BCC Minutes 12/12/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 9:09 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Hike HcNees, Acting Assistant County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for Tuesday, December the 12th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill,
will you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as we've done throughout the
holidays, we give thanks for this special time of year. We can't help
but recognize and lift up before you people who may be alone this
particular time of year or alone for the first time or away from their
families. We would ask that you provide them as -- as generous and
bountiful a holiday as you do the rest of us.
Father, we're also especially thankful this morning for the
families of the loved ones who were lost in the Cracker Barrel murder
that touched our community. We are heartened by the potential success
of good police work there and that that might be a bright light to
their holiday this season as well.
Father, we're especially thankful to recognize employee
achievement at this, the end of our calendar year 1995 and recognize
our employee of the year as we do and give thanks for all of the hard
work on behalf of our employees and the citizens who choose to
participate in county government in Collier County.
We ask that you bless our time here together and that it would be
beneficial, and we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, it doesn't look like it's too
long a change list.
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am, I don't believe so. I have two add-on
items -- excuse me -- three add-on items. The first one is a
proclamation. It will be 5(A) under the Board of County
Commissioners' proclamations and presentations, recognizing the
Ashbritt Corporation for a special donation to the guardian ad litem
program here in Collier County, 5(A).
I have an add-on item under the Board of County
Commissioners today, which is a request for an endorsement of the
revised St. Hatthew's House grant application for FEMA that you saw
and discussed several weeks ago at the request of Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
Final add-on is 12(C)(3) which is the request that the
board adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a separate
grant under the Department of Community Affairs community development
block grant program for certain projects in Immokalee involving the
Shellabarger Mobile Home Park and a portion of Bullard subdivision in
Immokalee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I have a question on
that. When I was adding it to my list, I saw that 12(C)(1) was the
same thing, but it says continued after it.
MR. DORRILL: It was. That was an oversight on my
part. I thought -- initially in trying to read this in a hurry and
get it to the printer last Wednesday, I thought it may have been
Chokoloskee CDBG program that you expressed some concerns to me about,
and I held it off to give me further time to read it, and staff
brought to my attention that it was not that project. We're not
moving forward with that project until the engineers from Anchor
complete their assessment on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: We're withdrawing item 8(C)(2), which is a
recommendation that the board review a report regarding the expansion
of beach and boat launch facility sites as it pertains to the
potential sale of Bluebill Avenue which is county owned. That's at
the request of Commissioner Hancock who's asked that he receive a
briefing in advance of that because of the impact on Vanderbilt Beach
subdivision and also what is a fairly large piece of property there
that we own. That will be rescheduled as necessary after he's had an
opportunity to be briefed on that.
I have two items that are on the consent agenda, will be
moved and made part of the regular agenda for discussion. The first
one is 16(B)(1), is moving and will become 8(B)(7) under public works
which is a request to approve a purchase order increase for the Naples
Park drainage project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again, may I interrupt there?
This has my name as being the requester of moving that, and I didn't
request that be moved.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Staff was indicating that they
asked for it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I apologize. 16(B)(1) is moving and will
become 8 (B) (7) .
Then under public services we are moving 16(C)(1). It
will become 8(C)(3), which is a recommendation that the board
participate in the home care for the elderly program and to authorize
execution of certain contracts between the local area for aging and
your public services division. That request is made through the
county attorney's office. 16(C)(1) is moving and will become
8 (C) (3) .
I have two agenda notes this morning, the first of which
is just for purposes of our recording secretary. Item 16(B)(6) on the
consent agenda, the proper bid number associated with that item is
95-24-54. We had a transposition error there.
And then also we've had one request in order to
coordinate the presentation and keep it as brief as possible for the
Naplescape program as it pertains to median beautification. They
asked that that item be heard in or around 11 a.m., and I told them
that I would convey their request to you and did not think that that
would be a problem. And that's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Does anyone have an
objection to the Naplescape meeting at 11 a.m.? Okay. We'll hear
that at 11 or as close to it as we can.
Mr. Weigel, did you have anything to add to the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No changes, but information I'll add in
regard to 10(A) on St. Hatthew's House item that I have prepared
copies of the grant application documents that all of you, I don't
believe, had -- had seen. It's the revised application as well as
copies of a letter prepared by Mr. Goodlette on behalf of
St. Hatthew's House and other supporting documentation, and I'll be
providing that to you during the course of the morning so that you
have it when the item comes up.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you.
Commissioner Norris, did you have changes in operations?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no further changes
today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, and I have none
either. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve
the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ASHBRITT, INC. FOR A DONATION TO THE GUARDIAN
AD LITEH PROGRAM - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is under proclamations and
service awards. We have an add-on proclamation, and it gives me
absolute pleasure to do this. Talk about surprises yesterday, I came
to the office, and I found this check, which is quite nice. And I'd
like to ask Randy Perkins from Ashbritt, Incorporated, if you would
come forward and Lisa Cohen (phonetic) and Karen Landy (phonetic) of
the guardian ad litem program, if they would come forward while I read
this proclamation.
Do you want to turn around there so everybody can see
what we all look like. Thanks.
Whereas, Ashbritt, Incorporated, has been providing
service to Collier County since acquiring Universal Wood Recycling;
and
Whereas, Ashbritt, Incorporated, realizes the
responsibility a company has in supporting their community and would
like to give something back to Collier County; and
Whereas, Ashbritt, Incorporated, is involved in the
United Way of South Florida and their various agencies; and
Whereas, Collier County has a program this year called
the Collier County Guardian Ad Litem Project; and
Whereas, Ashbritt, Incorporated, would like to donate a
check to this organization in the amount of $2,500 to be used for the
holiday gifts or daily essentials of those -- of these needy children
of Collier County.
Now, therefore, the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, does hereby commend Ashbritt, Incorporated,
for their contribution and recognition of the needs of Collier County
children.
Done and ordered this 12th day of December, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
Colleagues, I would like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation and award it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know how I can thank you
more.
MR. PERKINS: You're very welcome.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. And I'm
sure that Lisa and Karen are equally thankful. We'll see that the
check gets to the appropriate place so that you can -- you can use
it.
MR. PERKINS: Great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
on your desk or --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So do you regularly find checks
Well, that's the first time in
three years.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if somebody else wants to
give some more for purposes like that, I'll be happy to see them.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are service awards.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's my pleasure this
morning to recognize some employees for continuous service to the
county. We're going to start with recognizing for five years of
service with Collier County, working with the transportation
department is Terrance Sumpter.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Been a little busy lately,
Terrance? Congratulations and thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Terrance. Good work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unable to be here this morning,
but we'll recognize for five years in utilities and water Barbara
Manning and for ten years in building review and permitting Alamar
Smiley.
Here this morning we also have recognizing for ten-year
service also in transportation -- and I'm probably going to mess the
last name up -- but James Eliopoulos.
(Applause)
MR. ELIOPOULOS: You said that good, right on the
money. Not bad for the first time. Cool.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Transportation is way too happy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. It's good to see
happy employees.
Item #5Cl
LUZ H. PEITRI, PUBLIC SEVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EHPLOYEE OF THE
YEAR FOR 1995
Next item on the agenda are presentations. Commissioner
Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My
presentation today is for the employee of the year for 1995. And I'd
like to ask Luz Peitri to come up and stand in front of the dais here
and face the camera, please.
