Okay. There is one other problem.
Most of my clients are -- they live up north. They are only -- there's
one couple who lives here year round, and the building started
construction, I believe, during the summer, and they started with the
far side first. So when -- when the building was started being built,
there was no indication of how close they were going to come. I did
include an affidavit in material that I submitted to staff. I'm not sure
if you received it or not, but she -- she testifies that when she was
here to begin with, she couldn't tell where the building was going to
end up and only after she came back did she realize the building was
up and it was there, and this is a problem with most of them.
I would also like to address I have submitted 17 letters. Every
Page 94
September 25, 2001
unit owner' in that building objects to this building. Okay. They are
the ones that are affected. In Mr. Pritt's -- in the applicant's original
petition, every one of those letters are from the single-family
homeowners in the PUD which is part of the PUD. They are not
affected in the least. There's also, I believe, a letter from Mr.
LaGrasta -- LaGrasta who may be culpable in this entire thing, so I
think that's somewhat self-serving to say he doesn't object.
Mr. Lombardo said that he was in negotiations for eight to nine
months. During that period of time, he also admitted, I believe, that
they were not in negotiations concerning the building. They were in
negotiations concerning the pool, which Mr. Lombardo would have
had a right to use if he had built the 30 units that were on the original
site plan submitted by the developer. That was part the agreement.
Approximately seven months prior to submitting his condominium
documents, it was brought to his attention -- and I have the
paperwork on that -- that he did not have an agreement with the
condominium owners to use the pool because he was -- was building
in excess of the agreement. He submitted the condominium
documents anyway.
Okay. They have just recently as of July been changed, June or
July. Okay. While I'm on this subject of credibility, the six end
units, three floors, two units in, none of those have been CO'd. They
are on hold. They're not red tagged. They're just not CO'd. There is
furniture in Unit 2201.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is one of the --
MS. STEWART: Yes. One of the units that have not been
CO'd. I had spoken to staff about this previously, and they were
going to contact Mr. Lombardo, and I was told to suggest to him that
you could not move anything in there. These items were just moved
in last night.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have -- you know that from
Page 95
September 25,2001
personal knowledge?
MS. STEWART: Yes. Yes. I would have taken pictures except
I couldn't have gotten the unit number and the furniture in the same
picture, so it would have been of no avail, but yes, ma'am. I looked
in the window, little heart-shaped pillows.
Oh, in addressing what county code says about buildings, the
county code does define buildings. You will notice in my statement
with which I have provided you a copy that the definition of a
building is any structure either temporary or permanent having a roof
impervious to weather and used or built for the shelter or enclosure of
persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind. Any structure.
Okay? Forget the definition of principal structure or whatever. No.
It's not defined in the code. Structure is defined and accessory to
structure. Accessory structure is defined, and I would put it to you
that it would be common sense to refer to something as a principal
structure if it was not an accessory structure. Accessory structures are
swimming pools, decks and structures of that nature, but there is no
doubt that this stairwell is by definition by county code a building
which is certainly a structure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions on behalf of the board
on Counselor's presentation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She makes a very -- very clear
case.
MS. STEWART: I have one other comment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Yeah. If you could, please.
MS. STEWART: Yes. Very quickly concerning the settlement
offers. Of course, that was an opening offer, and it was predicated
upon how can you value air and sunshine? It's -- the courts can't do
it. My clients would probably prefer that it be tore down, actually. It
also represents the approximate cost of three of the units which Mr.
Lombardo should not have been able to build. So that was how we
Page 96
September 25, 2001
determined that compensation and, like I said, it was an opening bid.
I have tried repeatedly to get them -- get him to negotiate. There was
no counteroffer to that. There was some language concerning the
pool, once again, which is not-- which is no longer currently at issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Did prior counsel turn over to you all
of his files in terms of this case?
MS. STEWART: I have the proposed agreement concerning the
pool. No. Prior counsel did not turn it over to me. My client turned
it over to me. So I don't think I have a full file. I had the agreement,
but all it addressed was the pool, and it did not address this building
at all because, although Mr. Moriarty tried to make it an issue, it was
not at issue until I went down to the county and looked up the
building -- the definition of building.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Questions on
behalf of the board?
MS. STEWART: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Then I move we close
public hearings.
MR. OLLIFF: You have one last public speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I apologize. I have one more speaker.
MR. PRITT: We have a request for rebuttal or granted that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I didn't agree to anything, but we have
one more speaker, so I need to hear from that person first. MR. OLLIFF: Freddie Zmick.
MS. ZMICK: My name is Freddie Zmick. That's Z-m-i-c-k. I
think I'm a forgotten member of this issue, a homeowner. And I've
been living there, the only one in the building for two months now. I
want to get to the heart of some other matters before I tell you how I
came to arrive there.
I went to the variance meeting. I heard a lot of testimony from
Page 97
September 25, 2001
both sides, and I want to state I do not represent either side. I
represent myself as a homeowner. And in listening to this I heard a
lot of issue about water off the roofs. So being a curious person, in
the next rain that we had and subsequent I went up there and I went
and looked. And as I watched the water come down, the water was
not coming off of Phase II building; it was coming off Phase I. You
could see the water coming down the roof, filling up into the eave's
trough. The water had nowhere to go so it was spilling in a torrent
down over and down onto their shrubbery.
Now, either this trough is -- needs some preventive maintenance
done to it that it's filled up, it's not draining away, or it's not pitched
properly and not draining away. And I think if that would be looked
into and something done about that and, of course, eaves troughs put
on the new building, I don't think there would be an issue of water
there at all. I think that would clear that issue up.
As far as the staining, if you look there closely and look down
there further, totally away from the new building you can also see
staining on the walkway, so it makes me think that this has been a
perennial problem, not just since the new building was erected but
previously, because there's staining even down the walkway further,
so there's water apparently spilling over there also.
As far as someone moving furniture into the building, I
happened to be there last night and saw these people arrive. They did
not move furniture. I didn't think they moved anything in. All they
did was come to look at their unit. They are the very end unit on the
second floor.
This has impacted the homeowners more than anyone else. I
have been there for two months. I have talked to people that have
come. They have missed mortgage dates. They've had to put
furniture in storage. They are waiting to get on with their lives and to
get into their homes. Now, we are not quite as impacted because the
Page 98
September 25, 2001
developer let us move in. My husband has Parkinson's. We made a
decision to move permanently to Florida. Based on that I sold my
condominium here. I went back to Michigan, sold our home there,
and we were, in essence, homeless.
I heard from the realtor that there was a problem. I immediately
e-mailed the developer, told him our situation, had to get out. He e-
mailed me back and said, "You can move in because I do have a
certificate of occumpancy without a closing." He trusted me. So that
is why we are there in the building.
I've heard a lot of testimony. I can't even understand why we're
here. It seems like there's a lot of confusion as to the definition of the
code. I mean, I hear one thing from one side, another thing from
another side. I'm not an educated person in these matters, but my
husband has been in construction all his life. I've lived with this kind
of information for 50 years. I've been actively involved in the
building of our last two homes from getting permits, to calling in for
inspections, to meeting with subcontractors. So I do know a little bit
about the process.
I would hope that what we could come out of this today and
soon is a reasonable resolution to the problem so that we, people that
are impacted, the homeowners, could get into our homes and get on
and have a closing. Right now it's been held up. I -- I contracted for
this unit September of last year thinking I was going to get in in May
and had to come down here in July with my ill husband, and if he
hadn't let me move in, I'd have been out in the street. And I just can't
understand why this all was not noticed right from day one with all
the inspections that are done to a building and why this came up after
the building is up and certificates of occupancy issued and people
ready to move in. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your
comments.
Page 99
September 25, 2001
Sir, I'll allow you five minutes in a rebuttal. I want you to
quickly do that if you would, please.
MR. PRITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I'm
going to hope to leave you some extra time without the five minutes.
I had-- in discussions with some of the commissioners, I was told
that commissioners didn't like the exhibits at the hearing, so I had
actually submitted them to -- actually to the county attorney's office.
We were not able to meet with Mr. Ray Bellows, so I gave them to
the county attorney to give to the commission. You have seen or
heard testimony as to everything I have in my packet. I guess county
attorney gave them to Mr. Bellows, and they're laying on the floor. I
would like to have my exhibits admitted also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. You can.
MR. PRITT: There is only one exhibit that you've not seen and
perhaps not heard of, and that is a letter from Mr. Saterfield of the
county back-- I think it was, like, 1990 indicating about the plans,
review of the plans, and that they were okay. Other than that
everything has either been testified to or is in the packet that Mr.
Bellows gave you or was testified to today, and I would like to have
those in front of you if I may. And Mr. Lombardo has asked for
about 30 seconds or 45 seconds to talk about one issue and with that
if you would permit that I would --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. He can have his 30 or 45
seconds, and then I -- unless there's any other questions,
Commissioners, I'll close the hearing.
MS. STEWART: Mr. Chairman, may I have 15 seconds after
that, please? Please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hate to say it lets --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think everybody's got just about
everything they can handle in this process, ma'am. I just think we --
all I allowed them is a chance just to speak back on a couple of
Page 100
September 25, 2001
issues.
MR. LOMBARDO: David Lombardo again.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All this stuff is submitted. I have not
read this. I have no idea what's in it.
MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much for listening to me
again. The planters that were brought into the measuring (sic) are in
disarray. With the next couple of hard rains you have, they will no
longer be there. There's no weep holes coming through them. They
are cracked, and the next few rains, they're going to fall apart. So
there's going to be some requests for permits to prepare those
planters. Okay.
The drainage you heard-- the drainage and what's flooding --
who's flooding what and how, however, I did give my general
contractor the authority to put up gutters. I've already taken that
under advisement from my last meeting. And also in between the
two buildings I gave the landscape architect the authority to give me
some type of idea what I could do there to stop this drainage and
everything else.
The construction on the building was started -- in total for the
footings and everything, it was started one week after the Labor Day
year 2000. So we did not do it in the summer and try to hide
anything. The C of O's were issued for the complete 36 units. We are
holding six at the request of the county, and I assured them nobody is
going to be moved into those units. I have electric meters for those
units, so I have to have a C of O for those units.
Again, water between the two buildings, I saw that on a first
couple of rains, and we added a drainage system in between there
going into the main drain to anticipate that water. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Going to close
the public hearing. Questions by members of the board to any staff
Page 101
September 25, 2001
and legal. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question earlier about if
the building were farther back would the slope be different so that the
water drainage would be different?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it would be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that does contribute to the --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. If the building was shifted back to a
conforming-distance-between-structures requirement, then there
would be a different slope grading from the wall of the Building 2 to
the phase line or property line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Weigel, have you
reviewed this to see if we have any estoppel issues from -- you know,
what is the county's role in having inspected this property?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it's wise to give a thought to the
question of estoppel, but the case law is, in fact, that even if there
were a mistake -- and I'm not sure that I've seen one as I hear this in
regard to staff and it's review -- that the estoppel in courts are not
held against the county for mistake of county, and this -- this can
occur. And through the years we've seen this in some other places
where through information and submittals or a lack of submittal
information by petitioners, renderings of opinion are made by county,
and that does not estop the county from making a decision. If
questions of liability and lawsuit were to be raised in another forum,
again, I feel confident based upon what I've heard today and my
review of the information, that the county has acted generally -- well,
I will say in good faith based upon that which was provided by the
petitioner and the ancillary professionals for petitioner.
When we talk about submittals -- paper going back to previous
documents, notwithstanding it appears that staff did not have
condominium documents from 1989. The question of as built and
what's in the ground and representations made by petitioner to the
Page 102
September 25, 2001
staff I think are relevant, and the staff reviewed what was placed
before it on the assumptions and assertions of petitioner there. So I
hope I've answered your question.
COMMISSIOENR MAC'KIE: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's unfortunate that we
got to this point in time. This allowed to keep going on and on and
on and that the two parties couldn't reach an agreement. You're
ready. I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I totally agree with you. I have
one more question for legal. In the inspection process, where do we
stand on that? If we know where the setback line is for a building
and we know it's going up there, what is the role of the inspector if he
or she sees structure coming out and doing something there? Does
that raise any questions where they -- he or she the inspector might
say, "Wait a minute. There may be a potential problem here."
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Maybe Mr. Bellows can also respond
here, but I think -- again, I think it's a good question and the question
is is staff required to look at as builts on adjoining premises as
opposed to inspecting the petition materials that are before it
formally. I guess we may see from here that additional inspection
may be necessary and that may be something that development
services will have to build into their fee structure because it looks like
additional administrative requirement may be placed upon them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I had discussions with the
building department concerning this issue, and basically the
inspectors are checking for their specific field of expertise, whether
it's plumbing or electricity. They may not be aware of or even
concerned about setback issues.
The fire department was concerned about the distance between
Page 103
September 25,2001
the stairway and the building, and that's when we kind of became
aware of potential setback problem, but then, again, the fire
department still wasn't sure there was a setback problem. That's
stating a variance. They just knew the fire wall had to be improved
to meet fire safety standpoints. There is no planning inspection, per
se. The only thing we require is a spot survey, and the spot survey at
that time didn't show any --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we inspect for specific fire -- not
fire commissioner, but the fire marshal inspects for specifics, and no
one ever looks to see is there or isn't there because it's not really what
they're charged to do.
MR. BELLOWS: They're looking to see in compliance with the
site development plan, and the site development plan showed the
building where it was, so it didn't trigger any alarms at that time of
inspection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just waiting for your input,
Commissioner Carter. I know that you've been on top of this for a
number of months.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, I've been -- brought to my
attention over time and all along was -- well, you know, here's the
drawing, and this is what it is, and then we got way downstream and
people started saying, "There's a problem here. There's a problem
there." People said, "What's going to happen," and next thing you
know it's gone through planning council and to us for a variance.
People saying we need a variance -- an after-the fact variance
because of a problem, and we're thrown back in that situation again.
We're not talking about a foot here. We're talking about a lot of feet,
but the consequences is, if you say, okay, take the hard position, I'll
grant the variance, then what happens? It is out of our jurisdiction
either way. We either approve the variance inside of our jurisdiction.
Page 104
September 25,2001
We deny the variance inside of our jurisdiction and it becomes a civil
matter from all probability I would understand. That's where it goes;
right, Counselor?
MR. WEIGEL: You're right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I ask myself what's the exposure
to Collier County? What did we do that would be a contributor to
exasperating the process? That may be the land of gray somewhere,
but I hear we're doing exactly what people are asked to do. So unless
counselor has something in here that tells me that I'm exposing the
county to something in a decision-making process, I need to hear
either way. Am I exposing the county up or down on the variance?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think so, quite frankly. And, by
the way, the question -- part of the question that you're looking at
here and expressed in the discussions is the staff was looking at plans
on record and what was submitted which did not -- apparently did not
take into account what has been built out in the field on -- you know,
in this adjoining earlier structure. So if there's a question for the staff
is, do they need to make a field viewing themselves early on in the --
in the site development plan approval for this new structure. That's
one point.
Secondly, conceivably for future consideration staff
implementation is, will they do that, that added measure at some
point in the physical construction and inspection process. But the
decision you make today if you -- if you should determine as a board
to grant the variance, then no longer makes it a county code
enforcement question in the future. And as you indicated, Mr.
Chairman, there may be civil issues, real property issues from the
civil side that don't include the county, at least not directly. If you
don't grant the variance -- and you do have standards to review in
granting variances provided by the Land Development Code. If you
don't grant the variance, then the petitioner is in a position of
Page 105
September 25,2001
noncompliance with the physical aspects, construction of the property
and would be subject to -- you know, potential issues with the code
enforcement staff, ultimately coming before the Code Enforcement
Board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I would tell you how I feel
about variances. I have looked at every case one on one. I have
never said I'm up or down on these. If it's something that seems to
me that it's not really impacting any group of people very much, I've
been fairly tolerant of that process, because to err is human.
However, in this case, I think the situation says, you can continue this
and work it out among yourselves and reach an agreement, or if
you're asking me to make a motion today, I'm going to make a
motion to deny the variance, and I'm going to throw it back to the
civil sector and let you work it out among yourselves. Because I am
not going to go on record as setting a precedent, a major precedent on
an after-fact situation where my judgment is a quasi-judicial position
here. There are a lot of little flashing lights that should have gone off
in people's heads that said, "Maybe we better stop and check this
out," and I don't think that happened here in my judgment. So my
motion is I move to deny the variance, and I support the planning
council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We had a second by Commissioner
Henning. Discussion among the board.