MS. PEITRI: Where is it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right behind you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Luz began employment with the
county in the library in June of 1975. She spent her entire county
career with the library serving as the department's secretary. For 20
years Luz has been doing -- has been a stabilizing factor in the
public library and doing her job so well for so long she has developed
both the patience and the skills to be an outstanding employee.
Through the years the library has gone through many transitions, and
Luz has been an important factor in making those transitions smooth
ones.
Luz has proven herself to be a tremendous asset to the
library. She assists both the staff and the library patrons. Luz is
a hard-working, dedicated employee, a model citizen, and appreciated
by all. She also has great customer service skills and has achieved
excellent ratings on her performance appraisals. Luz is the kind of
dedicated and motivated employee who makes Collier County a better
place to live and work.
It is for the above reasons that Luz was unanimously
selected as the employee of the year for 1995. And I have this letter
from the board that says, Dear, Hiss Peitri, it is, indeed, a pleasure
for us to announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the
year for 1995. This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable
contributions to the county through your work as senior secretary.
You are truly an outstanding employee in all aspects and well
respected by those with whom you come in contact. For these and many
other reasons, you exemplify what an employee of the year should
represent.
We have for you today a plaque and this letter and a
check for $250.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Luz, if you would stay here for just a
second, I believe Ms. Hellinger also had asked to say something on
behalf of the advisory board. While she's coming forward, we -- we
might add we're just very proud of Luz. I think she exemplifies --
you have a thousand people that work for you, and she's especially
special to be recognized by her peers who vote to select the employee
of the year, and we're just so proud of her, we don't know what to
do.
MS. HELLINGER: We are also proud of her because she
handles all of the work for the library advisory board, and it takes a
lot of patience. Thank you so much. You are really a well-deserved
winner of this award.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
Item #882
NORMAL PURCHASING PROCEDURES WAIVED AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO
A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH BETTER ROADS, INC., TO MILL 78,500 S.Y. OF
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PRIOR TO RESURFACING - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$61,230
As we move forward, the next item on the agenda into the
county manager's report, 8(B)(2), a recommendation the Board of County
Commissioners waive normal purchasing procedures. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. For the
record my name is George Archibald. I'm the transportation director.
Agenda item 8(B)(2) is a request to waive a purchasing
procedure to allow the county to complete a project of leveling and
resurfacing Goodlette-Frank Road between U.S. 41 and the Golden Gate
Parkway construction site. The paving work has to be preceded by the
removal or what we call milling of the friction surface. Currently
those two activities, the milling in addition to the resurfacing,
should be closely coordinated. And as a result of different
contractors receiving different awards for those different activities,
the staff has received proposals from Better Roads and, in fact, is
recommending to the board today that we consider awarding to Better
Roads a contract to do both the milling and the resurfacing which
currently is part of their contract. Those two activities do require
the board to waive the purchasing procedure because of the amount and
to recognize that the reasons behind that are, one, we're going to be
saving over $50,000 in substantial savings, but also it's going to
allow for a better project in terms of roadway safety and roadway
operations. With that the staff will complete its presentation, and
we'll gladly address any questions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, this is rather
straightforward. It makes a lot of sense to have the same vendor do
both operations, and a net savings of $50,000 to the county is enough
incentive for me to move the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I
have one question. Don't we normally include the milling in the
contract to resurface? Why is there a separate contract?
MR. ARCHIBALD: This was part of the annual bidding
process rather than part of a specific job. So we have a series of
different annual contractors. It just so happened that the
contractors for milling and asphalt resurfacing in this area were
different.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you. We have a
motion and a second. Further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Archibald.
Item #886
RESOLUTION 95-688 ACKNOWLEDGING RELEASE OF RESERVATION BY LONE OAK,
LTD. OF UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK B, ON THE PLAT
OF LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT 1 - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(5), a report with
recommendation of approval to initiate a Collier County urban -- it's
not eleven o'clock yet, is it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Gotcha. I saw you looking
at your watch. We'll delay that one until eleven o'clock.
Next item is 8(B)(6), resolution acknowledging release
of reservation by Lone Oak Limited. Mr. Archibald.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to make on the record
that I have a conflict on that matter and won't be able to vote. I
represent the petitioner -- or property owner. Excuse me.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 8(B)(6) is a
resolution which acknowledges the release of reservation of utility
easements, and I've got to read this into the record, easements on
lots 4 and 5, block B, the plat of Lexington at Lone Oak, unit 1, plat
book 22, page 24 through 27.
Under the original plat the developer had reserved certain utility
easements. As -- as a result of a prior vacation and as a result of an
effort to correct any title defects, the staff, the county attorney's
office, has gone ahead and prepared a resolution that will, in fact,
terminate the reservation. That termination of reservation document is
part of your agenda item, part of the add-on, and the only item that's
in question right now is a legal description that's going to be
attached to it. Accordingly, based upon prior actions of the board in
vacating this, your staff is recommending that the resolution
acknowledging, again, the release of reservation be approved subject to
the county attorney's office finalizing and reviewing the legal
description that carries with it the termination of reservation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff?
MS. ASHTON: If I could just make a point of clarification. For
the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The termination
of reservation is being prepared by the developer. It's not finalized.
It's not attached in your agenda package; however, the resolution of
the board which acknowledges the termination of the reservation is
attached, and that's what you're being asked to sign today. I just
wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Ashton.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note the staff executive
summary says Lone Oak Limited is desirous of releasing utilities and
the reservation to allow construction and avoid a title cloud. Is
this just construction within the easement? Is that simply what it's
referencing?
MS. ASHTON: Yes, they're just trying to clear a title
matter, uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Okay.
Any other questions? Is there a
Motion to approve.
Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve item 8(B)(6). Any other discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four to zero, I'm sorry. Thank
you, Mr. Archibald.
Item #887
APPROVAL TO INCREASE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT PURCHASE ORDER -
APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,541
Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(7). This is the item
that was moved from the consent agenda. Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: My understanding is a property owner in
Naples Park by the name of Betty Hathes (phonetic) asked for this
thing to be put on the regular consent. That's why your name was
confused.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Hiss Hathes here?
MR. DORRILL: She's not here, but we do have some
speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: Just very simply, back in October when we
reviewed the Naples Park project, you directed us to go forward with
reevaluating the project, the design, the methodology, and bring it
back in 90 days, which will be late January or early February. The
consultant, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, is engaged on this project
on an hourly-rate basis, how we expended the hours in the original
purchase hours. In order to do this additional work, we need some
additional hours and dollars to do that, and we're asking this morning
for an increase in the purchase order to cover the work that you asked
them to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Boldt.
Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just again in a nutshell, Mr.
Boldt, this is what the board asked the engineer to do in order to get
a look at this in that 90-day period, and that's simply what this is
covering?
MR. BOLDT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. We have two, Mr. HcGilvra,
and then following he we'll have Ms. Pistori.
HcGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners, Doug HcGilvra.
I have nothing to say except to go ahead as planned. It's exactly
what we intended to do, and we're going forward. I think we should
continue. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pistori.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Pistori.
MS. PISTORI: Good morning. Gene Pistori, Naples Park.
The HSTBU was put in place. You voted to approve it. You voted to
say let's do this; let's get this drainage through. Now we must see
the end -- must see it through to the end. Let this money go
through. If this is what is needed, let's go forward with it, and
let's do it, please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. PISTORI: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all the speakers? Is
there other discussion or questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to respond to one phone
message you all received about a conflict of interest from Miss
Mathes. There is a peer review as a part of this that I believe
Johnson Engineering will be performing on Agnoli, Barber, and
Brundage's plans. So any conflict of interest will be answered by a
third-party independent peer review, and that's been addressed. So I
just wanted to mention that. And with that I'll make a motion to move
the item.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
move the item. Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Boldt.
Item #8C1
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (HRS), COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
(CCPHU), FOR USE OF COUNTY OFFICE SPACE BY THE CCPHU - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(1), a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a lease agreement. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. This item is a lease agreement
with the Collier County public health unit. It is for a space that is
currently already occupied by the health unit within your building H
or health and community services building.
In real quick terms, the general highlights of the
agreement are that the term is a ten-year term that takes it through
the year 2001. It's actually backdated as an initial start date to
1991 when the health department actually took possession of the space
that they're in. And that's simply to protect the county for any
instances that may have arisen during the period of time when they
were in the building.
While the term is what it is, it also provides some
termination provisions within 90 days' notice should the county or the
health department decide that it wants to relocate or find space in
other areas.
I need to walk you through the handed-out agreement that
I just gave you, and we've tried to tab it for you. There are several
changes, but the ones that are -- that are tabbed and made are,
frankly, very minor in nature, but I do need to walk you through them
real quickly. Article 4 on page 1, it's simply an indication of where
the utility costs will be paid for through the county financial system
for the utilities used by the health department in the building. The
utilities are paid by the health department. Frankly, they are
pass-through costs as the county supports that cost center and pays
for that through its own general fund.
On page 3 there is an indication that should insurance
coverage change from the state provider, that the county would be
notified. That's a standard type provision that we have in most of
our agreements and was recommended by Mr. Walker in your risk
management department.
And the last change simply was one on page 4 which was
in terms of notice. We added some specific provisions about the
notice for the health department staff that it be the district
administrator's office and be carbon copied to the public health
director here locally.
The reason this lease agreement is separate from the
CHSI, the lease agreement that you approved several weeks ago, it is
for the space that the health department will be using outside of what
CHSI space is. It's simply an agreement that we're trying to do
through the real properties department and risk management to
consistently have lease agreements with agencies other than county
departments who are currently using county space. All of this has
been reviewed and approved by the county attorney's office, and our
recommendation is for approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the lessor should default in
services through either this agreement or the previous one, do we have
-- I mean, is there any difficulty in the public health unit picking
up where they left off so to speak? And I'm sure that had to be
addressed. I just need some comfort level on that. If we should have
a problem that the new folks that come in should up and decide this
isn't profitable, we're out of here, what difficulties would we have
in -- in the public health unit's ability to pick back up on
services?
MR. OLLIFF: I'll let Dr. Polkowski answer that
question, because I think they do have that covered in their
agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There may be an agreement laid in
that question, but I wanted to ask you.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. I just want to make sure I
understood your question. If CHSI was not able to provide services,
is that right, would we be able to pick it up?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they default, they walk away
from it. It's a losing deal, and they walk away from it at some
point.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Right. We would not be able to provide
the same level of services.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's not what I'm
asking. I'm asking what -- what financial or physical difficulties
would we have in stepping back into the building and staffing it and
performing the services to whatever extent we can. We've talked a lot
about equipment. We've talked a lot about what they bring in and what
they don't bring in and so forth. I'm just looking if that
transaction should have to occur, what difficulties can we expect or
can we expect that we've covered in both this and the previous
agreement that eventuality?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. Well, any of the equipment and
furniture which they're using that was originally used by the health
department would be reverted back to the county. The space would be
reverted back to the county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But does that include inventory
of supplies and materials?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
DR. POLKOWSKI: That was originally part of the health
unit, supplies and materials, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But CHSI, Dr. Polkowski, is
picking up the former employees who were performing the services?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Some former employees, right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we could, if they were to back
out -- back away from this, have some difficulties from a staffing
level?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any other questions?
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion we approve the
lease agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt a moment. Mr.
Dotrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion to
approve the lease agreement. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve.
Further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #8C3
BCC PARTICIPATION IN THE HOHE CARE FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM, THE RELATED
STAFF CHANGE, AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING AND COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is an item that was moved to the
consent agenda on the home care for the elderly.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ramiro Manalich.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MR. MANALICH: This is a brief item. Basically the
recommendation -- this was item 16(C)(1). In that recommendation one
of the things that your authorizer asked to do was to authorize a
contract to be executed with your agency on aging. Basically the
contract has been reviewed by the county attorney's office and is fine
in all respects except one. There is a broad indemnification
provision. I don't believe that contract is contained in your
packet. That is a standard contract for funding, but there was a
broad indemnification provision which we found to be in derogation of
our sovereign immunity and eliminates some of our defenses and our
rights to not have to indemnify the state for its negligent conduct.
Consequently, the only thing we would ask today is that you approve
the recommendation with the proviso that the county attorney's office
make a notation on this agreement so that that indemnification is not
approved and we further negotiate with the state for a provision that
will be acceptable to the county attorney's office and not beyond what
our legal rights allows us to insist on.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this similar to the
indemnification we were looking for with the public health unit?
MR. MANALICH: It is in this sense. I think that the
state is asking us to indemnify them beyond what we should be required
to do. However, we would -- we would like to approve the contract
with the exception of that one provision so that the funding can
continue, and we can negotiate with the representatives of the state
and hopefully convince them of the error of their ways.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is -- these are the same
folks that didn't want to indemnify us?
MR. MANALICH: That's curiously true.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the contract subject to the wording Mr. Manalich has asked
for. Are there further questions?
Speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Manalich, I understand you being our
resident Miami Dolphin fan, that you may have been at the game last
night which would explain the smile on your face.
MR. HANALICH: I'm a walking human sleep deprivation
experiment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
that, huh?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Ramiro, we'll bond later. How's
You were up late, too, watching
Oh, yes.
Item #BE1
FUNDING FOR MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE AND ANPLES AREA TOURISH
BUREAU WITH CATEGORY B, ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
8(E)(1), funding for the Harco Island Chamber of Commerce and Naples
Area Tourism Bureau from category B. Ms. Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners, Jean Gansel
from your budget office. The Tourist Development Council had received
two applications for category B, which is advertising and promotion
funding. The two organizations that had submitted separate
applications are actually the group that had previously been known as
the Collier County Tourism Committee. They have been funded for two
years now with this funding. They have split only for ease of
administering the contract. Everything else is the same. The total
amount of the grant requested was $992,587. The Tourist Development
Council voted unanimously for funding. There are sufficient funds
available for these grants.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this within the annual
anticipated collection that is allocated to category B?