MR. PRITT: Sir -- sir, I was just conferring with my client
while you were making that statement, and if I may, I think I can
count noses, but what we would respectfully request is to continue
the matter, take up your advice, and see if we can work this out and
come back to you. I would have spoken up 20 seconds earlier, but I
needed to confer with my client before I did that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I appreciate that, sir.
Page 106
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's up to you to withdraw your
motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll withdraw my second.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, as a practical matter, I will tell
you, though, that we're talking about specifications under the Land
Development Code, so even if they work things out from a civil
standpoint, there may be something to reconcile in regard to our code
enforcement people going out and seeing something there; however,
it's complaints made in the process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well -- that during this process, code
enforcement could--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even after -- even after, if they
settle it, unless we grant a variance, code enforcement can give them
-- can cite them.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to face that reality.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, if you grant a
variance, you're putting the power back into the position of the
builder who built this -- this error, and I can't go with that. If we did
a continuance, how long would it be for?
MR. PRITT: I was suggesting a month, your next meeting.
Here, again, this would be a month from now; isn't that right?
MR. WEIGEL: You could continue -- based on September 11 th
being the initial advertised date for this, you could -- you could
continue to the October 9th meeting. Beyond that you're going to get
into a readvertisement matter which, again, is not a big thing,
readvertisement to come forward if you continue to a date beyond
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioners, respectfully
you know what's -- in my view, what's going to happen if we
Page 107
September 25, 2001
continue this, with all due respect to this petitioner-- he had all my
sympathy before I heard the other side of the story -- what's going to
happen is we're going to come back in here in a month, and we're
going to hear these arguments again, and they're either going to agree
or disagree, but it seems to me that if the county didn't have any
culpability here, we need to just turn down this variance and let the
private sector go work it out. They can always reapply for a variance.
We could toll the six months. You know, they could -- they could
reapply and that Code Enforcement Board could toll their zoning
problems or zoning citations pending the reapplication of a -- for a
variance, but right now I'm not sure we've made a very clear
statement for the purposes of property owners to negotiate here that --
you know, that we are only -- I think we ought to turn down the
variance.
MR. PRITT: Madam Chairman, can I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is due process here. Just a
second. I have to have Counsel's input. If we do this, we're going to
end back in the same kind of thing.
MR. WEIGEL: To some degree. Now, as you know, staff and
even assistance of counsel, once citation's issued from Code
Enforcement, there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion which
in context of the kind of hearing we've had today and potentially the
direction or feeling that may come from your actions, I am sure that
the development services code enforcement staff and the county
attorney's office working with them would see how things worked
out. Clearly, this board and the public know very well the issues
we're dealing with here, and so from that standpoint it's not like
putting our heads in the sand and saying it's going to go away. At the
same time, we could -- could conceivably have on the administrative
side of things some prosecutorial discretion but, you know, we may
or may not have a duty to come forward at some point later in the
Page 108
September 25, 2001
code enforcement process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand we've got to come back
and deal with the same issues after we do the varianace --
MR. WEIGEL: I think there's absolutely no requirement or, I
would suggest, need for this board to hear these same arguments over
again. And if it came back, whether it's continued under the current
advertising or continued to a date certain where they have to
readvertise -- and I think that may be my suggestion here -- that
there's no reason to rehash this, but only go and build on what this
hearing has gotten you to today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we would have a continuance
limited to further -- future discussion where they report back to us the
status of their negotiations, and we decide at that point yes or no? I
can go with that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Up or down. We're not going to go
back and rehash all this again.
MR. WEIGEL: I wouldn't be wedded to the October 9th date
which is what -- he can still do another current advertising. He can
pick a date later than that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would be more comfortable to
readvertise.
MR. WEIGEL: Pick a date later than that. Pick a date certain,
and they shall readvertise, if they want to keep in the petition box.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the cost of readvertising?
I assume it can be handled by the petitioner.
MR. WEIGEL: One hundred bucks or something, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My only comment is that we
need to settle this as soon as possible, no more than than 30 days.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Understand, because we've got people
waiting to move into a building. That's very troublesome. Sir?
MR. PRITT: Yes. You heard -- that's what I was going to say,
Page 109
September 25, 2001
sir. In response to the vice chairman's comment that we heard from
one person who had a problem. People are starting to come down,
and if there is some way you could accommodate us, we will try to
work something out by October 9th and we realize that if we can't do
that then we need to readvertise and go that way, but we would
respectfully request that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The sooner the better. I don't
want to force you to talk about it for a month. If you can settle it this
afternoon, please do.
MR. PRITT: We hear you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
MR. WEIGEL: I think I see the petitioner, then, making a
request for a continuance to a date certain which is October 9th which
is, I believe, within our advertising period. If for some reason it's not,
the appropriate advertisement will be done, and then it's up to the
board to make a motion and second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to grant that request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning. I have a second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question -- just under the
conditions that we described before, please, about what the nature of
the next hearing will be.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No any -- only new information will
be admissible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Nothing that has been discussed this
morning is going to come back and rehash. It's all a matter of public
record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I call the motion. All in favor signify
Page 110
September 25, 2001
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same signed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. All right. Okay.
That's the end of the public hearings now. How many of these can
we do -- what are we going to do here, Commissioners? How much
time do we have, do you think, to run through, or are we going to
need to break, or what are we going to need to do, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think probably lunchtime
would be appropriate about now, either that or you're going to have
an insurrection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, do we have some -- some
zoning things here we could take care of so that these people don't
have to wait around, and we can come back and get them to our
county manager's report and all of that stuff?. How many items --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Really might be, I believe.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know. Do we only have two, I
believe, and I don't think that would take very long if we just do it.
Let's see what happens.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2001-52, RE PETITION RZ-01-AR-823, MR. TIM
HANCOCK OF VANASSE AND DAYLOR, LLP,
REPRESENTING THE SUNSET LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "GC" GOLF COURSE TO "RSF-4" RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A
MAXIMUM OF 12 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST END OF FOREST HILLS
BOULEVARD, CONSISTING OF 3.51 ACRES MORE OR LESS-
Page 111
ADOPTED
September 25, 2001
If I could move to the first item I know is RZ-01-AR-823.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about if we starve to death
while we're sitting here?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you probably won't. I noticed
everybody seemed to tank up here this morning on the sweets at
break, so I'll be alright.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By way of--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Item B.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By way of disclosure, I had a
brief meeting with the petitioner's representative. I don't think I met
with anyone else.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Disclosure on my part I have met with
the petitioner's representative, and I've read everything in the book.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we probably need to swear her in
first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anybody that's going to testify in this
needs to be sworn in.
(Oath administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Bellows.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyone else have a disclosure?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other disclosures? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've spoken to the representative
also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Everyone's spoken to the
representative, Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or staff usually.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or staff.
Page 112
September 25, 2001
MR. BELLOWS: That's all right. Yeah, for the record, Ray
Bellows of current planning staff. This is a rezone of a 3.51 acre site
from golf course to the RSF-4 zoning district. As you can see on the
visualizer, it will result in about 12 lots. It's at the end of a dead-end
road that currently serves as the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the risk of being rude, let me
ask a question. Are there registered speakers on this one? MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I have certainly read
the packet, and I've heard the briefing from the other side. I
understand why it's not on the summary agenda is because there was
one or there were objections. Are there people here today who are
objecting, or have those objections been calmed?
MR. BELLOWS: There was a letter from the Naples Racquet
Club members requesting that the rezone be denied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. They're not going to
want their club to go away.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. They didn't show up at the hearing. It
was just the petition.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because I understand that club's
closed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if the public hearing were
closed. I'd make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that, but I need to
disclose I did talk to the former county commissioner Tim Hancock
on this subject.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't paint him with that black
brush.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. With that disclosure. The
Page 113
September 25, 2001
public hearing is closed. I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make the motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I made one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. Commissioner Mac'Kie
made one for approval and Commissioner Henning seconded it. All
in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion passes 5-0.
MR. HANKCOCK: Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear the big bear in the back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have a great day.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2001-53, RE PETITION PUD-2001-432, KAREN
BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING KENCO
DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS INDIGO LAKES PUD, LOCATED ON COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR-951) SOUTH OF THE EXISTING OAK
RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL- ADOPTED WITH STAFF
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes us to Item E under public
hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioners, I have to
abstain on this. The gentleman who we fondly refer to at my house
as my LRC, my last remaining client, is petitioner on this item.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'll point out for the record as
well the one -- you need -- there are no registered speakers for this
Page 114
September 25,2001
item as well.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other disclosures on the
part of the -- we have to have everybody sworn, then we'll do
disclosures.
(Oath administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You wanted to do your disclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've spoken to Karen Bishop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta's spoken to the
petitioner. I have spoken to the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have spoken to the petitioner
and read the minutes of the EAC.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Everybody's disclosed they've
spoken to the petitioner. Ms. Murray.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, current
planning manager. This is very straightforward. The only reason it is
before you here today and not on the summary agenda is the EAC did
recommend unanimously to deny the project. I think I can shed a
little light as well.
I had provided you the e-mail correspondence from Karen
Johnson of the South Florida Water Management District in your
packet, and I think in summary Karen does not have any overall
objection to this project. I believe what happened at the EAC was -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Susan, but there
being more than one Karen involved, by that you mean --
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Karen Johnson of the South Florida
Water Management District does not overall object to the project. As
I understand the last correspondence, they were still going through
the permitting process.
There is some proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in this
project by the developer, and the South Florida Water Management
Page 115
September 25,2001
District, as I understand, is currently conducting a study in this area
which is -- can be described as the Harvey Basin. I think the purpose
of that study according to Karen is to verify if the wetlands remaining
within this site are viable, and as I understand, the Water
Management District does recognize that the water table in this area
has been seriously altered, and so there is some question as to the
viability of the wetlands in the area.
They also want to study this area to insure that the cummulative
impacts -- whether or not the extent of this project and future projects
that come on down the line may have some cumulative impacts to the
wetlands.
I think the EAC had difficulty in that the -- Karen Johnson or
any other representative from the South Florida Water Management
District was not in attendance at the meeting. They had a number of
questions about this study and the wetlands in this area and felt very
uncomfortable that the Water Management District was not there to
answer their questions and felt they could not make a favorable
recommendation in light of that fact.
With that said, it's an addition of 40 acres of land on the south
side of an existing PUD. They are not requesting additional dwelling
units; therefore, when you do that, the density of the project
automatically reduces. It was currently approved or presently
approved at 3.14 with the addition of 40 additional acres and no
dwelling units; that will be reduced to 2.43. There is no proposed
change in access or any other substantive changes. The request is
consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan, and we are
recommending approval, as did the Planning Commission
unanimously.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Also isn't there an issue here that these
are individual properties that could present the situation for us to deal
with in a rut called right of access, the people at some point in time
Page 116
September 25, 2001
might want to be -- how can I access this piece of property and their
isolated parcels which may, in essence, even exasperate what we're
trying to do --
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- in all of our land management.
Okay. Ms. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, for the record, agent for the
owner. I do have an aerial showing -- and it's really difficult to see --
all the divisions of property in that area that's left. One of the other
things from the EAC is that the author of that study was
WilsonMiller, Tim Durham and he couldn't make it that day. Now,
I've brought him here today just in case there's anything you guys
want to discuss with him about that. There's really not much for us to
add. It's just like Susan said, this is a pretty simple application in
general. If there's any questions, I have my water management
engineer as well as my biologist here as well as Tim Durham to
answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions from the members of the
board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have none. I was just more
concerned with South Florida Water Management. As long as they're
-- they are giving their nod of approval, then it's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I read in -- in our summary that
furthermore the stormwater management system in the area will be
improved by this. So it seemed to me on an aggregate we were
making a step forward instead of a step backward.
Any other questions, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I'll entertain it. I've got to
close the public hearings. Entertain a motion.
Page 117
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept
staff's recommendations and -- and include their stipulations in this
project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning. I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye. Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 4-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 4-0.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 4-0. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. With the
exclusion of Commissioner Mac'Kie who had a conflict of--
perceived conflict of interest.
All right. That completes our subjects on zoning. We're going
to take a -- what is it 1:10. We'll be back here at 2:15 to resume the
rest of the agenda. We stand adjourned until 2:15. (Lunch recess taken at 1:10 p.m.)
(The proceedings recommenced at 2:25 p.m. with Commissioner
Mac'Kie not present.)
Item # 10A
AUTHORIZATION FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS BY
THE FIRE DISTRICTS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR FALLEN FIRE
FIGHTERS IN NEW YORK CITY- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go live, ladies and gentlemen.
Page 118
September 25, 2001
We're back in session. We'll now move to Item 9, Board of County
Commissioners, 9-A, and that's the appointment of members to the
Collier County Planning Commission.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman if I could ask you in -- just one
sequencing thing. Mr. Dunnuck has an appointment that he needs to
get back to, and he is only staying here for the fire district's boot
drive fund collection item, which was Item 10-A.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And in regard to this item, I will
note that your approval is for the boot drive pursuant to an ordinance,
No. 26-1. But we will be also informing those who will be
implementing the drive that there is Land Development Code
regulations also that relate to being in the rights-of-way and things of
that nature.
MR. OLLIFF: And, in fact, we already have, and we'll reiterate
that with them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's, I believe, all included in
the motion, in the first and second, and passed by the board 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Dunnuck. Sorry to have kept you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
Item #9A
Page 119
September 25, 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-375, APPOINTING L1NDY ADELSTEIN,
RUSSELL A. BUDD & PAUL MIDNEY TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We move back to 9-A,
appointment of members to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to talk about District 1, if I
might. We had three very qualified candidates, all of whom I -- I
really admire. I figured out I should break that all down to one
candidate, being that I can only get one from my district. So I've
spoken to everyone, and I -- I feel that Mr. Swaja, who lives on
Marco Island, could probably help us on another area -- in that area.
And Mr. Lefebvre, who is really entrenched in the law enforcement
community, can help us on another committee there. And I feel that
Lindy Adelstein would be an absolutely wonderful person on our
planning council, so I'd like to nominate him for District 1.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lindy Adelstein.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lindy, stand up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll certainly second that. I just
didn't know if you were going to take them one -- district by district
or--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. We're taking them district by
district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner-- a motion
by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
Page 120
September 25, 2001
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I make a motion that
Russell Budd continue on the Planning Commission for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala to have Mr. Russell Budd
continue on the Planning Commissioner (sic). And I also --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd also like to add --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The note about the ordinance.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. You'll need to waive Section 7B(1) of
Ordinance 86-41 because he served more than two terms.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly waived for--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does your motion include that,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. It includes all that. Any
discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. That takes us to
District 5.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And District 5 is very pleased
to know that we have four applicants for this position. That shows a
very big interest on the part of District 5. This position on the
Planning Commission is one of two positions that we have from
District 5. This position has been reserved for a resident of
Page 121
September 25, 2001
Immokalee. That came about some time ago when the Immokalee
Planning Commission was disbanded. The only thing is two of the
candidates here, Mr. Lehmann and Mr. Boggs, do not live in
Immokalee, and so I can't consider them for that reason.
Fred Thomas has been -- has had a sense of community that is bigger
than all of outdoors. He has been ever present in the Immokalee
community and in the Collier County government process; however,
Fred Thomas is needed on the Immokalee -- what is that there --
EZDA Committee, the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force and the
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee where he's been
making tremendous contributions. We need Mr. Thomas to help
bring these projects to completion, and I'll also need him to be free to
help when it comes time to put together the Immokalee Master Plan
in about a year. He'll be actually crucial to that. My
recommendation for this position is Paul Midney. Paul's been active
in Immokalee for the past 17 years. His ability to communicate in
three languages would be very much of value. He speaks English,
Spanish, and Haitian. He also does a weekly radio show on Radio
Fiesta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta for Mr. Paul Midney, a second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add one fast thing too.