MS. GANSEL: Okay, what we do is it is an annual grant
to these two organizations with funding that we collected last year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: We always allocate what is in the bank and
collect for it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we anticipate collections in
the coming year in excess of this amount? MS. GANSEL: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The issue is -- well, I guess
there's not really an issue. But there's a point that they are now
working separately you say rather than as a group or otherwise no
changes?
MS. GANSEL: Exactly. And, in fact, they had actually
been working separately before -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MS. GANSEL: -- and it's staff's recommendation that
they submit two applications. It eases our administration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So let me ask you a question for
clarification purposes. If this grant application is -- is approved
and -- but it's money that was collected during fiscal year '94-'95,
if we were -- if the TDC and the Board of County Commission were to
get a application requesting category B funds during the coming 12
months and we wanted to -- to fund that project, where would the money
come from? Would it come from currently collected funds then?
MS. GANSEL: That would be the only source that we would
have. It has been the policy of the TDC and the board only to
allocate funds that are in the bank. So depending on when an
application came in, if you adhere to that policy, that would possibly
limit the amount of money that would be able to be used for another
grant application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any other questions?
Is there a motion?
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One speaker? Hay we hear that
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Watkins.
MR. WATKINS: Good morning. My name is Mike Watkins.
I'm the chairperson of the Naples Area Tourism Bureau, one of the two
applicants, along with the Marco Island Convention and Visitors'
Bureau for these category B funds. I'm available only if you have
questions. I think you're familiar with the two organizations, HICV,
Marco Island Convention Visitors Bureau, and then Naples Area Tourism
Bureau. We've been in front of you before. This will be our third
year in operation as the entities promoting the destination.
It's very important for continuity's sake for the effort
to continue in promoting our destination. It's my understanding from
numbers from the county that tourist tax collections in '95 fiscal
year compared to '94 are up 9.6 percent. We believe that's an
indication of the success of our effort, and I think the allocation of
the magnitude of funds as -- as we're requesting will enable us to
look a year out in our advertising campaign and continue the
operations that we've begun in the past on behalf of Collier County.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the item as presented. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Miss Gansel.
Item #8E2
REQUEST FOR CATEGORY C TOURIST DEVELOPHENT GRANT FOR FILLABELLY
FOUNDATION, INC. - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item on the agenda is consider request for category
C, TDC grant for the Fillabelly Foundation. Miss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: The Tourist Development Council received an
application from the Fillabelly Foundation for category C special
event funding. The amount of the request was for $73,300. The event
that the Fillabelly Foundation wanted to -- the special event was for
a concert which would be in early Hay. The Tourist Development
Council rejected the application by a vote of five to four.
Fillabelly Foundation had requested that this item be brought to the
Board of County Commissioners for consideration for funding.
The grant application for $73,300, it is the intention
of the Fillabelly Foundation to totally refund the money to the
Tourist Development Council with proceeds from their ticket sales.
They need the money up front for seed money to engage an entertainer
for the event.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will somebody summarize what the
nature of the objection was? Why was there not support?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: See if I can re -- recapitulate
what -- the discussion did not last long. There were two or three
dates available that the Fillabelly was suggesting, two of those dates
being in late April and one of them being in early Hay. And there
seemed to be a concentration on these late April dates, and there --
those dates not being in the quote, unquote, off season, but certainly
in the shoulder season. And there wasn't a lot of discussion beyond
that.
MS. GANSEL: I had gone back to listen to the tapes as I
was preparing this item so that I could pinpoint for you the
objections of the council. And as Commissioner Matthews did say, the
dates -- there was discussion of the dates. Since this had previously
been a local event, they had no history of room nights that they were
able to generate, but knowing that that was the Tourist Development
Council's emphasis, they have increased their advertising budget to
attempt to promote people -- more people coming from out of the county
and staying here for the event, that there was some discussions
regarding that and the number of room nights that they would be able
to generate.
If I might mention one other thing. On their budget
there is an item for $36,700 that is for the coalition funding. This
is kind of a different item in a budget, and I just call it to your
attention. It's certainly not a tourist-related item in their budget,
although the amount of funding that they are requesting for
advertising and for the entertainer exceed the $73,300 that they have
requested.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the question that you
need to raise is tourist development dollars go to develop tourism and
try to bring people here to expend their money. And while it's a
wonderful cause, I think the question we have to ask is are they going
to generate hotel nights. I understand the increased advertising
proposed for Miami and Lauderdale and Tampa area. The question I
asked yesterday and I think is a very important one and no one could
answer from the Fillabelly Foundation, many entertainers will come to
an area, to the State of Florida, and play four shows or five shows or
eight shows, and usually part of their contracts will include not
playing within a 150-mile radius of the next or previous show so as
not to saturate the market. What I'm wondering is if we are going to
try to spend money to advertise and draw people from Tampa and from
the east coast, can we be assured that whomever the entertainer is
that they are bringing is not playing the previous night in Tampa or
the next night in Miami, because obviously no one is going to come two
and a half hours unless it's the Grateful Dead to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, that's over.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's over.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not going to happen.
Nobody is going to travel if they're playing in their own town.
They're not going to go the next night to a different town. And so I
think that's a very, very important part of it is we're not going to
draw from anywhere else, and we're going to defeat the purpose of the
tourism dollars if the entertainer is playing elsewhere in those areas
that we're trying to draw from.
MS. GANSEL: I think part of the problem that they have
right now is they need to have a commitment of the funds so that they
can go and enter into a contract with an entertainer to do this, and
until some of the finer details are pointed out, I don't know if
that's a provision they can put in the contract when they make, you
know -- select an entertainer for this event. Possibly you would want
to make that a condition if that was a concern that you have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a very strong concern.
The sole purpose for expending tourist tax dollars is to draw tourism
to our community. And if this event wants tourist tax dollars, it has
to have the goal of bringing people to our community. If they are
advertising and the entertainer is playing already in the markets
they're advertising to, we're not going to bring anyone here, and it
defeats the purpose. So that's a pretty strong point for me. MS. GANSEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one other question,
and that is what exactly is the coalition funding? You mentioned
$36,700. That goes for --
MS. GANSEL: It's the food bank that Fillabelly
Foundation distributes food to the different organizations in town for
feeding the hungry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that is or is not
included in the 73,0007
MS. GANSEL: That is included in their budget, but they
have other items in their budget that exceed the request from the
Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They have eligible items that
exceed 73,000 excluding that.
MS. GANSEL: Yes. I did want to, you know, again
emphasize that their intention is to pay back the 73,000. They are
looking at 73,300 as seed money and not matching funds.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I note in their budget
the anticipated repayment of the TDC funds. Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to mention that I
believe this is intended as a loan, not as a, in essence, a true
expense to -- to generate room nights. However, the intent of
category C still needs to be met. No one will argue the benefit of
the Fillabelly Foundation. What I have a question regarding is -- and
this may be more appropriate for someone with Fillabelly -- is the
manner in which -- advertising does one thing. It may advertise the
concert itself. But if you're going to create room nights, you need
to tie an event to something else that goes on maybe the next day or
day prior, some of the local attractions, that kind of thing. If
there is a manner in which tickets are ordered and sent out, and with
the return tickets you can include tourism information that cause
people to spend more than one afternoon or evening here for a concert,
now we're getting into trying to, in essence, promote room nights and
tourism. And I would like to see some commitment from the folks at
Fillabelly to work with the -- I guess I would say the NATB or some
other appropriate organization to find a way in which you can link
this concert to an overnight stay, you know, things such as whether
it's Jungle Larry's or the Everglades or Third Street South or
whatever, somehow packaging Naples if -- to people who are coming from
out of town so they'll stay that night and -- and so forth. So if I
can see something like that, then I think we have -- have tied it.
And if it's a loan, we've taken little or no risk with the money. And
if it turns room nights, then we've got a benefit. If it doesn't,
we'll know.
MS. GANSEL: Well, this was one of the items that they
did discuss in their presentation to the TDC that as ticket sales come
in, they would send information on hotels to, you know -- having the
concert on a Friday night was their intention so that people more than
-- you know, could be staying over Friday night and promoting it,
giving -- sending some information to ticket holders about the area.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to know that there's
going to be a concerted promotional effort on the part of the
Fillabelly to turn these into room nights, and if I can get those
assurances from them, then I think it's worth pursuing a loan, not
purely a grant.
MR. DORRILL: They have a representative here who may be
able to answer those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. The category C recipients
are -- are asked to pay this money back to category C out of profits
or '-
MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- overages in their events. Has
Fillabelly applied for these grants before?
MS. GANSEL: No, they haven't.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They have not received a grant
before?
MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So we don't have a history
on their prior events to show how successful they've been in
attracting people?
MS. GANSEL: We have received budgets from them on their
past events. They had been fairly successful up until their last
event. They always had generated sufficient funds to fund the next
concert. The emphasis that the TDC in -- in their presentation there
was that in the past their concerts have been successful, but we don't
know how many people came from out of the area and how many did use
room nights. So we know the concerts had for the most part been
successful. But as far as how many out-of-town or out-of-county
people, we didn't have records on that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Doyle is here on behalf of Fillabelly,
and then I have one other speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Doyle.
MR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'll try to
tell you a little bit about our intention for Fillabelly that
hopefully answer some of your questions and then answer any additional
questions that you have. My name is Robin Doyle. I'm the president
of the Fillabelly Foundation, which is a -- an organization that is
qualified under Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Fillabelly was formed with the sole intention of raising
funds to feed the hungry. That remains our mission. We've been
successful both in raising funds and in establishing a coalition of
agencies who feed the hungry. One of the questions was who is this
coalition. Each of the members of the coalition that we have provided
funding for in our budget are 501(C)(3) agencies. They are the ones
who directly distribute food to the indigent. Those agencies work
together. It was because of the impetus of Fillabelly that we were
able to bring them together as a coalition. They now work together to
buy food. They work together to trade information and actually to
trade food on occasion to -- to coordinate their efforts. And I think
that has been one of the great successes of Fillabelly is in the
foundation of the coalition to feed the hungry.
Fillabelly's sole purpose, however, has been to raise
funds. We have done it with six very successful concerts and one
concert that was a great concert but not a financial success. We have
done all of this with absolutely no administrative costs. All of the
funds that we have raised have been used for the concerts, and the net
funds have been used to purchase food.
Now, when we started Fillabelly it was certainly not our
intent to promote Collier County, but I think we've found out that we
have done so without even trying. We have -- we have tracked our
ticket sales and know that 10 to 15 percent of our sales in the past
have been made outside of Collier County. This is without any
advertising targeted outside of the county. We have not tracked the
number of room nights that this has created because it wasn't our
intention to be attempting to promote the county. We're certain there
were some room nights. In fact, I think the Beach Club Hotel where we
have held most of the concerts certainly had some room nights there,
but I cannot tell you how many. They would be better able to speak to
that than we. And I think we've also generated a large interest in
the community.
We cannot do another concert without the seed money. We
-- even in the year that our concert was not a financial success, we
continued to fund to the level that we could the coalition agencies,
but we lost our seed money for our concerts. It took us six years to
build that seed money, and we think that we can build it back again,
but we need the loan from the tourist development funds to be able to
get it started again.
As you have heard Hiss Gant (sic) say, it is our intent
to repay the tourist development funds. We're looking for seed
money. This is really a short-term loan. Our concert would be held
the beginning of Hay, and once the concert's over, all the
funds are in, and we would repay the money at that time.
In an attempt to show our intention with regard to
tourist development funds, we have increased our advertising budget
substantially in excess of what we have done in the past, about double
what we've done in the past. In the past our -- our advertising has
been targeted to Collier County. We have now expanded that and will
target our advertising from Tampa Bay south, because we believe this
is an area which we have a substantial opportunity to draw from. We
have in the past sought entertainers who actually had other concerts
somewhere in the Florida area, in answer to Commissioner Constantine's
question, because that was a way for us to keep down the cost of the
entertainer. But we understand the concern about that if we're trying
to draw from a larger area, and so we would tell you this morning that
we would do everything in our power to get someone who does not have
another concert announced within a 150-mile radius of Naples. So it
would be our goal to try to create an event that would attract people
because, quite frankly, the more people we can attract from outside
the area, the better it is for us, the more funds that we'll raise.
And I think it's consistent with what the commission is attempting to
do with the tourist development dollars.
I think that with the commitment that we've made to
advertise from Tampa Bay south, we will be able to increase the
percentage of our sales that are from outside of the county and will
increase the number of room nights. It is our intention to send with
our tickets that are sold out of town a stay-the-night brochure. We
would be glad to coordinate that with the NATB or any other group.
We'll enclose anything that we can to promote the area with our --
with our out-of-town ticket sales, because we think that that not only
benefits the county but certainly benefits us too in creating an event
that makes Naples an entertainment destination. So if there are any
additional questions that I could answer, I would be happy to do so at
this time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker. Why don't we
hear from the speaker first, Mr. Dotrill, and then we'll get back to
whatever questions we have. MR. DOYLE: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, Mr. Olds.
MR. OLDS: The name is Stanley Olds, and I am a
concerned citizen. And I'd like to recommend that the Fillabelly
Foundation's a very good one, and I've read about it constantly, and
they've done a very good job throughout the county.
As far as tourism money goes, I think the gentleman here
has made a very good case for spending that money. There's quite a
bit of it there, and so far you haven't done too much with it. But I
would say for the foundation itself, it's a good cause. And when we
have a good cause like this, why not support it. And I think that
they've answered your question, Mr. Hancock -- I mean Mr. Constantine,
about combinations of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We both look alike.
MR. OLDS: Both names, you know. But anyway, I'm all
for it, and as a concerned citizen, I'd recommend it highly. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Olds. Do we have
questions?
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Robin, I appreciate the fact
you've said you'd commit to someone who didn't have a concert within
150 miles. I wondered if we might extend that just a little bit to
someone who didn't have it within -- doesn't have to be 150 miles, but
some range of the advertising area, because if -- I have no idea what
the Sun Dome is, but if that's 152 miles from here and we're
advertising in Sarasota and Tampa and they're playing at the Sun Dome,
it still defeats the purpose.
MR. DOYLE: I would understand that to include the
Tampa-St. Petersburg area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And are we doing any
advertising on the east coast for this?