When I was saying that Joe Swaja lives on Marco Island, the reason I
mentioned that is we already have somebody on the Planning
Page 122
September 25, 2001
Commission from Marco Island, so I thought it would be better to
have somebody from East Naples. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2001-376, APPOINTING CARLOS AVILES AND
PETE CADE TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Appointment of members to
the Hispanic Advisory Affairs Board. That's Item 9-B.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have two applicants for two
openings, and I would move their approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a move -- I have a motion by
Commissioner Mac'Kie, a second by Commissioner Fiala. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. That takes us to
Item D, finalize the annual performance appraisal for the county
manager and county attorney.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2001-377, CONDEMNING COWARDLY AND
DEADLY TERRORIST ACTIONS AT THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER IN NEW YORK AND THE PENTAGON IN
WASHINGTON DC - ADOPTED
Page 123
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we do the resolution and I
missed it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's go back to the resolution.
How about C?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve Item 9-C, the
resolution condemning the cowardly and deadly terrorist actions at
the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie,
second by Commissioner Henning on the resolution condemning the
deadly act of aggression on the World Trade Center. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It never happened on this board. The
same resolutions have been set up by the Southwest Board of
Regional Planning Council to key members of Congress, the same
kind of thing that we're doing here.
Item #9D
FINALIZE THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR
THE COUNTY MANAGER AND COUNTY ATTORNEY- 2.5%
MERIT INCREASE RECOMMENDED FOR COUNTY
MANAGER- APPROVED
Now we may move to Item C -- Item D, finalizing the annual
performance appraisal of the county manager and county attorney.
However, Commissioners, as we start this process, we will be
looking at the county manager today. Since we haven't had an
Page 124
September 25, 2001
opportunity to get all the printed materials into the book in regards to
the county attorney -- and there's no difficulty in waiting till the next
meeting to do his appraisal when we've got everything in the book so
the public can see everything and so that we are not just sitting here
going through it and they say, well, we never got a chance to see it.
Well, you can see Mr. Olliffs today. Two weeks from now you can
see Mr. Weigel's.
So we begin the process. Two commissioners here have been
through this a couple of times. The rest of you it's the first
opportunity. Public appraisal of your direct reports is not an easy
task. It's not easy for you; it is not easy for the people going through
it. But it is a process. Thankfully, this process now for both the
people that report to us, the county manager and the county attorney,
have been, I'm going to say, brought into the 21st Century in terms of
how we do it.
We have management abilities that the prior board ranked that
establish a criteria. Mr. Olliff is presented to you at the beginning of
an operational year, how he would be measured, what are the goals,
what are the measurements. So you had the opportunity to go
through that process and look, based on your first year in office of
doing this. I know it isn't real easy because you haven't quite
completed a year of service.
I was here six months, and they said, "We're going to evaluate
the county manager." And I said, "How can I evaluate a person when
I'm just now beginning to understand a few things about the job, let
alone make that kind of decision?" It was deferred for a few months,
and the rest of that story's history.
But it -- now you do -- we're in a better cycle. So I applaud you
for doing what you needed to do, and we now have everything in a
summary that is here about the county manager and his performance
based on each commissioner's evaluations. Also, from my
Page 125
September 25, 2001
perspective, I looked through all of this. And one of the key things
for me always is how does a person assess himself or herself as they
perform on a job? And I have found when that person does a
self-assessment, they're probably a lot tougher on themselves than I
would be. And I was impressed by Mr. Ollift's assessment of where
he'd been, what he'd done, and what he wants to accomplish in the
future. And we had quite a discussion about that.
And overall, as you can see by the aggregate of grand evaluation
of all commissioners, on a scale of 5, our county manager ranks a 4.2.
What that tells you, on an aggregate by this board he exceeds
standards. Every commissioner agrees in all categories that he meets,
exceeds, or far exceeds standards. And when you get five people --
when you have five bosses that come to that conclusion, I'm going to
tell you, I think you've really done a great job, Tom.
But more important to me is, you know, we've gone through a
real difficult time as a county and as a board. And from the time
Tom Olliff came in, if you look at where we were organizationally to
what we have in place today, if you look at the accomplishments that
we have made in transportation, public works, and the
reorganizations of some of the other divisions, we've made
tremendous headway. You know, we're in the process of doing what
we need to do in the planning services division. And I know Tom
Olliff, within -- probably within 60 days or sooner, will have some
recommendations to bring to the board that will strengthen that major
division. So it's a turnaround situation, ladies and gentlemen. It is
not easy to turn around any organization and try it in the public
spotlight where every move you make is subject to somebody
questioning your decision. And it's not easy, and sometimes I ask
myself why does anyone do it, because they can make far more in the
private sector and not be subjected to this. But they have chosen to
do it because they really believe in their capabilities. I think they
Page 126
September 25, 2001
believe in the place that they live and the county government.
And also, when we get done as this executive team-- Tom, I've said
this to you privately; I'll say it publicly. When we get done as this
team, I will match this team against any public or private sector
because it will be a class act, and they'll do everything that they
possibly can to keep taking us forward in the 21 st Century, from the
20-year program for roads, for all the stuff that we're doing in public
works, to all the -- all the things we're doing with zoning, Land
Development Codes, and everything else. This is an ongoing
process. And this board unanimously has supported these kind of
efforts. We just don't roll over and play dead up here. There's a lot
of tough discussions. We have some pretty interesting dialogue
among ourselves, but at the end of the day, we stand together. And
we take it where we think we can take it within a period of time
based on what you, our bosses, the voting public, want. Now,
sometimes a manager is loved by the public for a period of time.
Then he may make a decision or two, and the same people that loved
him yesterday now want his head. Now, if we change chief
executives every time somebody says "I don't like what he's doing or
she's doing," we wouldn't get anything done. So you have to go with
the flow because maybe two months from now the same person that
says "I don't like him" will turn around and say "Well, I think he's
doing a good job again." So that is not influential in our decision-
making. What is influential is how well a person performs against the
goals and the standards established by the board and the dialogue that
we have with him on an ongoing basis. So that gives you a little
background of where we were and how we arrived at where we are.
I would like input from the commissioners, any comments that you
want to make, and then there are some decisions that Mr. Olliff is
going to ask us to make. One is not -- well, they're all in our
prerogative, but he does want some adjustments in his contract period
Page 127
September 25, 2001
in terms of bringing it into sync. And we also have to look at the
subject of merit pay and how it can be awarded in this case, and it can
be anywhere from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent.
Now, this is above cost of living things and, in some cases, what
we would call a pay plan adjustment. This is where you have, you
know, done more than. And we have an option here, and we can
work it out numerically. If I look at Tom and he's at a 4.2 and I look
at a scale between 4 and 5 is where you apply this, meaning you have
exceeded expectations or more than exceeded expectations, he might
fall in the category that runs between 1 and 3, you could go 3 to 6,
and 6 out to break up those little numbers at 1.5 to 2 to 2.5. Now,
that's the mathematical application which some people like to
use because they say there's no question about it, but it doesn't take
into consideration how individual commissioners felt in the
performance rating. So, Commissioners, you have an opportunity to
determine how much of a merit increase you want to award your
county manager. You may choose to award none, or you could
award up to 2.5 percent, and that's your call as a board. I think I set
the ground rules, Commissioner Mac'Kie. If I've forgotten anything,
you've been here longer than I have in this process ...
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think that unless you've
been through this before, you can't possibly appreciate what a
fabulous system we have in place at this time as opposed to those in
the past. This is just a wonderful program. And I'm just sitting here
sort of, you know, running the numbers different ways. We had the
4.2 as the overall average. He also has from you a total of 112 points,
from me a total of 110, from Commissioner Henning 74, Fiala 84,
Coletta 114. I was just averaging those and -- but, you know, it
obviously comes out to about a hundred, 98.8 points. You know, I
don't know -- out of a total of what, I haven't done. I guess that's 23
times 5. I -- I -- I'm thrilled with Tom's performance, and I think
Page 128
September 25, 2001
Tom has done a fabulous job. I think we all are deeply indebted to
him for the transition he's carried us through. I think he's going to get
uncomfortable if we don't quit gushing but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. I'm starting to see a little pink
come up on his cheeks there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Poor guy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the reality is you guys ought
to be commended, too, for serving on this county commission at such
a difficult time of transition, going from, you know, the bad and the
ugly to the good to now Tom's going to get us to the exceeding
expectations place. And I think he's clearly led the county away from
the bad and ugly to the good and has us well on the way to excellent,
and I really can't think of a much more difficult challenge. I agree he
didn't -- I made it a point to write up my negative comments before I
read his so that I wouldn't, you know, be colored by that. But I will
tell you that they matched, and I appreciated that his negatives -- he
had identified every negative that I had. And all of those had to -- I
think would have required superhuman strength to be doing those in
addition to everything else. I agreed with the way he prioritized
items. I agreed with the -- I agreed that the items that I think require
attention for next year, which are in particular development services,
getting a permanent leader there and a very strong leader, I agree
with him that he had to let that wait until he dealt with the toilets
flushing and the -- you know, the basic delivery of service around
here. And he did that, and now I think his priorities are straight for
the coming year. So I can't give him perfect because there is only
one perfect person, and you know what they did to him.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. But some of us may be getting
close, even though we're not perfect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: True. But I just really want to
give him a -- public respect and sincere appreciation for the difficult
Page 129
September 25, 2001
time he's taken us through.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You both have so
much more experience working with county managers than we do.
This is our first time, so we don't know what it's like, except I did get
a good taste of it on the outside. I was privileged to work with much
of the county government and the two other county managers, and I
want to tell you from the outside and then coming on in, difference of
night and day. Tom's fair. He's honest. He's communicative. He's
dependable. He's brought us through all of these hard times and with
a smile on his face. He never gets crabby.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't go that far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can go to him -- one of the
things I've liked--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He has his days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a lot, and that is I don't save
things up till -- you know, until the end of the year so I can evaluate.
If I don't like somebody or something or some issue, I just go right
there, say it, and then you fix it; right? I mean, that's the way to do it,
and that's what I've always done. If there's something I have a
problem with or I feel could go a little bit better, I say, "Hey, fix this,
and we're done with it." So I don't have any complaints.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Did you want to go first,
Tom?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't care.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Age before beauty.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess that's you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess that must be me.
This is a political job, as we all remember, and the satisfaction we get
Page 130
September 25,2001
from our constituents is the measure of how well we're doing. And
no one likes to have constituents that are unhappy. A measure -- you
want to go out there and feel good about what you're doing. You
want to be able to see results. And Tom has been the reason, I think,
that I've been able to do so well in this past -- what has it been now,
11 months?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. How time --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Time flies when you're having fun.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's -- it's been remarkable.
Everybody tells me they've seen a tremendous difference. So when I
was grading Tom -- and I went through each one of those particular
judgment factors that had to be made, and I went through them with
great detail. And I gave him the highest score because of what I got
from the man I thought was way above what I could expect normally.
He's always performed right to the end. You know what I like most
about him -- and this is one of the things that, you know, it's kind of
hard to draw out people because they just have been browbeaten so
long -- is that Tom will tell you when you're wrong.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love that too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He'll come right out, and he'll
tell you to your face. Now, you can still go ahead and do what you
want to do. But, I mean, he'll tell you, and he'll make a point about it
too. And that's really important because if people bend and roll over
and play dead, especially in that position, we're heading for disaster.
I'm just glad he is where he is right now, and he's got my support.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I took a lot of time to deliberate
on the evaluation. I thought-- I did feel uncomfortable about doing
it, but it is part of my job, and I took it very seriously. And I
Page 131
September 25,2001
approached it in many different ways. One way that I did approach it
is we are -- the ones sitting up here are public servants. We work for
the public, and the county manager and his staff assist us in doing
what the public wants and -- pertaining to their needs and their
wishes. I've seen a big turnaround since Tom Olliff has tooken (sic)
the reins of being the county manager for Collier County.
I also took the time to sit down and write out some of my
concerns. Mr. Olliff and I went over those, and I feel comfortable
that he will attend to those concerns that I have. And, like I told him,
I think since I've been a resident of Collier County, I believe he is the
best county manager that Collier County has ever seen. And one
thing very important, Mr. Olliff has a vested interest in this county.
He grew up in this county. He wants the best for not only the
residents in the county, but I don't see him going away. So even
though my marks were average, it's still outstanding to work with
Mr. Olliff and his staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I wouldn't consider your remarks --
your markings average, Commissioner Henning. You always said he
exceeded-- he met expectations or exceeded. And, you know, some
people are more conservative in that interpretation, and that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where I'm at. It was
conservative.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's -- it's -- you know, it's -- look,
everybody did a great job. I mean, if you'd have looked at the forms
we used to have to go through, you would--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one comment, Mr.
Chairman, about -- for future reference on the form. And that is that I
think Tom has, through his exceeding expectations motto, drilled that
into our heads so thoroughly that when I looked at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, I
saw far below expectations, below expectations, meets expectations,
exceeds them -- exceeds expectations, or far exceeds expectations. In
Page 132
September 25, 2001
fact, what it says is meets standards.
I had to be careful that -- when I was grading Tom and also
David, that I -- I'm just not sure that's the right word, is the bottom
line, because my expectations of Tom and of David are very high. So
if he meets them, then he would get a 3 all the way down; but, in fact,
he far exceeds them most of the time. So I just wonder if we might --
whoever's doing this next year might want to look at those words
because I think it could cause for a little difficulty in the grading. Just
a thought.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Interesting thought, but a standard
usually establishes what we call a standard of performance, and then
it allows you an opportunity to weigh that against whatever you're
expecting out of that standard. So that's why it's traditional to try to
stay away from the word "expectations," because if I go down the
line here, what's your expectation, I might get five different answers.
But if I have a uniform standard that says this is what we want to
have happen here, how does that meet your expectations, then it's a
little different -- that's a different scenario. That gives you an
opportunity to say, well, you know, does this, this, or this. So that's
why it's there so that that helps the process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we --
that we take a look at this merit pay, and we go for the 2.5 percent
because I think he deserves every single penny of it, and he's put his
heart and soul into the job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I want to support a positive
increase for him. I'm just trying to figure out -- I'm looking at the
fiscal impact here. And it's, you know, merged with the county
attorney's question, and on the county attorney's question we have the
market issue. And I know Tom has a couple of things that I consider
glitches in his contract that I hope we will correct while we're at it.
But it says the average of all county employees' salary adjustments is
Page 133
September 25, 2001
3.8 percent. ! want to be sure that that's already in your contract.
You're getting that.
MR. OLLIFF: It is. My contract reads now that I would get
either a 3 percent general wage adjustment or the average of what the
other county employees receive. So in this case this year it was 3.8
percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's sort of our
standard what everybody gets, because there was some question
about that in the past. So the only issue besides -- the only financial
issue for today is the merit pay question. And is there a contractual
range there, Tom, or is there --
MR. OLLIFF: There is'a contractual ceiling that says not to
exceed 8 percent. I provided you what I thought was a more
reasonable range because it is what the general county employees are
receiving for merit this year, and it's 1 1/2, 2, and 2 1/2 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can you give us an idea of
what the spread is there on your staff?. Are they mostly getting --
where you are giving merit raises, are they -- is there a way to tell
where they fall.9
MR. OLLIFF: I would say, generally speaking, probably 2
percent is the average.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioner Fiala,
those glitches in the contract, if you want to amend your motion, I
will state it. And one is -- in the contract is life insurance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Term versus whole or
something.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. There's no cost to the taxpayer,
but I think--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's get Tom to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. Tom, why don't you give us
Page 134
September 25, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: There are three contract amendments. And just
so the board, the new members in particular, are aware, this is the
first time that I've had an evaluation. It's the first time that we've had
an opportunity to look at the agreement. And I'll be honest with you;
this is far more awkward than I ever thought it was going to be. And,
Mr. Chairman, I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this is an
awkward way to do this.
But in terms of the employment agreement, there were three
minor amendments that the county attorney and the clerk of courts
and I sat down and talked about that would help clarify the
agreement. The first was more of a personal issue in terms of the
insurance. The county does provide life insurance for me, and I'm
requesting that -- right now it specifically talks about term insurance
as opposed to whole life, and I'd like to be able to make that minor
amendment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the contribution from the
county being identical.