MR. DOYLE: No, we're not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. DOYLE: Well, let me say -- that is not planned at
this time. We're working with Image Marketing who is the advertising
agency that's actually donated a lot of time to Fillabelly over the
years, and we will discuss with him further exactly what the
advertising plans are, but my understanding is we're looking to west
coast --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly wouldn't object
to advertising the east coast but just under the same circumstances.
If they are playing in that metropolitan area, we don't want to throw
our money away. That does answer that question.
The second is you mentioned in the past traditionally 10
percent roughly of ticketgoers have been from somewhere else. Do we
have any numbers on how many of those are from Lee? I know the one
concert -- Kenny Rogers concert was held in Bonita anyway, so I've got
to assume that it's a pretty strong turnout from Lee as well.
MR. DOYLE: Ten to fifteen percent. I would assume that
some of those have been from Lee. I may actually have some figures on
that, but I don't recall exactly what they are. Obviously -- and one
of the questions we were asked when we appeared before the TDC was,
well, how many room nights have you generated? Well, we don't know
the answer to that. We can't pretend that those people who come from
Bonita or happen to be in Lee County are going to stay the night in
Collier. However, we think that by targeting more advertising toward
the Sarasota-Bradenton area that that might certainly create the
possibility of more room nights.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- we've had a great deal
of difficulty trying to find appropriate category C expenditures.
Fillabelly is a wonderful thing, as Stanley said, but that is -- I
think we have to stay focused on not only necessarily whom the
beneficiary is but whether or not the rules of category C are being
met. I think with that, your agreement on 150-mile radius and the
Tampa metropolitan area so we aren't competing with the same
performer, then it does answer my question, and this is fairly clear
that it's an appropriate use of category C. We have a good event,
hopefully bring some people here, and then as a side to that, do
benefit a great foundation in the process. So thanks for answering my
questions.
MR. DOYLE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll support it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want -- well, I'll be
happy then at this point then just to make a motion that we -- that we
accept staff's recommendation and approve the application under the
conditions Mr. Doyle has described. My -- my feeling on this is that
we -- we know what Fillabelly's always been in the past, and it's been
wonderful. But it hasn't been something that would qualify for
category C tourist tax funds. If, in fact, there is a way, and if
you're going to recast it so that we'll try it this year and see if it
-- if it does, in fact, sell some room nights, we at least have a
track record on this being a successful event. Frankly, when we get
some applications, they're brand new ideas, and we don't know if
they're even going to fly. So I'd like to see this supported, and
I'll move that we go forward.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to ask, Mr. Doyle,
how do you plan on tracking room nights this year?
MR. DOYLE: That's a good question. And I'm not a hotel
expert, but we will -- we will check with the experts and find out. I
don't know that you actually can accurately track the room nights, but
we will do everything we can to see --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can do crowd sample surveys
that are real easy and that kind of thing. So please work with the
hotels, because if we go ahead with this this year, we need some
baseline to look at -- MR. DOYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if a request should be made in
future years.
MR. DOYLE: We will be glad to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Commissioner Norris, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I do not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
grant the request to fund the Fillabelly Foundation grant with
category C funds. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you.
Item #9A
PROPOSED AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF BENEDICT P.
MIRALIA, TRUSTEE V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 90-2910-CA-01 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - APPROVED
Next item on the -- it's just after ten o'clock. Next
item on the agenda is on the county attorney's report, item 9(A), a
recommendation for a proposed amended settlement.
MS. STUDENT: Good morning, Commissioners, Harjorie
Student for the record. This is a settlement, an amended settlement,
of an already executed settlement agreement for litigation that ensued
between the property owner and the county, I believe, back in 1990 and
basically involves some vested rights issue in its interplay with our
zoning teevaluation ordinance. I did not handle that litigation for
the office, but Mr. John Passidomo is here. He represented the
plaintiff and could possibly fill you in on any historical information
you might need about that.
In any event, the property owner filed for an injunction
and declaratory relief. And the property is located, by the way, at
the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Vanderbilt Drive up near
Beachwalk and Pavilion. And what the property owner agrees to do
pursuant to the amended settlement agreement is to relinquish the
right to develop a hotel and agrees to reduce the maximum amount of
retail intensity from 14,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet and
again replace the hotel with 190 multifamily units along with 20
existing hotel/condominium units, or in the alternative, demolish the
existing structure and replace that with a 210-unit facility of
maximum density. And I've attached a red-lined copy of the settlement
-- or the amended settlement agreement to the executive summary for
your review.
Mr. Passidomo is here to answer any questions you might
have. I will try to answer any questions you might have. And I have
a member of planning staff here, Bob Hulhere, as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correct in -- in the
statement that an original settlement agreement was arrived at, agreed
upon, and this is amending that settlement agreement?
MS. STUDENT: That's correct, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That original settlement
agreement had land uses that were larger in square footage and greater
in intensity than what is being proposed here?
MS. STUDENT: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Is there a
motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the amended settlement on the basis that it's less intensive
and less impact on the surrounding neighborhood than what was
originally proposed for the site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second his motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the amended settlement agreement.
MS. STUDENT: MAdam Chairman, if I might, I just wanted
to make one reference to paragraph 15. There was a transposition
error, and it should read, The county has determined that multifamily
residences constitute a superior and less intensive land use to the
hotel permitted on the Musca Property by the settlement agreement and
that exchanging a hotel for multifamily. That's what the
transposition error was. Residences on the agreement is canceled and
terminated, et cetera. There was -- it is stated multifamily where it
said hotel and vice versa.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion will include that
change?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, it will.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the
change?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to
approve the amended settlement agreement with the changes noted. Any
other discussion or questions?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Miss Student.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 95-689 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REFUNDING CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS ISSUED BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES
OF CERTAIN OTHER COUNTIES - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
adoption of a resolution approving the issuance of Industrial
Development Authority refunding bond. Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Don Pickworth. I represent the Industrial Development Authority.
As we explained in our executive summary, the authority
has been requested by SSU to be the lead issuing agency for a
refunding bond issue to refund some outstanding SSU bonds covering not
only bonds issued in Collier County, but also other counties. The
authority held a meeting last Friday, and representatives of the
company were there and explained the proposed financing. I have set
forth in -- in summary form in the executive summary the purpose of
the financing, which probably in a sentence or two is simply to take
advantage of current low interest rate opportunities to wipe out some
variable rate financing that, therefore, removes some interest rate
risk and also to take some fixed securities and lower the interest
rate. And that in -- in a nutshell is the -- is the purpose of the
financing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, it sounds like
there is no downside to this.
MR. PICKWORTH: It's not really --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have a motion yet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ahh, now the order's straightened
out. We have a motion and a second to approve the item. Is there
further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
Item #9C
BCC PARTICIPATION IN THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LEGAL DEFENSE
FUND - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a
recommendation the Board of County Commissioners consider
participating in the FAC legal defense fund.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, again, Commissioners. For
the record, Ramiro MAnalich. In your packet is a rather detailed
summary of the history and purpose of this item. Essentially this is
a proposal by the Florida Association of Counties to recruit funding
among the counties on a pro rata-type basis to fund potential
litigation statewide which would affect counties that are throughout
the state. Essentially the decision that you need to make today is,
number one, do you wish to participate in the program, which a number
of counties have already pledged to do; secondly, if you do wish to
participate, then the choice would be do you participate on a
case-by-case basis where a statewide case comes up and we would then
pledge some funds, or do you simply want to go with the formula set by
the Florida Association of Counties, which is a per capita formula,
one time initial contribution of $1,800 toward that goal.
Our analysis from the county attorney's office indicates
this is a rather small amount in comparison to the potential cost of
these types of litigations. We have identified a fund -- county
attorney's special counsel fund that would be available if you choose
to follow this course.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the meeting on MArco Island, I
voted against the establishment of this for the simple purpose that
some of the things that Mr. MAnalich has just discussed were not a
part of it at that point. There have been changes since then that
make it so that it's not mandatory but that it's somewhat
discretionary on the part of the county.
Already this year we have seen action from the FAC
regarding the ability of utilities to cross county lines and charging,
and there's already work going on this year that is going to have a
fiscal impact hopefully positive on Collier County. So based on
Mr. MAnalich's allocation of funds from the county attorney's office
and, in essence, the county attorney's recommendation that we're going
to get at least $1,800's worth of benefit from this, I'm comfortable
in -- in moving this.
This is -- you know, I just want to clear up. This is
per annum, so each year it's $1,8007
MR. MANALICH: Well, the way that was explained to me by
the executive director is right now there is a onetime initial
contribution and to see how the fund is used, what cases arise.
Obviously they have enough criteria that's set forth in your packet to
determine when and if they will intervene, and whether they will need
any more funding or not remains to be seen. This will be in effect
for one year. Beyond that they will reevaluate, see what they have
done, what cases have they handled, what benefits have been achieved,
and then make a further determination from there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we
approve the item, and I'm going to tell you why. We spend -- how much
do we spend annually now in our three-county effort to go up and rent
an apartment and do our thing? And that is because we want to try to
have some impact on what goes on at the state level and how that
impacts us here in Collier County.
Florida Association of Counties is probably our best
voice in county issues as far as being in Tallahassee. They know the
players. They know the people. They've got their hand literally on
the pulse of what goes on day to day up there. And so if they are
looking to put together a legal team and make some things happen on
behalf of the counties, including us, $1,800 is probably about half
what we're spending anyway in our effort. I would say it's a
bargain. I agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, and I think it's
money well spent. So I'll make a motion we approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
And I'm not going to oppose the item at all. I was at the FAC meeting
where it was originally proposed that the counties consider doing
this. And this is not just a state-county issue. This is a national
issue. We -- we are looking at legal cases going to the Department of
Labor at a federal level and mandates coming back down for counties
having to reimburse police officers for time they bond with their
canine dogs for -- do I need to go any further? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So if there's not any
further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record show Commissioner
Matthews was solely against the dog bonding issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, not at all. I think they
need to bond.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline: Commissioner
Matthews hates dogs.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not fair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just teasing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Manalich.
Item #10A
REQUEST FOR ENDORSEMENT OF REVISED ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE GRANT
APPLICATION - CONTINUED TO 12/19/95
Next item on the agenda -- it's 10:20 -- is the item
10(A). This is an add-on item regarding the St. Matthew's House grant
proposal that we attended to a couple weeks ago.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask when was this
available?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because after -- after the
review of the last one, being handed this document now and being asked
to make a decision now on this document, I -- I have no desire to do
until I have the time -- suitable time to review this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I respond to that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I just -- I agree that there's
no possible way to review that and have any idea if it's something
that we can or can't support. But you were also handed a letter that
I think was drafted by Mr. Goodlette. I'm not sure who drafted it.
But what it does, if you will -- if you'll read it, it says what the
Collier County Board of Commissioners would acknowledge that the
St. Hatthew's House operation has the right to do. And -- and I have
one question myself about it. But it does very specifically say what
we're -- what we're not supporting, that they're not permitted to
provide services such as food pantry, labor pool, case management,
apartment rental information. Frankly, this letter does -- in my
judgment, does what we were concerned we might have a duty to do in
the first place, and that is tell this federal agency what -- I'm
sorry, tell this state agency what exactly it is that this group is
allowed to do. So I think we have not a duty to do that, and I think
this letter summarizes that very well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree that just to be handed
this right now and say we're going to make a decision on it, I don't
think, is -- after knowing what was in the first document, I wouldn't
feel comfortable voting on this until I had a chance to look at it. I
don't know if there's some sort of a time constraint here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Time sensitive.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But here's in effect what we're
being asked to do, I believe, is we're being asked to say that we
don't necessarily agree with what's in this grant application, but if
we have our conditions put on it, then maybe we do. But, you know,
who's going to look at this letter? They're going to see the grant
application. I -- I need some time to look through this, because the
first one, in our opinion, as a board, was -- was certainly --
contained some misleading information if not outright fraudulent, and
I need to be assured that we've got this cleaned up. I don't want to
just say, well, this -- this agreement is -- or this application is
okay but, you know, to keep it honest, we -- we have these provisos.
I don't know that that's what I want to do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- and I just ask you -- I
agree with that, because none of us want to do that. We made that
real clear. And that last application was horrific. It was awful.
But this -- well, I hope Mr. Goodlette will tell us if
there are, in fact, time constraints. I was asked to put this on
today's agenda because of the time constraints, so let's hear about
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Goodlette, I'd appreciate
a clarification on that, because I met with the chairman of St.
Hatthew's House board and a couple of other members and your attorney
and the executive director a couple of weeks ago, or I think it was
about a week and a half ago, at which time I was told it was a moot
point now because we had missed the deadline. And all of them agreed,
gosh, it's too bad we missed it but it's over now. So you folks don't
have to worry about an endorsement at this point; it's a moot issue.
And now we're being told that window is open again.
MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, if I may, Dudley
Goodlette. I'm here this morning on behalf of the St. Hatthew's
House.
Let me answer the question of the timing because, again,
I am relying upon information that has been provided to me by Mr.
Westley who is -- will soon become the president of St. Hatthew's
House. Dr. Collins is here and may be able to add to this. But it is
my understanding that that window is still open to grant this
application but that the -- Mr. Hanlon (sic), who is the person to
whom the letter that Commissioner Mac'Kie alluded -- the person to
whom that letter is addressed, is waiting to hear from the county on
whether or not or to what extent it would support the application
that's pending before that agency. And the effort in this letter was
to do exactly what Commissioner Mac'Kie outlined, which is to merely
state as matter of factually as this letter, we believe, does, what is
the status of the St. Matthew's House and what do they do for this
community. Some of that is outlined in the application.
To the extent that the modified application does make
reference to certain uses that might be for nonresidents, like a
thrift shop, like a labor pool, this letter clarifies or is -- is
designed to clarify that that is not the case unless and until
separate approval is obtained by St. Matthew's House pursuant to your
Land Development Code to accomplish that end.
What this letter does state is matter of factually what
has been approved. And these funds -- if you look in exhibits -- in
the -- in the larger packet that Mr. Weigel distributed to you, you
can see that the one-hundred-and-eighty-two-thousand-and-some-dollars
funds are for operational expenses and for some employee-related
expenses. Frankly, we have been advised by Mr. Hanlon -- or Mr.