MR. OLLIFF: The contribution being exactly the same as it is
in the current agreement. The second clarification was on page 4 of
my agreement. It actually talks about that general wage adjustment,
and then for some reason in parentheses it says cost of living
adjustment so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is a concept we
eliminated.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, we actually have that in this year's pay
plan, but it is only one component of the general wage adjustment
that the employees are receiving. I think the idea was that the
manager ought to receive whatever is the average of the total
compensation adjustment that the other county employees are getting,
as long as he's doing expectations of the board, as long as he's
Page 135
September 25, 2001
meeting the expectations of the board or better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So eliminating -- the lawyers
have said that eliminating that parenthetical will --
MR. OLLIFF: The cost of living adjustment--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- straighten that out. I'd
certainly support that.
MR. OLLIFF: -- wording. And then the last thing is actually
just, in all honesty, a vote-of-confidence request. And I've asked that
you add a single year onto the back end of this agreement. It does not
adjust or change the way -- the relationship between the board and
myself in terms of performance issues or anything else. But rather
than me moving towards a final year of an agreement or heading
towards the tail end of the agreement, frankly I just thought it would
be a request of mine that we keep the agreement a 3 1/2-year
agreement as is currently structured.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my only question, and I had
this of you previously, is -- I'm certainly ready to extend that -- and is
a one-year period the right amount? The bottom line for board
members -- and I know you've evaluated this yourselves. But should
something happen and we have the need to terminate Mr. Olliff,
extending his contract doesn't give him an extra nickel. It doesn't do
anything financially. It merely tells him, okay, you can go ahead and
sign a mortgage, if that's what you're going to do, because it looks
like you've got a job for the next couple years assuming you perform.
MR. OLLIFF: These are by nature tenuous jobs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course they are.
MR. OLLIFF: And by general nature I think the average life
expectancy in these positions is not that long. And so as we go
forward, it is just simply a nice thing to say to me and a good
relationship for me also in turn to tell you that I'm committed to stay
here for that extra year should the board desire to have me here as
Page 136
September 25, 2001
well. And it's sort of a two-way commitment to each other. It would
put this agreement where it would expire by term in the year 2004.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Commissioner, if you'd add
those, I think you have a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would add all --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So we have all the items added
that have been outlined by the county manager, Tom Olliff, and the
recommendation is for a 2.5 percent merit increase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: And the only other direction I think that we need
to get is to authorize the chair to sit down with me and develop an
action plan in conjunction with meetings with each of you for the
upcoming fiscal year, and I'd like to try and get that nailed down and
agreed to with you by the end of October so that we are all on the
same page for next year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that work with your
calendar, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It'll work with mine. You know, if we
can roll through it -- I think you've got a lot of that work already
thought out or been presenting it in our one-on-one discussions. But
it needs to go -- each board member needs to make that input, and
then we need to finalize it. So, yeah, that give us about 30 days. I
don't see why we can't get it done. We'll just make a point -- we will
get it done.
Okay. I'll call the question.
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
All in favor signify by saying
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0. Congratulations.
Page 137
September 25, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you very much. And I do honestly want
to tell you that this has been a pleasurable year working with this
board. This board has been a fresh -- a fresh change for us and for
the staff. And I will tell you the staff' does appreciate the support.
And, frankly, a unified bit of direction that we get from here is a
unique thing for us. It's good, and we're going to hope that we can
look forward to that in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I put that on my resume?
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plays well with others.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Plays well with others, right. That'll
destroy that flower in your office, Commissioner, but anyhow. It's an
inside joke, folks. You've got to come see Commissioner Henning to
understand it. Right. I better get out of that one real quick so I don't
get in trouble. Hey, you're a great board. It's always fun out here.
You know, we do -- we have our moments, but most of the time it's
pretty hard to drive a wedge between us.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2001-378, REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
SUPPORT OF ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE U.S. FARM
BILL AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAMS- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Let's go to the next item, which is a resolution regarding
Collier County's support of an adequate --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we
approve this resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any speakers?
Page 138
September 25, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: You do, Mr. Chairman. Brad Comell.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cornell has got some words of
advice for us.
MR. OLLIFF: Who has patiently waited all day.
MR. CORNELL: Hi. Brad Cornell for the record, speaking on
behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. But also I just wanted to
-- I don't want to slow you down because I support you
wholeheartedly in your -- your efforts to pass this resolution. It's the
right thing to do. I hope that I can share some more information
about this type of funding for stewardship and conservation on ag
lands tomorrow.
But I do want to update you. I talked to somebody in
Washington this morning, and this bill has actually moved up. It's
slated to come before the house for a vote next Wednesday, so it'll be
on the floor next Wednesday. At that time -- that's the farm bill, H.R.
2646. At that time Representatives Kind, Gilchrist, and Boehlert will
be offering an amendment to replace the conservation title of that bill,
and that's where the increased funding for conservation spending
comes into play that would benefit Collier County and Florida.
And that is what your resolution basically says. And if you do
pass this, I would recommend that you share your resolution by fax,
because of the quick turnaround time, with all of the members of the
Florida Congressional Delegation plus the senators because it would
then go to the senate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. It goes to the senate, and then
it'll probably come back to the House Senate Conference Committee.
MR. CORNELL: Exactly. And then also Governor Bush and
commissioner of agriculture, Charles Bronson, should be aware so
that they can -- it's obviously in the interest of Florida, all of Florida
and all of Florida agriculture, so that would be my recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Brad, thank you. Brad called
Page 139
September 25, 2001
me to bring this to my attention, and I greatly appreciate that because
it's so important to us to weigh in on this. And it was one of those
happy times where -- forgive me to generalize -- but I got a call from
a green guy, an environmentalist, and called up the other kind of
green, you know, the money guys, the economic interest, and
everybody agreed. This is something that is very important to Collier
County. We need to do whatever we can to support it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it's great, and we want to take
action on this motion. But also be aware -- and Brad has certainly
educated me on this along with the director of communications for
Congressman Putnam out of Orlando. He is introducing a separate
bill that'll make it easier for the farmers to access and use these funds.
And it's kind of like one-stop shopping or, you know, fast-tracking.
Instead of going to ten different places to get what you need as a
farmer, you'll be able to go to one source and be able to accomplish
everything. So we need to support Congressman Putnam from
Orlando in his efforts on that bill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you wanted to add that
language, I'd support that as the second, if the motion maker would
agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that affect anything here, Brad,
in your judgment?
MR. CORNELL: You would just have to append that to the
resolution language at the end.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you-all are ready to do that, I think
it would be great to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim said yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any problem with that, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Not legally. We just need to make sure we get
the job done.
Page 140
September 25,2001
MR. CORNELL: I can tell you that I know that Congressman
Putnam and Congressman Kind are working -- are negotiating right
now about how that language will be complimentary and worked out.
I don't know what the resolution will be, but it's up to you, obviously,
how you want to word your resolution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we want to word it in a way so
we don't get in the way of what their negotiations accomplish at all.
We want all the money for Florida, and we want it one-stop
shopping, you know. I don't know how to get that through to the
congress, but that's as simple as I can say it. If the motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Brad, I'd just like to say I
want to thank you for assisting us to build Collier County with this
small -- well, this is not small. This is huge. It's going to affect the
landscape of Collier County and agreeable by all.
I also would like to say I think it's very important for this
proclamation at this time because the federal dollars and how the --
with the terrorists and how they've been redirected has changed their
budgeting in Tallahassee -- or in Washington, D.C. So if we can get
this resolution out -- proclamation out to the proper people as soon as
possible --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's going to help -- being first out of
the chute next week's going to make -- it gives you a chance to get it
while it's there because if you're downstream, it may be a little
tougher.
All right. I'm going to call the motion. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. And, again, Mr.
Olliff, Mr. Weigel, what I understand as board direction is please get
Page 141
September 25, 2001
those faxed to the congressional delegation in Florida and also our
U.S. Senators and the governor and the secretary of agriculture.
Item # 1 OB
AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FUNDING
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC.- APPROVED WITH CLERK TO
CONDUCT AUDIT OF FUNDS
All right. We move to Item F, discussion regarding county
government's role in the one-half cents --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we canceled that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We canceled that. Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're all the way to
12-A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have 10-B; right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't we going to talk about
Dolphin Cove?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. We've got to do that, but we've
got to -- we've also got A and B under county manager's report.
MR. OLLIFF: We've already taken care of 10-A, and we
should be on 10-B, Mr. Chairman. I think that's the consent agenda
item for the David Lawrence Mental Health Center contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this is very simple. But
first of all, I want to say, and I think everybody realizes, how
important David Lawrence is to our community. And I fully support
it in this funding, but I also do believe that it would be a good choice
for the commissioners to change the contract a little. What I would
Page 142
September 25, 2001
like to do is just have our clerk of court, the financial records, the
audit that -- that David Lawrence provides to the county, also provide
it to the clerk for their review.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that where they do go?
MR. OLLIFF: According to the agreement right now, the --
most of the firms like David Lawrence that we provide funding to are
required to provide a copy of their annual audit for us for our review.
They actually have an independent auditing firm that comes in and
does an audit of their books and provides us with a copy. To be
honest, I think David Schimmel (phonetic) in the administration
would have no difficulty at all in having the clerk -- and, in fact,
we've already communicated that with him. They usually do a very
good job in terms of recordkeeping.
And just to reiterate what Commissioner Henning said, we
actually did some research into the funding that the county provides
David Lawrence a couple of years ago through the county attorney's
office. And the conclusion that we reached was that the statutory
amount that we are required to contribute to David Lawrence is
actually probably significantly greater than what we annually
contribute. And the reason we're able to contribute less to them is
simply because they do such a good job in terms of private fund-
raising throughout the community. But when the amount of money
gets up in that hundred to nine hundred thousand dollar range where
it is, it's probably a very good piece of advice on a regular basis, or at
least some recurring basis, to have an audit done by our side of the
house into the money that we provide them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great idea, Commissioner Henning.
And what do we do, just make a motion to accept this with the
amendments?
MR. OLLIFF: I'm not sure that you actually need to amend the
Page 143
September 25, 2001
agreement. But if you'll just give us direction to formally request that
the clerk of courts conduct an audit of the actual funds that are
provided to David Lawrence Mental Health Center, I'm sure that we
could do that. And should we have any problem with that at all, we'll
return back to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still have to vote on it,
though.
MR. OLLIFF: You have to vote on the agreement itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved with the changes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Coletta's made a
motion to accept it. Commissioner Henning, are you seconding that
now with staff direction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
Thank you. Opposed by the same
Motion carries.
Item # 12A
SETTLEMENT IN DOLPHIN COVE DEVELOPMENT OF
GOODLAND, INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, NOW PENDING IN
CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS IN THE SECOND DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL (CASE NO. 2D01-3352) AND ALSO AS A
DAMAGES LAWSUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (CASE NO.
2:01-CV-77-FTM-29DNF) - APPROVE SETTLEMENT
PROPOSAL FOR $4,588,000
Page 144
September 25, 2001
Now we will go to 12-A, Dolphin Cove.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit
here from the county attorney's office, assistant county attorney.
Before you this afternoon is a proposed settlement offer from the
plaintiff in the Dolphin Cove litigation. The executive summary, I
think, explains the context of that litigation, the fact that there's a
federal court case and a state court case. The county lost the state
court case. We've appealed that loss. How that appeal comes out
could have an affect on the federal court case. The federal court case
is more in the nature of a claim for damages.
The discussions that we've had with the plaintiff have centered
around ways to resolve this dispute. And at this point, as the
executive summary shows, the plaintiff is saying they would settle
this disputes for $4,588,000 as part of that settlement. And I want to
be clear on this. This is not simply a purchase of land. This is a
settlement of a lawsuit which includes a component of damages. As
part of that settlement, they would then transfer ownership of the
5-plus acres of property that's at issue here to the county. They've
indicated, as you can see, that they're not interested in counteroffers,
at least according to the letter that we've received from their attorney
at this point.
With regard to funding, staff may be able to speak to some
funding sources. I have made a demand on the county's excess
insurance carrier. They've rejected the demand. I have made a
second demand as of yesterday and put them on notice that the
county would reserve any rights it might have as a result of any
refusal to contribute to a settlement should this board choose to go
forward with the settlement.
Let me address another issue that I know Commissioner
Henning might be interested in. I've done some investigation. There
Page 145
September 25, 2001
were docks associated with this project. At this point the attorneys
for the plaintiff cannot tell me whether there was any submerged land
lease or what the status of rights in building those docks were or are.
They're researching that. In the discussions we've had, I believe they
understand that if the county were to accept this proposal, it would
not simply be acquiring the piece of property. We would be
acquiring any rights in any submerged land leases or any docks or
rights to build docks there that may exist or other property rights that
would be associated with ownership of this property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to say I think as you present
this to us we, as commissioners, have a really unique opportunity
with this particular issue in that number one, we can answer one of
the problems that we've been dealing with, and that is no boat storage
-- not storage -- boat launching areas. We really are deficient in
them, and this would answer one of those needs.
Also, the people of Goodland for years have been asking for an
area to have some kind of park. They don't have any park there at
all. This would answer that need. We'd get a prime piece of property
at a -- it's a -- it's a heavy-duty price, but it's only going to go up in
value. It's never going to go down in value. And most of all, we're
going to be saving this tiny fishing village from changing its
character. We're going to keep this the way it should be instead of
just letting growth change it completely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr. Pettit.
Can we -- if the board decides to settle on this case, can we set a cap
on it and authorize you to go out and negotiate the lowest price for
settlement?
MR. PETTIT: In other words, determine what -- what price that
you -- or we'd be willing to pay, something different than the offer
that's on the table at this point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying put a cap on it. And
Page 146
September 25, 2001
in the -- that cap -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are you suggesting a cap,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have some ideas, but
also I think we have some public speakers on that. But if we set a
cap and authorize you to go out and negotiate for the best for the
residents of Collier County, the taxpayers, can we do that?
MR. PETTIT: Let me respond. And I'm looking at the county
attorney. I'm supposed to be running interference for my boss, but he
may have some knowledge about potential sunshine issues that -- that
I don't. You certainly can do that, but it's my belief, unless David
tells me otherwise, that you'd have to tell me what that cap is. And
the difficulty we have, unlike -- unfortunately, if we were in the
private world, we could sit behind a closed door and you could tell
me that cap and authorize me to go out and do my best. And that
might be to our advantage. I'm not sure how we'd do that here
without --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Write it on a piece of paper?
MR. PETTIT: -- putting the cap on the table.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Read about yourself in your
favorite publication if you do that.
MR. PETTIT: But I understand what you say, and you certainly
can't-- understand this: You're free, I think, to make a counteroffer.
Their attorney has given us what he represents in the letter that's
attached to the executive summary is a bottom-line offer to settle this
lawsuit. That doesn't mean you can't make a counter. They can do
many things with that. They could accept it. They could reject it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he said don't give us the
counteroffer.
MR. PETTIT: I think that's -- that was the tenor of his letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what -- I'm -- I think Tom is
Page 147
September 25,2001
better at this than I am, but I don't want to lose that piece of property.
I don't want to -- ! don't want to lose it to development. I want to
preserve it anyway we can, so I don't know how to deal with that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand Commissioner Fiala's
concern. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of thoughts on,
frankly, why this is probably the right number because -- well, if you
could tell us what the appraised -- we had an average of appraisals.
The highest appraisal we had was how much?
MR. PETTIT: The highest appraisal we have that was a
completed appraisal, a documented appraisal, was done in
approximately April of 2000. And my recollection is it was 3.28
million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically $3.3 million.
MR. PETTIT: And I may be -- it may either be -- it may be 3.2.
I'm remembering right now 3.28 million. There were two appraisals
done, Commissioner Mac'Kie. One was for a lower figure, and the
average was 3.14 million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And since then the -
Mr. Cheffy, Attorney Cheffy, represents they have a current appraisal
from a highly respected appraiser, Julian Stokes, who is a very highly
respected appraiser, of 5.32 million. And this is a lawsuit because
people are at least alleging damages. And I don't want to make any
admissions here, but I think there are always risks of having to pay
damages in a lawsuit.
MR. WEIGEL: You're doing fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So when you take the 3.2 that
we had as an appraisal, the 5.32 that they have as an appraisal, I'm
comfortable making a finding that to the extent there is a spread, you
know, an amount over 3.2 million that we're paying because their
demand is 4.7, that would mean we're paying a million and a half in
Page 148
September 25, 2001
damages.
I want you very strongly to go after our excess carrier for the
maximum amount we can get from them because I do think they owe
money on this because, frankly, the only way I'm agreeing to pay 4.7
here is not-- not, insurance company -- as the purchase price of a
piece of land. It's as a settlement of a lawsuit in which one factor is
the price of the land, and they have to help pay for that. That's why
we carry the stinking insurance, and we want them to belly up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm hearing is that we
take -- like, we offer 3.1, and we claim the rest of it is for litigation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's -- somehow the difference
has to be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we do that kind of
wording? Would that be an advantage insurance-wise?
MR. PETTIT: It might be. I -- I understand what you're saying
is that we're -- the -- that only a certain percentage of the 4.5 is aimed
at the property, and the rest is to settle the damages suit. Frankly, I
think the whole thing is to settle a damages suit --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much --
MR. PETTIT: -- and as part of that, we get a piece of property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much excess coverage do
we have?
MR. PETTIT: Total, I don't know off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and that's an important
question. Because if we have -- do we have a million and a half?
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to say I'm sure we do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would think we do.
MR. WEIGEL: I would tend to think that we do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I would think that --
MR. PETTIT: I think we have -- I will tell you what I think that
we have. And, again, I'm going to qualify it, but this is -- I'm
Page 149
September 25, 2001
operating on memory. I think what we have is $3 million, but I think
the way that policy works, as claims are paid, it goes down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And here's the reason why I
might not want to break it down as 3.2 and 1.5, is it might be -- you
know, if we say this is the settlement of a lawsuit for $4.7 million,
then let it be a question of fact of what the actual amount is, because
it might be more than a million and a half, the amount that's actually
lawsuit settlement as opposed to land purchase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll leave that to you and legal
counsel.
MR. PETTIT: And let me add something else to the record.
Let's go back to Commissioner Henning's idea about a cap. Again, as
I said, if we were in private practice, I would say let's try that. I'm
not here to give an advertisement for the opposing law firm, but I've
worked for that law firm and with that law firm ever since I've lived
in the county. I think we can probably say -- safely say that when
they said no counteroffers, that was an honest statement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll add to that my opinion
that they are shysters. They pretty much -- can believe them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that coming from a lawyer?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't even go there. So I'm
going to make a motion to approve the settlement proposal of $4.7
million.
MR. PETTIT: It's actually $4,588,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Don't spend any more than we have to,
Commissioners, four million --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $4,588,000, sorry. I'm on the
wrong line.
MR. PETTIT: And I think I'd like to add in the motion
Commissioner -- to address Commissioner Henning's concern that we
Page 150
September 25, 2001
-- in doing that we are settling a suit for damages in exchange for
which we will acquire the property, the Dolphin Cove property of 5-
plus acres plus any rights relating to docks or submerged lands that
are associated with that property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think that's really critical,
because we become the owners of a piece of property around that
framework which will be up to, at a later point in time in discussion,
as to how that property is utilized.
MR. PETTIT: And I also -- I'm assuming in your motion that
you are giving direction to the county attorney's office to continue to
pursue negotiations and/or other action with respect to the excess
carrier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, to aggressively pursue
them, even to the point of litigation if necessary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have public speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: You do, Mr. Chairman. You have one registered
speaker. And I need to point out budgetarily that this settlement
agreement is not an easy settlement agreement to swallow. And I
will also take as part of that motion that your staff is being directed to
go back and look at some financing options for the board to consider
because in the budget that you've approved to date, you don't have
$4.58 million excess anywhere in there to be able to purchase this
outright. So there are some funding options that you have in -- in
impact fees as well as some general fund combinations and some
other options. And when the settlement agreement is finalized, we'll
hopefully have for you a menu of options that you can select in order
to be able to pay for this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So at this point the motion is to
accept the settlement offer of $4.588 million, and we will have a
settlement agreement in front of us that will include the exchange of
property, the financing terms, etc.
Page 151
September 25, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, yes, please go forward and
draft such a document. Okay? Is that okay with the second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, I did the second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Now I'll have to go to public
speakers before we can call the question. MR. OLLIFF: Edward Fullmer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Unless he wants to waive and talk us
out of it. I said unless you want to waive and talk us out of it.
MR. FULLMER: I don't think so. My name's Edward J.
Fullmer, president of Goodland Civic Association. I want to
commend the board in the motion today. I'd like you to have a 5-0
vote that we had on November 28th when yous came into office. It
has been a different commission in the last 11 months. It's been a
pleasure to deal with Tom, David, Marjorie, Mike, and you fellow
commissioners.
And you will be saving a part of Goodland. And Goodland was
founded in 1513 by Ponce De Leon, and it's written in the Spanish
(inaudible) in Madrid. And it became Naples, and it became
Caxambas, and then it became Olde Marco, and then it became
Marco Island C. The only part of Goodland that's left is where we're
at. So I'd like to have a 5-0 vote, and the people of Goodland thank
you.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your registered speakers,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0.
Page 152
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
thing.
Item # 12B
September 25,2001
You got your 5-0, Ed. Thank you,
Thank you. That was the right
SETTLEMENT IN COLLIER COUNTY V. MARSHALL, ET AL,
CASE No. 99-2009-CA-TB, NOW PENDING IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT (COUNTY'S
PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT CLAIM FOR MILLER
BOULEVARD EXTENSION)- SETTLEMENT OFFER
REJECTED; DIRECTION TO RESUME MEDIATION AND
RETURN WITH PROPOSAL
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Now we move to the next
item under the county attorney, and that is the Collier County versus
Marshall.
MR. PETTIT: Again, Commissioners, good afternoon. Mike
Pettit from the county attorney's office. I had received in the mail
yesterday a letter from the State of Florida on this item with a
proposed version of a settlement agreement. And although it is
essentially identical to Exhibit A to your executive summary, I'd like
to pass it out to each one of you and give a copy to the -- to the clerk
here so that it's in the record because the State did ask me to do that.
In some ways this is a more difficult item than Dolphin Cove,
which was difficult enough. The exhibits that are attached to your
executive summary are two versions of a settlement agreement that
we've been working on, really, since the end of September last year.
They're essentially identical. And the document I just passed out to
you is essentially identical to Exhibit A.
Page 153
September 25, 2001
There really is only one point of disagreement at this point
between the version of the settlement I would recommend and the
version that the state and the Florida Wildlife Federation approved --
and I do know we have a lot of public speakers on this too; I'll try to
keep this as short as I can -- and that is paragraph 2(h), and it's as
simple as this: In paragraph 2(h) as originally discussed, there was
discussion about the county abandoning its interests in Miller
Boulevard and Lynch Boulevard at such time as the state gave us
written notice that they were going to commence construction and
remove paved portions of those roads and turn them into gated roads
at ambient grade, meaning that they would be flush with the sides.
There wouldn't be any way for drain, and water would flow over
them. And some of the pavement, if not most of the pavement,
would be removed.
We have learned through the course of this long process that
there are landowners who quite likely would be landlocked under the
state's version that they would like you to sign. Some of them are
here to speak.
I came up with an alternative, which is B, and it says that rather
than automatically abandoning those interests, at that point in time in
the future -- and I've got to say that could be two years, three years,
five years -- that the state is at the point in the restoration project that
they need to begin work to remove the paved portions of Miller and
Lynch and create secondary roads there that are, as I understand,
going to be gated and so forth, and also subject, obviously, to water
flow, that at that point the state would give us written notice, and we
would simply have a public meeting at which the board would give
good-faith consideration to abandoning its interests.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that point.
Is there a legal way for us to ever consider abandoning access for
property owners? I mean, how could we -- how could we be
Page 154
September 25, 2001
considering abandoning access when there are existing property
owners out there that have to get to homes that they legally own?
MR. PETTIT: Well, let me -- let me say that the reason I came
up with the alternative was my thought is -- or was, we are not -- not
to say no to the state and the wildlife federation about what is an
important project, but by the same token -- fiat out no, but by the
same token, let's see what things are like in four or five years when
they actually are going to do the project because we don't know who
will be landowners left that need those accesses. There may be some.
An~ that's why I think it would be important to have a public
meeting where the board advertised it, and landowners were allowed
to come in and say, "No, don't abandon those interests." The way the
-- the proposal from the state is written now, the abandonment would
occur automatically at the' time the state gave us written notice that
they needed the -- needed the roads.
I have had discussions with Nancy Payton just a little while ago
who came up with a proposal that I don't think you can vote on today;
it's something we can explore. And her idea was, would you agree to
abandon the county's interest in Miller Boulevard south of the access
point to some of these folks' property? Because they come in from
the north of Miller Boulevard and go down, and they have to go
down far enough to get to their property that they enter into this area
that the state had planned to take the pavement out. Whether that's a
workable solution or not, I can't really say today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about emergency
vehicles?
MR. PETTIT: Well, at the point in time that this -- that this
project is completed, it is my understanding that in the south blocks
the state will own all the property. And if you look at the way the
settlement's drafted, they can't give us the notice to -- whether that's
to abandon or to consider abandoning, until they do own that property
Page 155
September 25, 2001
along both those roads. At that point there would be nobody there,
and there would be no need for emergency vehicles, as I understand
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's at that point, but to
abandon it any earlier would be a mistake. And I like your idea about
having it where we bring it up for consideration at that point in time
so we can have a -- a meeting of the community, because who knows
what's going to happen in three to five years or six years or ten years
from now when this thing has to be -- the final consideration has to
be made.
MR. PETTIT: Let me -- let me just say a couple other things.
Just so that every -- it's on the record and it's clear -- and it's in the
executive summary -- there are a couple other pieces to this puzzle.
Under either version of the settlement agreement, we would
eventually lose Miller Boulevard -- what they call Miller Boulevard
Extension, the little dirt road that started this fight in the first place.
Under either version it's going to cost the county 40,000 or
$50,000 to do basic maintenance out there to make the road more
passable for county and emergency vehicles, and that would require
some sort of a budget amendment for transportation, as I understand
it from the transportation operations director. Under either version
what is being allowed over Miller Boulevard Extension is passage for
county and emergency vehicles.
At one point in time, the other parties to the lawsuit, the primary
parties, the state and Florida Wildlife, wanted to us agree to put a
gate there and to monitor the traffic, and I said no. I didn't bring that
back to the board because I didn't think that would be acceptable to
the board based on what I understood from people who are affected
by this.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think the public, as a practical
matter, will continue to have access across Miller Boulevard
Page 156
September 25,2001
Extension until such time as Miller Boulevard is -- the paved portions
are physically removed, under either version of the settlement; but
the settlement does not explicitly say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You say the paved portions.
What about the unpaved portions, like the extension itself?.
MR. PETTIT: The extension itself is going to be entirely owned
at some point by the state. At this point in time there's 18 parcels,
and they own 11.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can they deny us access for
emergency vehicles on that portion?
MR. PETTIT: No. Under these settlement agreements, it is not
until Miller Boulevard, the paved road, is removed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When that's removed then
there's no need for--
MR. PETTIT: Then we're--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The back end.
MR. PETTIT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now. It's starting to come --
MR. PETTIT: That's--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Once they've bought it, once
they own it, once they've paid everybody what they're entitled to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And everyone's gone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and everybody's gone, then
we can talk about it. But-- you know, and I'm willing to say some
language about, you know, let's sit down and talk and be reasonable
people. But, you know, we need to continue to, you know, make sure
that the state understands that we're not going to let them squeeze out
our folks.
MR. PETTIT: I'm -- and I'm not here to plead Nancy's case or
the federation's case. I just will tell you that she left, and she said that
at this point the federation cannot agree to an agreement that says that
Page 157
September 25,2001
we will not automatically abandon upon the written request, and I
think that's the state's position. I just -- you just need to know that.
She told me to say that. And I think she's open -- she's open to other
kinds of compromises.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Was she open to the
compro -- because, you know, the goal here is to end this litigation if
possible.
MR. PETTIT: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is she open to the
compromise -- did she indicate to you-- and you're in a bad position
here to be trying to represent, but has she indicated to you that she's
willing to compromise if we put in this language about being willing
to meet and make a good faith --
MR. PETTIT: No. They're unwilling to accept that at this
point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the only one -- language that
-- what if we said we will abandon after you own all the property?
MR. PETTIT: Well, that's actually what A says. But here's the
fly in the ointment. The south blocks is under-- as I understand it,
they have eminent domain rights now as conferred by the board of
trustees. Some of these property owners don't have property in the
south blocks exactly; they're on the fringes. And to get to their
homes they have to -- or their properties, they have to use Miller
Boulevard to get in and out. That's where the problem is.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, I would add that we've looked
at that settlement A very closely, and we do not want that to be a
vehicle as a trip wire to put the county in potential liability with these
property owners who have a legal right to an access to and from their
properties. Now, if they are purchased out and no longer have
ownership, then, of course, they no longer have an issue, and that's
what we've been looking at very warily all the way through.
Page 158
September 25, 2001
And so we do see, we think, a potential issue or danger, if you
will, if the board goes over-- goes forward with settlement provision
A because by contract you will have set yourself up to automatically
abandon ingress/egress rights that may be legal rights that these
property owners would claim.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other question if I may, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that we have so many
speakers who know much more about this than anybody, frankly,
else. Has this been to mediation?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. Actually, this is-- it went to mediation this
week a year ago. We didn't -- we didn't declare the mediation an
impasse; we declared it adjourned, and we spent this time working on
this agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't understand how
reasonable people can expect you to abandon access to property
where human beings are living legally.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have about nine registered
speakers on this item, so it might --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got to go to registered speakers,
and then we'll come back. Maybe we'll take them-- we'll get one
person at the microphone and one on deck.
MR. OLLIFF: The first speaker is Jeffery Walls followed by
Justo Morera.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're coming up, Mr.
Weigel or somebody, be thinking about what is a way we can
communicate with the state that we -- we want them to take care of
these people; we want them to do the right thing.
MR. PETTIT: Let me -- let me address that. I -- I'm, frankly,
surprised at the position because I thought the compromise I
Page 159
September 25, 2001
proposed was, look, at the time you really need this, we'll look at it
seriously again. And if it's five years from now, I don't know what
all these folks are going to have done with their property at that time.
There may not be anybody left, or there may be just one or two. And
there may be all kinds of reasons to -- other ways to deal with the
problem, because otherwise we're in agreement on every other point.
I can tell you that you could consider doing B, and I can go back and
talk further with the state and the federation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has the state rejected --
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the alternative that we will
talk again in the future?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't get that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they're the ones that have
no money to be able to pay anything, but they want to go to a lawsuit
over this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This just sounds to me like a
miscommunication.
MR. WALLS: My name is Jeff Walls. I live here in Collier
County. I went to Barron Collier High School, actually, and I'm
president of the Sheer (phonetic) Corporation. I employ about 200
people here in the county and I have since 1987.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WALLS: I -- I have a house here in town, and I also own a
permitted legal house that is in the south Belle Meade, which is not
part of the land -- or is not part of the state acquisition. It's not part of
the restoration, nor have they ever offered me any money for my
property, nor have they ever consulted me, asked me, or talked to me
about it.
And the last time I was here at this meeting -- at a county
Page 160
September 25, 2001
commission meeting where this issue, obviously, as you guys know,
has been beat to death for the last ten years, the state told me directly
that we -- the land purchasing agent said, "We have no interest in
your land, Mr. Walls." I had 40 acres that had the house with my
barn, seven cows, and two horses and which-- me and my wife and
three kids leave on Friday after -- you can imagine running 200 guys
how much hair I have left by Friday.
We leave. We go out to my cabin, south Belle Meade. We ride
our horses. We enjoy ourselves. We take care of the property. !
have no exotics on 40 acres of property. We take care of it. We all
take care of each other as neighbors. All we want is a way to come
and go back and forth to our place.
Now, to imagine that they're going to take up Miller Boulevard
from 66th south, our access is at 78th. There are other further--
people down even farther. If you guys give up our access rights,
which is basically the easements, you're basically -- it would be no
different than where you live at your house or if you owned a cabin in
Georgia and somebody come by and said, "You know what? The
county commission just voted to give your property to the state."
That's your -- your deed is in my property that Says that I'm allowed
to go to my house.
Nancy Payton said she's all for access. You're just not going to
be able to drive there in your Lexus. I'm not interested in driving in
my Lexus, okay. I just would like to be able to go down Miller
Boulevard. It's rough now as it is. We don't have a problem with it
being a little rough. We're going out to the woods. But at the same
time, you know, going through to -- it's going to be impassable, and
it's basically like a search-and-destroy thing.
The eminent domain in south blocks is fine. They're doing that.
That's already gone. But at this point our property has never been
approached, and it's actually getting -- I don't really need to say any
Page 161
September 25, 2001
more. I think, you know, since September 11 th we've all lost a little
bit. And, you know, this is just -- you know, that's the place where I
go that's irreplaceable, is all I can say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Justo Morera will be followed by Jeff Walls.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was Jeff Walls.
MR. OLLIFF: Followed by A1 Perkins.
MR. MORERA: Good afternoon. My name is Justo Morera. I
think Jeff pretty much said it all. I got nothing much to say but other
than I would like to ask the commissioners to go forward with this
now. Don't stop. Let's go to court. Let's go wherever we have to go
because we've been -- I mean, our lives is in the limbo. You know,
like he was recommending -- and I'm sure he's got good intentions.
But two years, three years from now, four years from now who's
going to be out there, who's not going to be out there, I mean, that
doesn't make any sense. We -- we want to know what we're going to
be able to do with our land, not five years from now, tomorrow.
I mean, it's been enough. It's been 15 years we've been going
through this. And every time we want to -- I tried to bring electricity
in there, and Florida Power Light (sic) asked me to get a certified
letter from the state stating that they would not remove the system
posts that are in there now. If I don't get that letter from the state,
they will not bring me electricity in there. Now, obviously, I'm not
going to get the letter from the state because we all saw today that
they intended to remove all the roads from south of 66th.
So, you know, like Jeff said, we all have land out there. We all
have it for different things. He has land for his pleasure. I have land
that I could afford when I bought it to make a -- to make a nursery,
you know, for my future and for my kids' future, and it's on the hold.
I can't do nothing with it.
And we've been fixing that road ourselves for the last 15 years,
Page 162
September 25, 2001
and it's hard enough just to get some money now that we can put
some money into the road because we've been putting the money out
of our pockets. We did our own work. We put our own money in
there, MSTU money. There was over a hundred thousand dollars in
there. All of it practically went over for studies with WilsonMiller. I
don't know what kind of studies because I've been there all this time,
and all I've seen them do is put some little flags on the trees. I
haven't seen any equipment and no flying or nothing. What kind of
studies cost 80,000, $90,000?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Didn't we come up with an
accounting on that and you had, like, a hundred thousand dollars in
that account?
MR. MORERA: We had it, yeah, but it all went to
WilsonMiller. What have we got now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm kind of lost on that. I'll
check into it again.
MR. MORERA: I might be wrong, but the last -- can you recall
that for me?
MR. OLLIFF: As I recall, I think the current balance is
somewhere around $80,000 in the MSTU balance account. And, in
fact, the board also, just FYI, on your summary agenda, approved an
ordinance amendment to the Sabal Palm MSTU that allows those
funds to be used for ongoing maintenance as opposed to just initial
construction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And may I also add, too, that
the -- in order to hold the cost down, Joe is donating the fill from his
land for it. You haven't experienced anything until you've driven
down Sabal Palm Road with Joe, and it's nothing but a sand trap from
one end to the other. And not that it should be much more beyond
that. But, I mean, Joe has a beautiful place down there that he
maintains and has a regular nursery, and his land has some real value
Page 163
September 25,2001
to him.
And I kind of hope when the time comes and we start to get the
mitigation funds from the county roads we're going to build, that we
direct it towards the Sabal Palm area and making it continuous with
the Picayune State Forest. And that would help to solve a lot of
problems because we're going to be up against an issue pretty soon.
He's mentioning about the telephone poles. No one knows for sure
which way the water's going to go. The state won't make a
commitment. They can't get the power out there that they need, and
they don't want to pay -- what is it, seventy-some thousand dollars?
MR. MORERA: Seventy-eight thousand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- $78,000 to get the power out
there. They're at a standstill right now because of the uncertainty of
which way the water's going to flow, which way the -- what's going
to happen. So I'm sorry we can't give you something a little more
certain on that, but believe me, we're working every end we can.
Pretty soon you'll be able to do your fill part on it. It's only been,
what, three months since you started this?
MR. MORERA: Yes. And Commissioner Coletta has done a
great job helping us, and he's been out there a couple times already.
And I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so has Nancy Payton.
MR. MORERA: So has Nancy Payton. She went with us one
day too. My concern right now is that I would like to ask the
commissioners to work hard on coming up with a new issue to where
-- if this Miller Road's going to be torn down, where are we going to
have access to a place? And we don't want to wait until that happens.
We need to start looking now and -- you know, so we can have some
kind of assurance as to what -- what's going to happen with our land.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is your property in the targeted
acquisition area?
Page 164
September 25, 2001
MR. MORERA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And are you in the -- I know
you're not in the eminent domain area, but are you in the -- anything
that's -- I mean, have you ever gotten an offer from anybody that's --
MR. MORERA: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in a government agency?
This doesn't make any sense.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll work it out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got seven other speakers,
Commissioners.
MR. MORERA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I make a suggestion?
During the negotiations maybe it's time for a county commissioner to
personally get involved in this to really explain the situation that
we're in, you know, protection of our residents. Or if one of the
commissioners would make a motion to send A1 Perkins up to
Tallahassee, he'll get this settled.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe we'll have one of the
commissioners get involved with it. And Florida Gulf Coast
University has a center for conflict resolution that might be tapped
into, but it's got to get moved on. Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is A1 Perkins followed by Cathy
Myers.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups. People, pay
attention, Commissioners. Nobody's really said what I normally say
and what I'm going to say now. Now, earlier today we had a bunch
of children in here that played baseball, all girls, and that's what it's
all about. Now, the evacuation route from Marco Island and
Goodland is up Miller Boulevard Extension, up Miller over to
Everglades onto Immokalee and from there Disney World or
Page 165
September 25, 2001
anyplace up 27 or even swing around and come back down the east
coast.
Now, I take the position, unlike The Conservancy, unlike the
wildlife federation, unlike the Audubon Society, unlike the Sierra
Club, and unlike the Department of Environmental Protection, I want
to save lives. Apparently they don't care. Make it tough. The roads
in this county stink as it is, and you can't use 951 until you take and
make another artery. And if you take a look at it, you bottleneck it
right at the Immokalee Road. Then you move it either east or west
over towards 75, which all traffic will be backed up, and this dumps
all of this traffic into Lee County.
Now, I want you to just contemplate a nice accident at the
corner of 951 and 41. What then? You can stand back and say as
commissioners, "Gee, I didn't know." You do know. "Oh, what a
shame." Yeah, what a shame. But are you going to do anything
about it? The point that I'm making here, we have the option --
opportunity to save -- and these people are from Goodland, and
they'll back some of this up. Why not make a route to get these
people out of there and Marco Island and all the new development
along 41 ? What about Port of the Islands? Are they just going to go
straight up in the air? What about Everglades? They come off 29.
How much traffic is going to be routed into Immokalee through 29?
But the point is put this road in place. This fight has been going
on for years, and it's time that we -- that means you -- told the State
of Florida, especially Jeb Bush and his cabinet, who has lied to the
people of southern Golden Gate Estates about eminent domain --
willing seller, that's a bunch of crap. I've heard all the lies from all of
the people. And until you take and confront them -- now, if you care
to, make a point to tell Jeb Bush -- and you tell him A1 Perkins says,
because he knows who I am, not that that means a damn thing.
In your executive summary, it refers to no public allowed. What
Page 166
September 25,2001
about the Picayune State Forest that you people are paying through
the nose? You don't know about that? Oh, come on out and go
horseback riding, go canoeing, go walking, go hiking, camp out, and
all the rest of this stuff, but you're not going to let us use the land.
And as far as the lawsuits go, it's a guaranteed fact. I've been at
this ten years. You've taken eight years of my life. Do you think my
life for eight years is worthless? You'll find out. And along with
that, my property. And I'm going to disclose. I had an offer from the
State of Florida, and they offered me $20,000 less than Pam Mac'Kie
put on her statement stating what her house was worth, and this is for
150 acres, uplands, pine trees, cabbage palms, palmettos, beautiful
dirt, beautiful dirt.
And I'm going to tell you again, it's all part of the record, I had
backing to the tune of $30 million to put in a training track for my
racehorses and other people's racehorses, and I wanted to hire every
handicapped person in this community. Put these kids to work. Put
the kids from the schools, the after-- the at-risk kids. Maybe we can
turn this thing around without having to blow up the twin centers.
Please do the right thing. This thing stinks. If you've read it real
good, you know exactly what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is --
MR. PERKINS: I provided you this so you can see what the
numbers are. And this is not my information. Thank you.
Next speaker is Cathy Myers followed by Emilio
MR. OLLIFF:
Baez.
MS. MYERS:
My name is Cathy Myers. I have 5 acres off of
Sabal Palm Road. My husband built a house out there for me, my
kids. He wanted us to live out there, and if you guys close that all off
out there, there's no way nobody can get out there. And if the roads
were fixed right maybe 7 1/2 years ago, he might be still here. But
Page 167
September 25, 2001
because there was no way of getting him out, nobody would help
him, you know, he died out there. And I think it would be really
terrible if somebody else's loved one would be out there one day and
can't get through because all the roads were all closed off because
you guys decided to flood everybody out, and they were stranded out
there. I mean, how would you feel if it was yours?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not going to flood you
out. We have no control over the flooding. We've got limited control
over the roads. That's what we're trying to do here.
MS. MYERS: But you plan on tearing the roads down. I mean,
two years ago you guys promised me Sabal Palm Road Extension
was going to go through all the way, and it still hasn't went through
all the way. Now you guys are planning on tearing it up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know what --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened about that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I never heard about it.
MS. MYERS: I mean, I was told twice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By this commission?
MS. MYERS: By this board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've read all the records, and
I've never seen --
MS. MYERS: By this board. It came through twice. You guys
said --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She said two years ago.
MS. MYERS: Two years ago it happened, and a year before
that they promised me that it would go through, and both times it
never went through. You guys all lied, as usual.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you make that promise?
MS. MYERS: I mean, it was. I mean, you guys --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did the history. I haven't
found anything about it.
Page 168
September 25,2001
MS. MYERS: Well, it should be on record because it was there
that they promised me. One lady chased me out the hall and told me
it passed. And it was supposed to pass twice, and it didn't.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm not going to dispute you,
ma'am. I have never seen a record on that. The fact that you've
pointed out to me, then we could follow through on it, but I have no
knowledge at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did a tremendous amount of
research, and I've never seen it.
MS. MYERS: Well, it's on record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could you provide that for us?
MS. MYERS: IfI looked for it, I probably could find it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would help out a lot.
MS. MYERS: And there's -- you know, I got-- my grandkids
love to go out there, and you know, there's a lot of people that love to
go out there and ride their four-wheelers and have a good time. And
if you guys tear those roads up, there's no way they can get to it.
That's all I got to say about it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Emilio Baez followed by
Edward Fullmer.
MR. BAEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Emilio Baez. I own
95 acres in the Belle Meade. We were always told that they were
never going to buy us out, that it was a willing seller, we were in the
land owner request zone. And the reason that I'm up here standing
and speaking to you-all is the only way that we get to our property is
through Miller Boulevard. And on 78th connects the Sabal Palm
Road Extension.
One of the main reasons I want to speak is you're talking about
signing over and letting them rip 130 miles of road. How much does
that cost? You-all know how much 6 miles of road costs, because
Page 169
September 25, 2001
we're spending money all over. And don't you think that if you do
sign over one day, that there's a value to that, 130 miles of road?
What's underneath there? Limerock that you-all have to purchase
that the taxpayers is going to lose by signing this all over.
And plus, you know, they've said they're going to give us Sabal
Palm. We're going to have Sabal Palm Road. I have the documents.
I'll be glad to give you the documents that we have had since Sabal
Palm Association has been -- since 1986. And I think that you-all
should just go ahead and go to court, fight them. I mean, if you-all
didn't think that you-all could win this, why start something that you
know you couldn't finish? Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question just so that I
understand a little bit about this? It -- the Sabal Palm area can only
be accessed through Miller Boulevard--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. What it is, is Sabal Palm
comes off 951. The first mile and a quarter or so --
MR. BAEZ: It goes -- well, the first mile is paved, and then the
next 3 -- a total of 4 1/2 is limerock, the remainder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then it turns to sand for
about 5, 6 miles?
MR. BAEZ: Well, it turns to a small area, like, about, oh, a half
mile. Then it turns -- you were there in the drier time, but now in the
wet time, you can't get across. So there's an area that's called -- it's
the lowland, and there's a lot of water there, so you can't get to our
property in the summertime.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to come from
Miller Boulevard to get to the other end of Sabal Palm Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- but this isn't the area
that they're going to flood. It's the southern part; right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. They're going to be
Page 170
September 25, 2001
flooding. They don't know for sure where the water's going to go, but
they're planning to flood an area that will probably affect these
people for a little bit longer than the summertime, from what I
understand.
MR. BAEZ: Right. It'll be 3 -- some areas 3 inches 120 to 180
days and then different --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they actually -- and correct
me if I'm wrong on this -- do not know for sure which way the water's
going to go yet.
MR. BAEZ: Correct. I had talked to Sonya Dernwatcher
(phonetic), and like she told me, they don't -- they can't make the
water go one area or this way or that way. And they still haven't
come up with a final draft through Big Cypress Basin Board. I had
talked to Clarence Tears, and they still hadn't come up with all the
stuff. And, you know, it's like we've been -- they tell us we're going
to get this, and we're going to get that. And if they really want this
property so bad and it's really important to do a hundred percent
restoration, then they should get off their money, and they should
write us a check, and we'll be glad to leave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put their money where their
mouth is.
MR. BAEZ: Put their money where their mouth is, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then the people that aren't --
that are still living on Sabal Palm but aren't in this area want to make
sure that they have access to their homes by the road, right, being
improved? Is that what I understand also?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They want to make sure that if
Miller Boulevard is taken away from them, that Sabal Palm Road will
be made as a through road. It's a reasonable request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I -- that's -- to me it
makes perfectly good sense, but I'm just trying to make sure that I
Page 171
September 25,2001
understand this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's expensive. You're talking
millions and millions and millions of dollars. So it might be cheaper
in the end to come up with a settlement plan where you use the road
-- the money from the road mitigation to buy these people out at a
very fair price.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. I'm seeing a nod from
Emilio. Okay.
MR. BAEZ: Thank you very much, and I hope you-all do the
best thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
brought up a good point, is that is a real asset there with the road out
there in southern -- south blocks. When we deed those over and they
start digging them up, we should claim that material of the road, the
limerock and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, Commissioner
Henning. And, in fact, I've been working on that. I'd like to use the
funds we get from that to buy access to other areas in the wilderness
out there and controlled access for people to be able to enjoy the
lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Put a superhighway out there.
Well, I wasn't quite thinking of
that, but if we do, we're going to name it after A1 Perkins.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Edward Fullmer followed by
-- your last registered speaker will be Vince Doerr.
MR. FULLMER: Edward J. Fullmer, president Goodland Civic
Association. I wasn't ready to speak on this subject today. Somehow
we got left out of the loop. We represent the 550 people who live on
Goodland during the winter -- and, of course, 90 during the summer
-- but also the 15,000 that's on Marco Island, the 500 that live in
Page 172
September 25, 2001
Everglades City and Copeland.
Miller extension, four years ago when I became an officer in this
organization, was told that that's our evacuation route. In talking to
the former commissioners, we were supposed to be in the loop on any
negotiations. We haven't had a word of it until I come in here today.
And it might be part my fault, but that's our evacuation route for
Marco Island, for Goodland, for Everglades City, for Port of the
Isles. That road was supposed to, by the former commissioners, be
paved all the way to 41. But if we keep listening to the wildlife and
the Sierra Club and the Save the Manatees and all the rest of these
people trying to save animals, what about the 20,000 to 50,000
people that are on Marco Island and down southern Florida on the
edge of the Everglades?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You deserve an answer, and I
can give it to you. I've worked very, very closely with emergency
management, and I've been taking a number of courses. To do what
you're suggesting would place you people in greater jeopardy than
anything else would. It's going to go across lowlands that are going to
flood before anything else. People get in that back country; they get
flooded out, some cars on the road; and pretty soon you lost
everyone.
What you're going to have to do, you're going to have to
evacuate at an earlier time than just before the event hits. And there's
arrangements being made for that now to make sure that you get off
the island and that you start off in the right direction. But as far as an
alternative with people taking Miller Boulevard and trying to use that
as an evacuation route, under no circumstances -- I'll make sure
there's police cars there to stop anybody from trying that because I'm
not going to let them die out there and die by the thousands. And
that's what they'll do.
MR. FULLMER: Well, that's what we don't want. We're
Page 173
September 25,2001
getting a new bridge into Marco in 2004 so we can have four lanes
leaving Marco. But when you get up onto 75, you're still going to be
crowded because you still only have two lanes up there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it, sir, and that's why
you're going to evacuate much earlier than you ever have before.
MR. FULLMER: And I've called the emergency management,
Ken --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ken Pineau.
MR. FULLMER: -- Pinella (sic), three times in the last years to
have a meeting with us in Goodland. I had no response whatsoever.
Nobody is contacting us to let us know what's going on, and I don't
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not Ken Pineau. But I
tell you what, if you'll have your commissioner, Donna Fiala, arrange
for that meeting for you, I'm sure you'll get a first-class meeting for
everyone in Goodland.
MR. FULLMER: Well, I'd like to go on record asking
Commissioner Fiala to make arrangements for us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll have him give you a call, and
we'll set it up for one of your first meetings in the fall for your civic
association. Okay?
MR. FULLMER: Okay. The other thing is we're also going
through the thing that we have a letter coming to you about, about the
federal government wanting to take over 41 over to Miami.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can help you with that one
too. That's an issue -- we've got a proclamation coming out, but for
the most part the other players have picked up the ball and went
home. There was too much opposition out there, and they're not
planning to do it now. But we've still got a proclamation coming up,
I believe it's the next meeting, to give one more parting shot as they
go over the top of the hill.
Page 174
September 25, 2001
MR. FULLMER: One last parting thing. God gave us the
Everglades, and everybody should be able to use it and not just
federal employees and park employees, and that's what they do.
They're chasing all the four-wheelers out of there, but they go in
there. They bring the Tallahassee people down, because I was one
there -- they cooked for them when they came down, and we ran
them all through Fakahatchee Strand on four-wheelers for them to
have a good day, but nobody else from the public's allowed in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you're saying, you're
in favor of them increasing the panther preserve tenfold? That was
a --
MR. FULLMER: No. I don't think we ought to give up 20,000
people for 65 panthers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you.
MR. FULLMER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Vince Doerr.
MR. DOERR: Vince Doerr, once again. I can't believe I'm up
here ten years later. That's when George Archibald and I started this,
and I think Dave was around then. And I do want to thank David
Weigel and Mike for putting this package together, and I know it
took a lot of time and work and ups and downs. I tried to assist them
as best I could with a lot of the old files I had and stuff that I loaned
David and them. But ten years, we're really at the same place. I
mean, I was sitting back there just thinking, you know, ten years ago,
and we're still in the same place.
I'm speaking for a lot of people today that can't be here, friends
of mine and stuff. I wanted to mention I hope this doesn't lead to an
adverse condemnation situation. The things that I've heard today
here and in the hallway and stuff, you know, with this packet, it's
good and it's not so good. We all know that, the A and the B section
Page 175
September 25,2001
and all that. Like Mike and David were saying, there's good points
and bad points, I guess, on both.
My concern is, as mentioned, emergency vehicles and this, that,
and the other, fix it up, dress it up. So far, unless I missed something
in the whole packet, it doesn't say public. But I was telling
Commissioner Coletta out there that when county funds is used, then
the public will be able to use it. But it doesn't really say this in here,
but I guess it's assumed that the public can follow behind or use it as
the trucks do.
I want to remind everybody that a gated situation like you
mentioned, I'm not going to say that's a joke, but it didn't work on
Scenic Drive. I don't think you was around here then, but it got drug
out, drug out. It didn't work. I'd like to know how many
commissioners ever really been -- outside of Coletta -- to south
blocks, on Miller Road, dry time, wet time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't.
MR. DOERR: Years ago I took some of the commissioners out,
and we went -- I don't think -- David, you didn't go. We went out --
we had a pretty good driver, Tim Constantine -- in a big van, and this
was dry time. And we drove Miller. We looked at it, talked about it,
that was the question, and also Scenic Drive and the gated deal at
each end, 11-mile stretch of road there. And you look at it different
when you see it. Dry time, you went. Now if you go back, like he
said, in the wet time, it's a world of difference, and that's true.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's heaven. It's heaven on earth.
MR. DOERR: Yeah. You can say that. To me it's a normal
place, but, I mean, it is nice. And let me remind everybody, I said ten
years ago -- I want to mention too, I was fire chief for Ochopee Fire
Control twenty-something years and retired, three, four years ago. I
said then jokingly-- now, boy, it's really serious -- that, people, is
Page 176
September 25, 2001
Naples' last playground, the largest state park in Collier County. This
is where you're going to take your sons to ride and everything and
fish and everything. I keep telling David this because he has his
boys. And if that's all blocked off, locked off, and you can't get in
there, that's a shame.
And I know from living in the Big Cypress -- and I won't brag
on Big Cypress, but when federal or state buys land and let the people
use it, there's less griping about the tax money used. We all know
that. So I -- I'm not married. I don't have no children, but I meet a lot
of people out there. And I don't mean yahoos and rednecks. I mean
people -- sensible families with buggies and everything.
And I'm out at the end. I'm at 126. Lynch is 128. It goes to
132, but you have to go near what they call the Famous T down there.
But over my way 128 is Lynch, and I'm at 126, and Bernie Noble
(phonetic) has 20 acres. They couldn't be here today. They got a
nice place out there. Sometime when Commissioner Coletta's in the
area, I'm going to drag you over there and show you. And, you
know, we don't want to see the road tore out. I'm 1 inch out of-- I'm
west of the south blocks. But if that road's tore out, that's how I get
to my property, like mentioned. But, you know, you're talking about
78th is Sabal Palm Road, but I'm way at the other end.
I don't see why -- and I'm no master planner -- why -- at one
time they talked about Miller, Lynch, Berson (phonetic), Patterson is
not left. Tear out any road you want when you buy both sides of
those little dirt roads. When you buy both sides of them, tear it out.
Nobody cares. They don't.
You-all referring to the fill, you better act quick because the fill
that's scraped up, if I'm not wrong, is going to be every block for the
canal at the end of every road. You'll be able to drive across it,
literally speaking. They're going to block them, not dams, weirs,
whatever you want to call them. So I don't know about how -- if the
Page 177
September 25, 2001
fill can leave. I do know -- Commissioner Coletta, I mentioned to
you -- that there's piles and piles that George Archibald sold and
hauled out of there -- Dave, you remember that -- at one time. That
fill could be used to help dress up Miller extension, save you a little
money for a base, you know, and then maybe top it off. So I wanted
you-all to keep that in mind.
I got a lot to go over, but generally it's the same old thing, and
I just hope that we can move on with it and make some good sensible
thing, even if it's a thing for four years, but still come back with
another meeting -- not sign everything today -- in four years. Or 45
days -- 30 days the county fixes it up, 45 days they write a notice, the
road could be told to take out (sic), and I don't want to see that.
I mean, I don't know how you-all read this, but that's the way I
read it. It says that if we make an agreement, that when they say it
comes out -- go ahead, county, fix it up. But when they say it comes
out -- so 30 days it takes you to fix it up, and 30 days later they could
say, okay, we got all the -- what was it, Dave, contiguous -- all the
lands touching Miller, Lynch, we've got them; now you've got them
pulled out. I don't want to see that. I want to see us come back, I
think -- like we said, Jim, come back for another major meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your
input. Any other speakers, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That concludes the speakers.
Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: Just a couple other points. As part of what's in
front of you, there's still another landowner, the Miccosukee Indian
tribe. And they're willing to pretty much do whatever we want at this
point if we're willing to waive the $3200 lien. And what that -- all
that would do is it would give us access rights across their property.
What we would then end up doing is we would settle the lawsuit
Page 178
September 25,2001
against them, and we would have that access rights for as long as we
had access rights to the rest of the Miller Boulevard Extension.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good deal.
MR. PETTIT: So, I mean, I don't have a document to put in
front of you today. This is what their attorneys and I have discussed.
I mean, if you want to go ahead and proceed with that part of this, we
can do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you need a motion or just
direction?
MR. PETTIT: I think just --
MR. WEIGEL: We would like a motion on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion --
MR. PETTIT: And I--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. PETTIT: -- think we need a motion -- if the board's
decision is to reject settlement A, we need to know that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have a motion that we'll make a
settlement with the Miccosukee Indian tribe by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That part's taken care of. Now
it gets down to A or B or--
MR. PETTIT: Or it could be C. I mean, I -- there's been a
suggestion that a commissioner may want to meet with the state.
That may not be a bad idea. I think our office needs direction as to
what to do with the pending litigation. And although we seem far
afield from that, that simply is litigation to establish what we believe
we already have, which is a prescriptive easement over Miller
Boulevard Extension. And we can file a motion -- we have filed a
motion for summary judgment. It just has never been heard because
Page 179
September 25, 2001
of these settlement discussions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So let me see if I understand
where we are right now. We're looking at a bunch of different
factors. We want to assure that we -- these roads remain totally
available to the residents out there and emergency vehicles until that
point in time that the residents no longer need access to be able to
reach their property from where they are.
We -- we're also looking at the -- repairing the roads where
they're kept at grade, patching them up, no culverts, restoring them to
usable condition so it can be used. We're looking not only for
emergency vehicles, but for the public to be able to use it also. And I
know this is contrary to what the wildlife federation and probably the
state's looking for, but I really can't accept much less than this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- if you're counting, I
agree with everything you said except for spending a lot of money on
improving the roads because I think they are eventually going to go;
right? I think they should--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got some ideas I figure can
save us some money as far as the roads go, and I'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'd support keeping
them -- absolutely support keeping them safe for emergency vehicles.
But I think if you're going to go out there, you need to go in a four-
wheel drive and expect it to be a rough ride.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And as far as a commissioner
going before the state to appeal our case, I'm more than happy to do it
personally if there is some -- if you see where I might be of some
benefit in the process. I don't want to go just to be filling a seat. I
want to know that I'm going to be able to say something and be able
to be listened to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would it be -- just on that same
point, I mean, it sounds like we're going the same place. I wonder if
Page 180
September 25, 2001
we would reject the offer and request that we reestablish the
mediation and have Commissioner Coletta there and see one more
time if we could come to an actual settlement with a mediator.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As long as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that part of the motion
then.
MR. PETTIT: We have no problem with that. I mean, it may
be that we're at a point -- we never reached impasse in the mediation.
It may be that we should reconvene it. Judge Miller is -- was the
mediator, and she does a good job. And we could reconvene the
mediation if the parties are inclined. I mean, I think-- since we never
reached impasse, unless they tell us we're at impasse now, I think we
all have to come back. And that's certainly something we can
explore.
I do want you to be aware of something that Nancy Payton gave
to me that I had not seen, and it's entitled "Picayune Strand State
Forest Post Restoration Road Plan - Final Draft." And it states Miller
Boulevard, being a secondary road in this plan, that the road would
be gated at ambient grade and would use low water crossings and
geoweb to stabilize the roadbed; and the main purpose would be for
management access but include other permitted uses such as hunting
and landowner access. I've never seen this before, and I don't know
what is meant by that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, they're talking
about the existence of Miller Boulevard into the distant future.
MR. PETTIT: This is for the future. And, as I understand it, I
still believe that Miller Boulevard, not the extension, not the dirt road
-- the idea would be that they would remove the pavement but would
maintain the roadbed and stabilize it with this geoweb product, which
is a -- I'm not an engineer, but it's kind of a webbing that they can use
to stabilize.
Page 181
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same thing they have at
Barefoot Beach, the state park.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. And the reference to gated would suggest
to me that there would be times when the gates would be down and
people couldn't use it, so I don't know how landowners would get
access. I don't know the answer to any of those questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They usually double lock them.
They got all sorts of ways of doing it.
MR. PETTIT: If the board would like -- Ms. Payton gave me
enough of these -- I can give you each one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's fine. You know, I've listened to
all of this, but I think there's unanimous consent on this board. We
are not going to abandon people out there. We are not going to say
we're going to sign or agree to anything that says certain people
which happen to be outside of the line don't have access to their
property. That's where I see this board coming from. That's not
acceptable to us.
We want Emergency Management Services to be able to get
down those roads to such a point in time that if it's all going to be
abandoned and the people there are taken care of, fine. But I don't
see either one of the stated agreements here, A or B, fulfilling what
this board wants. So we've got to craft something a little different, in
my opinion, Mr. Pettit, that includes those. And then how we
negotiate, who we see, what does that proposal by Florida wildlife
mean, has there been public meetings and all this stuff on it, you
know, that has to go forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we
reject the settlement offers and that we direct the county attorney --
and request Commissioner Coletta to attend on behalf of the county --
to ask -- what do you call it, reestablishing, call back into?
Page 182
September 25, 2001
MR. PETTIT: Resume the mediation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. -- to resume the mediation
and make an effort at coming forward with a proposal that we will
hear at the earliest possible date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that and with
consideration of trying to get the -- somebody from the governor's
cabinet there so they --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least an aide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't hear that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Get someone from the governor's
cabinet involved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't have to holler.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I just want to make sure your
eardrums are open.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
That's just a suggestion.
It is a good one, though.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. It's a suggestion. All right.
Does that give you sufficient direction?
MR. PETTIT: I think it does. I will say for the record that I will
work with counsel for federation and the state, but it may be
necessary for me to proceed forward with the litigation
simultaneously with this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have to -- we don't have to --
do we have to vote on anything here?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not at this point.
MR. PETTIT: I understand my direction is to arrange this
mediation as quickly as we can and try to do it that way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pettit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, if you
have any problems with the governor's staff, you've got a friend in
Bruce Saunders. Maybe he could--
Page 183
September 25,2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not only that, but you're going
to -- wait until you see what I volunteer you for next. That's okay,
Mr. Henning. I'm glad you brought --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put it on my answering
machine at home.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
hardworking commissioners.
of the audience, for participating in this.
our legal department.
Oh, I like to see a couple of
Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, members
I believe that takes care of
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
And now we move on to communications from us or from Mr.
Olliff, communications from somebody. Other-- future agendas,
anything?
Staff and general communications is where we are, if I
understand it right. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: I have a couple of items, Mr. Chairman. One,
the confirmation that the joint Lee/Collier County meeting on
October 15th, they've asked that we submit to them any agenda items
that we might be interested in having on the agenda. Obviously, we'll
want to put the legislative delegation items that we have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Gentlemen, as you leave the room,
please -- we're still in session.
MR. OLLIFF: The second item would probably be an update.
The last time we were together we discussed the interconnected
beach parking lots up at Barefoot Beach and Bonita Beach, and we'd
probably want to provide the board a little update on that and,
frankly, the reasons why they can't be connected at this point without
Page 184
September 25, 2001
some other legal actions.
And then an update from our perspective is probably needed on
transportation interconnections for both Livingston Road and 951.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the CAT system
too?
MR. OLLIFF: We provided information to the board by way of
memo on that, and you may want to look at that first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I have. And Bonita's
come through, right, basically? The City of Bonita is coming up with
the money?
MR. OLLIFF: No. Basically a decision was rendered between
Bonita and Lee County not to provide regular service but on-call
service to residents in Bonita. And the City of Bonita seems to be
satisfied that that addresses their public transportation needs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What it doesn't address is
Collier County residents' needs to get to Lee County.
MR. OLLIFF: And we've provided you at least a cost estimate
on what it would cost to subsidize. But, frankly, it's our
recommendation that we don't put local money into our own CAT
system.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. And under these budget
constraints that we're going to be following or that's going to happen
to us, I don't think we can go there as much as we might like to.
MR. OLLIFF: Those are the items that we're going to propose.
If there are some things the commissioners would like to see on that
agenda, by all means get it -- get ahold of my office, probably before
the end of the week, and let us know that so that we can forward any
suggestions up to the Lee County commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you mentioned our legislative
agenda be a part of that meeting -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
Page 185
September 25,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and that also, Commissioners, in my
judgment, be inclusive of how we'd use lobbyists from the areas to
work on specific legislative items.
MR. OLLIFF: I have two other brief items. One is we've gotten
a request from the Collier County Public School Board to consider
amending our Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Committee to
provide representation from the school board on that committee. And
before we spent the time to draft any sort of an ordinance amendment
or resolution amendment for that committee, I wanted to bring that
back to the board and get at least some -- some judgment on the part
of the board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Tom, for bringing that
forward. And I apologize to Chairman Goodnight, who I have not
been able to get back to on this, but I knew you were going to bring it
to this board. What we really need to do is give staff direction if it is
the desire of this board to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was an over -- it was an
undersight or oversight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think you could get
them to give us $250,000? We give them nurses, and they want to
give us a staff member. Never mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's a--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you've got sufficient staff
direction that says that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so, if you could
interpret what we just said.
MR. OLLIFF: I think I can. The last item is just an
announcement that this will be the first meeting that we will be able
to broadcast in Immokalee through the school system's channel and
Page 186
September 25, 2001
broadcast capabilities in Immokalee. And it will probably either be
on the 29th or the 30th, but we'll be making some public
announcements in that community about that. And, frankly, it's
because of Commissioner Coletta just pushing me relentlessly that
we've been able to get that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about Everglades City,
Commissioner? You going to go there next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's already well under way.
There have been contacts going down there with the rebuilt hardware
from Pelican Bay to upgrade their services. I don't know what
Pelican Bay's ending up with, but Everglades City is very happy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Channel 54 down there too.
You are so clever.
And so they'll be having
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all I had.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anything from our county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the one that I would like the
board's acquiescence, endorsement, whatever's appropriate. The
reason I would be missing the appeal meeting on Friday is that there
is a mediation on Barefoot Beach, which is the Ricky Stoeffer
(phonetic), Paul Harvey property. And since I had some initial
conversations with them, I was asked to participate in that. And if
you agree with that, that's where I will be on Friday at 10 a.m.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. I don't have a problem with that
as long as that's moving forward. Everybody wants it to happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got to try.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You've been asked to participate, fine.
Page 187
September 25,2001
If they get mad at somebody, better you than me.
Commissioner -- who is that guy at the end? Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make a comment.
The last meeting that we had we were under extreme duress because
of the situation at the World Trade Center, and we did not end up on
a pretty note like we normally do, even though we shook hands when
it was all over. And I want to take back a couple of things. And one
is telling Donna that we ought to level East Naples and turn it into a
recharge area. I didn't quite mean it the way it sounded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other one is I want--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I was thinking about that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was on next month's
agenda.
Seriously, the legislative agenda we came up with, I'd like to go
on record at this point that I'm totally supportive of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. That's much
appreciated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate all the hard work
you've been doing putting it all --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we thoroughly understand your
point of view, and I think there's an appropriate time for that
discussion. I really do.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I would just like to
thank each and every one of you for preserving Goodland and the
character. Pam, I wish I would have been the first one to give a
motion, but bless your heart. You led us there and --
Page 188
September 25, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I should have let you do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. You know what?
It's -- what's most important is that it's done, and we've preserved that
now from being taken over. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Bear with me. I've only got
three items, but I think you need to be updated. Number one, I am
your representative to CREW. Commissioner Mac'Kie and I share
that. They met last week. They approved their budget with a 6
percent raise for staff. They endorsed the long range plan to -- that'll
take them forward. And they have entered into a first discussion with
the Carlson Nature Center regarding a program alliance, and they're
going to have a subcommittee that's going to get together and work
on those. And the fall trustee's meeting is Thursday, at 9:30 a.m. --
and I have the date here and maybe it's this Thursday -- at, it looks,
like Transunion (phonetic). So just a little update that that's where
they are.
Number two, Emergency Management Services, the Southwest
Regional Planning Council discussed this on their agenda last week,
and the administrators from both counties and cities within our region
were brought together to an integration of all of these services to help
each other in time of any kind of need so that everybody will have a
little higher comfort level that no one county or city, under any kind
of circumstances, was subjected to a problem.
The other is some really good news. We haven't talked a lot
about it, but we're going to have a water festival, a water festival that
will be now specific dates, May 9, 10, and 11. And the host facility
will be International College. We will both have scientists coming
for a program beginning 9, 10, and 11, a two-day program. We will
have the public involvement through all kinds of exhibits and
participation where they can find out how to better conserve water.
Page 189
September 25,2001
Their theme is "every drop counts." Their goal is a 10 percent
reduction of water usage.
We have the school system on board with this. And it's so
exciting. High schoolers, middle schoolers, grade schoolers all will
be doing the PSAs and the posters and creating all of this information
for it. Big Cypress Basin is providing the coordinator. We will be
coming back to you with a request for a matching fund of a few
dollars for the -- the marketing plan and promotion and all those
things around that date.
All the communities have been involved in this, and I mean
communities within our communities. The Economic Development
Council, CBIA, Chamber of Commerce, Conservancy, the basin,
South Florida Water Management District, the Regional Planning
Council, every group that you can think of is coming together in this
committee working to make this festival. We now have a Web site.
It's internationalwaterfestival.com. So we're going out here and
saying we're going to do everything we can. And this is our first
festival, and they want to grow it each year.
And I'm really proud of the creative effort by a few people about
six months ago that came to me and said, "Commissioner, why can't
we do something in this area?" And I said, "Well, I'll get you" -- and
they said, "No, no. We'll give you the ideas. We don't want any
recognition for this. We just want you to go make it happen." And
that's exactly what I did. I started with a staff and got all these other
people together. And so we've been working on this now for about
six months, and now it's time to come back and tell you how
successful we are in getting this thing under way.
So I hope that as you go out into the community and everything,
you're going to hear this from November on. There's going to be
events and announcements. And it will all cap on May 10th with a
final banquet or some sort of thing where we'll try to get a really
Page 190
September 25, 2001
recognized person from the scientific community that can explain
things not in scientific jargon but everything that everybody
understands or some -- some personality here who will help us
celebrate that, and that's where everybody comes together. So that's
where we are. Water festival, the year 2002, the first for Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I know we felt a lot of emotion in
the last couple of weeks. I think we all hung together, and
everything's going great. And I'm really pleased with what we're
doing, and I thank you all again. And as I said every place I've been
and to close the meeting, God Bless America. We stand adjourned.
***** 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 #16Al
RESOLUTION 2001-367, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
STRAND REPLAT 1-A"
Item # 16A2
RESOLUTION 2001-368, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
STRAND
Page 191
September 25, 2001
Item #16A3
PARTICIPATION AS A PRIMARY SPONSOR IN THE 2ND
ANNUAL PROMISED LANDS SECTION OF THE FLORIDA
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
SYMPOSIUM ENTITLED SMART GROWTH TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2001, AT THE BONITA SPRINGS ELKS CLUB
FROM 8 A.M. TO 12:30 P.M.- AT A COST OF $500
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON LAKES UNIT NO. 3B"
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 120" - SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A6
CLEARING AND FILLING FOR 30 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN
LEAWOOD LAKES SUBDIVISION- SUBJECT TO
VEGETATION AND SITE FILLING PERMIT AND POSTING OF
A $13,000 REVEGETATION SECURITY BOND
Item # 16A7
Page 192
September 25, 2001
FINAL PLAT OF "HABITAT VILLAGE"- SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A8
AGREEMENT WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (EDC) TO EXECUTE
CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC
OF UP TO $400,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
Item #16A9
SATISFACTION OF LIEN RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V.
RONNIE PARKS; ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BID
ON BEHALF OF COUNTY AT FORECLOSURE (CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN) SALE SCHEDULE FOR OCTOBER 2,
2001; AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16A 10
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH RWA, INC. TO INCLUDE BOTH THE
RURAL FRINGE AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE
EASTERN LANDS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE
DURATION OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Page 193
September 25, 2001
Item #16Al 1
AMENDMENT TO THE 2001 TOURISM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE TOURISM
ALLIANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING
ADVERTISING/PROMOTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS
Item # 16B 1
BID #01-3258, "VANDERBILT DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE"- AWARDED TO COMMERCIAL
LAND MAINTENANCE, INC.
Item # 16B2
BID #01-3270, "SR 90- U.S. 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION, PHASE B"- AWARDED
TO EVANS HOLDINGS, LLC, D/B/A LANDSCAPE FLORIDA
Item #16B3
CONTRACT C-12261 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPPING IN THE BELLE MEADE AGRICULTURAL AREA
Item # 16B4
RESOLUTION 2001-369, REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT FROM
THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO TWENTY-FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) IN THE ORANGETREE
Page 194
September 25, 2001
SUBDIVISION AND STAFF TO ERECT THE APPROPRIATE
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS
Item #16B5
RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE LA PLAYA HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
Item # 16B6
RFP #01-3253, "INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
REPAIR OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS"- AWARDED TO E.B.
SIMMONDS ELECTRIC, MID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC AND
DESIGNED TRAFFIC INSTALLATION
Item # 16B7 - Added
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND APAC-
FLORIDA, INC. TO ALLOW PIPE REPLACEMENT AND
REPAIR ON GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
Item # 16B8 - Added
RESOLUTION 2001-370, AUTHORIZING FEE SIMPLE
INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PHASE TWO
LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT FROM GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY TO NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, CIE NO. 52
Page 195
September 25,2001
Item # 16C 1
RESOLUTION 2001-371, SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2000-
345, AND ESTABLISHING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR
USE OF COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITIES BY
ADJUSTING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, TRANSFER STATION
FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND
COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES FOR FY 2001/2002
Item # 16C2
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HAZEN & SAWYER, P.C., FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECTS 73031, 73067, 73077,
AND 73950
Item # 16C3
TOURISM AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR
DOCTORS PASS INLET MONITORING AND SOUTH GORDON
DRIVE T-GROIN MONITORING
Item #16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT CAPACITY AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) IN ADVANCE OF PEAK
SEASON 2002
Page 196
September 25, 2001
Item # 16C5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER/SEWER DISTRICT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
LOAN PROCEEDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 5-MGD
EXPANSION, PROJECT #73031
Item # 16C6 - Added
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR BEACH CLEANING RELATED
TO TROPICAL STORM GABRIELLE
Item #16D 1
ACCEPTANCE OF LIBRARY CURRENT YEAR ACTION PLAN
AND APPROVAL OF LIBRARY STATE AID APPLICATION
Item # 16D2 - moved to Item # 1 OB
Item #16E 1
COUNTY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE PAY PLAN TO
INCLUDE A PAY GRADE 36
Item # 16E2
BID 00-3137 FOR THE ANNUAL AGREEMENTS FOR
PREPARATION AND DELIVERY OF TITLE COMMITMENTS
TO INCLUDE TWO ADDITIONAL FIRMS: FIRST TITLE AND
Page 197
September 25, 2001
ABSTRACT, INC., AND ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE
FUND, INC.
Item # 16E3
PURCHASE OF ALL LINES AGGREGATE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRAM- AS INDICATED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES FUND 490 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND RESERVES
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2001-372, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
Item # 16F3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
DEPARTMENT FUND (144)
Item # 16G 1
Page 198
September 25, 2001
PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION (PATTERSON BOULEVARD
FIRE- MAY 18-22, 2001) APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER IN THE BOARD'S ABSENCE
Item # 16G2
BUDGET AMENDMENT 01-516
Item # 16G3
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION BAR-2001-01,
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE 2000/01 FISCAL YEAR
Item # 16I 1
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 EACH
FOR COMMISSIONERS MAC'KIE, FIALA, HENNING AND
COLETTA TO ATTEND THE NAACP 19TM ANNUAL BANQUET
TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 13, 2001
Item # 16J 1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS
PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
Item # 16J2
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
Page 199
September 25,2001
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 200
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. Certificate of Correction: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Certificate
of Correction to the tax rolls as presented by the Property Appraiser's Office.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Be
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. August 22, 2001 through August 28, 2001.
2. August 29, 2001 through September 4, 2001.
Districts:
South Florida Water Management District/Big Cypress Basin Board:
Minutes of August 24, 2001.
Mediterra South Community Development District: Minutes of March 28,
2001, Financial Statement of February 28, 2001, Minutes of April 9, 2001,
Minutes of May 23, 2001, Proposed Budgets of Fiscal Year 2002,
Financial Statements of March 31,2001, District Map.
Immokalee Water and Sewer District: Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2001-
2002.
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District: Minutes of May 23,
2001, Financial Statements of April 30, 2001, Notice of Meetings, District
Map.
o
Heritage Greens Community Development District: Minutes of May 14,
2001, Audit for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2000, Management
Letter, Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2002, Financial Statement of March
31,2001, Notice of Meetings, District Map.
Cedar Hammock Community Development District:
Minutes/Attachments of May 14, 2001, Minutes/Attachments of June 11,
2001, Audit for Fiscal Year Ended Sept. 30, 2000, Management Letter,
Proposed Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2002, Financial Statement.
H:Data/Format
Co
o
o
o
10.
Minutes:
Collier Mosquito Control District: Regular Meeting Schedule for 2001,
District's Registered Office/Registered Agent, Annual Certified Budget,
District Map.
Naples Heritage Community Development District: Minutes of May 14,
2001.
Key Marco Community Development District: Minutes of Landowners
Meeting of November 7, 2000, Minutes for May 15, 2001, Audit for Fiscal
Year ending September 30, 2000, Management Letter, Financial
Statements of March 31, 2001, Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2002,
Minutes of Board of Supervisory Meeting of June 19, 2001, Financial
Statements of May 31,2001.
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District: Agenda for September 12,
2001.
1. Historical/Archeological Preservation Board: Minutes of July 20, 2001.
o
o
°
Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Minutes of July 16,
2001.
Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee: Agenda for August
20, 2001, Minutes of June 18, 2001.
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee: Agenda for August 9, 2001,
Minutes of July 12, 2001 (Organization Structure Review Sub-committee),
Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of
August 1, 2001.
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee: Minutes of August 9,
2001.
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee: Minutes of July 18,
2001.
H:Data/Format
September 25, 2001
Item #16K1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS GRANT
APPLICATION IMMOKALEE D.U.I. ENFORCEMENT PROJECT
Item # 16K2
ENDORSEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS SUBGRANT
APPLICATION
Item # 16K3
RESOLUTION 2001-373, AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF
NOT EXCEEDING $8,120,000 FROM THE POOLED
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM AS THE FUNDING
SOURCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMOKALEE
JAIL FACILITY; AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT TO KRAFT
CONSTRUCTION, INC., AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16L 1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 112 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF
NAPLES, INC., ET AL (IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO.
Page 201
September 25,2001
69101) AND STAFF TO DEPOSIT $18,289.24 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $20,000 RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 145 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. OWEN M. WARD, TRUSTEE, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 99-1291-CA, PROJECT NO. 65031 (RADIO ROAD,
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD)
Item #16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 250/250T 1N THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN C.
ZAMARRIPA, ET AL., (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NO. 63041) AND STAFF TO DEPOSIT $200 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L4
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN AN AMOUNT NO MORE THAN
$13,756.45 FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES INCLUDING OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING EXPERT WITNESS
FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONCLUDING THE
COUNTY'S LITIGATION RELATING TO THE 1995-96 BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY V.
Page 202
September 25, 2001
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 00-1901-CA
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2001-51, AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-72,
WHICH CREATED THE SABAL PALM ROAD EXTENSION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
Item # 17B
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION BAR-2001-02,
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ADOPTED BUDGET
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4'26 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DIS~UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES I~. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
Page 203
September 25, 2001
ATTEST:
,:.:.~'D~..I~G. HT E. BROCK, CLERK
.,': .,:, '.-..
s{~i~'t, ure °~hese minutes approved by the Board on
as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 204