Westley has been advised by Mr. Hanlon that there is a good likelihood
that this grant would be approved if this Board of County
Commissioners will just merely state whether they -- you know, to what
extent they support it. And that's what this letter at the llth hour
-- for which I apologize, because I have to admit to you that I was
within the loop on this for the first time in a meeting yesterday
morning, Commissioner Constantine, that I think you were aware that
exists. Mr. Weigel can speak to that. Mr. Cautero was there as
well. Representatives of St. Matthew's House were there. So, yes,
there are some exigencies of time that are important.
But, frankly, to the extent that we have been informed
that the likelihood of this being granted are pretty good, we hate to
leave $182,000 sitting on the table. And if you look at the
application and -- and -- and there are reasons why this commission
should scrutinize this application as it has scrutinized this
application, but the mission of St. Matthew's House is what I hope
will not get lost in the mix here. And it's designed as -- this new
shelter for -- for men and for women and for children. Many of these
funds are for playground equipment for facilities for children that do
not currently exist, because we don't currently service children and
women. And so if -- if you look at the -- simply tracing the funds
and what -- what would this $182,000 resource be used for, I would
hope that you can endorse that, and we can set to the side -- and what
this letter is designed to do is set to the side the issues, the
zoning issues, the land-use issues, the comprehensive plan, the Land
Development Code issues that we have had so much consternation about
in the past.
This -- hope -- hopefully this letter as it's drafted is
designed to bring the community together on these issues. It's not
designed in any way to -- to endorse anything in this application
that's -- that's fraudulent or that's in any way designed to -- to
misrepresent where we are in the process. It's simply this: I can
tell you that without a letter of -- of endorsement in this fashion
from this commission today this grant will not be made.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Goodlette, I appreciate your
comments there. They're well -- well taken. The thing -- the point
from my perspective is that if I'm asked to endorse this application,
it needs to be on the basis of the application itself, not this
letter, in my opinion. And I would just prefer to be able to have the
time to go through this again. I don't know that you directly
answered the question of will a week's delay harm the chances of
getting the grant. What was the answer to that?
MR. GOODLETTE: I've been told that Mr. Hanlon needs a
response today. I would be more than happy -- if you wanted to defer
this item to the end of your agenda today, I'll talk with him
personally. I don't want to make representations to you standing
before you this morning, Commissioner Norris, that I can't personally
validate. But I will do that if you would like. I would be happy to
have any of you do that. I would be happy to have your attorney do
that. And if there is no time constraint, I'd love to give you all
the time, you know, that would be permissible.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think what I'd like to do
is that, and either yourself or Mr. Weigel perhaps can inquire of Mr.
Hansen if we can have that week to -- I've got to assume the agency
has the best interest at heart as well. And I'd just as soon be able
to review this, and that would answer everyone's question. And we
could review it, and we could be back and have an answer for you next
Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And here's my problem, Mr.
Goodlette. When this goes through, this letter, along with the letter
from the county commission and every other agency that lent support to
this grant application, will be put in a file somewhere, and this
grant application will go in a file somewhere, and the -- the two will
never meet again, if you get my meaning. I mean, the grant
application then will stand on its own, and that's why I'm saying that
if I'm going to endorse this grant application, I want the grant
application itself to be approveable.
MR. GOODLETTE: Perhaps -- Madam Chairman, if I may,
perhaps the issues that -- that concern and understandably concern
Commissioner Norris, I think, have been addressed by Mr. Weigel and
Mr. Cautero from the standpoint of looking at your Land Development
Code determining -- determining what activities can take place on the
current -- on the new facility, if you will. And I think this letter
is designed to -- to -- to acknowledge what those limitations are.
And perhaps Mr. Weigel would like to comment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A few quick questions.
You've referred several times to the moderated change -- the modified
application --
MR. GOODLETTE: Not changed, altered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you -- application. Do
those modifications change some of the concerns that were raised last
time around? If when we read through this between now and next
Tuesday, are we going to see --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it no longer includes some
of those things of which we were concerned?
MR. GOODLETTE: I believe that is correct. I was not
present when you last considered, but Dr. Collins tells me that is
correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my review indicates, too,
that there are significant changes. I haven't done a thorough enough
review to tell you guys that it's perfect.
MR. GOODLETTE: Perhaps Dr. Collins could speak to the
time issue. I think maybe he does have the personal knowledge that I
do not. Perhaps he has the knowledge that I do not, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock,
you had a question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before Dr. Collins speaks, I'm
going to be honest with you. It's not going to matter what your
timing is. I find five issues in the first three pages I have
questions about. And unless I have the ability -- if I'm going to
sign on as a member of this board that I support a grant application,
I need to be able to support it in its entirety both in what it asks
for and what it represents in the situation in which St. Hatthew's
will operate. So your timing I appreciate, but if -- you know, how
long ago was it that we kicked this back? And yet we received this
application this morning. That's simply irresponsible. There is no
way you can ask this board to review this document and sign on to it
being given it this morning knowing the history of what we reviewed
previously. And, you know, I just -- regardless of your timing, I
cannot -- I cannot shirk my duties and just sign on based on -- and I
appreciate the information Mr. Goodlette has presented and the work
you've put in and in making the assurances regarding zoning and
operation that you've made. But there are representations in here
that have nothing to do with operation but have to do with the basis
on which the grant is being requested. And I need to make sure I
agree with those. And when I go through the first few pages and see
some questionable items already, I'm very, very concerned about, you
know, having the opportunity to review it in its entirety.
So, you know, make your case, but I'm telling you from
my standpoint receiving this this morning, being asked to approve it
today, and if not today, don't bother, then I'm not going to be able
to be -- to be a part of it. You know, if you want to give us a week
to look at this and give us time to get a list of questions back to
you, I would do that in a matter of two days. But at this point I
don't think I can move ahead in approving this in the manner which
it's been presented.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Collins, is this time
sensitive?
MR. COLLINS: Yes, ma'am, very much so. And the
irresponsibility, let me assure you, does not lie with St. Hatthew's
House. We were only told on Thursday or Friday morning of last week
that we had opportunity to put the grant application in late, because
they wanted to fund us if we could. We then met with Mr. Weigel and
Mr. Cautero yesterday morning. We moved immediately then to call the
-- Mr. Hansen. He said if you can get that through to us today --
what we would do would have to be to fax a letter today that would be
attached to the application.
So we were kind of left out too, I mean, until the end
of last week. And we moved as quickly as we could. There was no
attempt to slide anything past you or anything like that. We made an
attempt when it came back to us through some discussions with Mr.
Weigel's office to answer some of the questions you had, and most of
them seemed to point toward the placing of ministries at the new St.
Hatthew's House that we hadn't really talked through, and that was not
the board's purpose in doing that. That got past the board. What
we're trying to do in the letter is say we don't want to try to do
anything there that we're not legally licensed and able to do. And
we'll -- we're willing and wanting -- that's why our discussions have
been with -- with Mr. Constantine and some of the staff, to work
through those things.
This issue flared up Friday afternoon, as I said. And
we did even not know until yesterday afternoon after meeting with Mr.
Weigel and trying to discuss through some more issues that we still
had a chance. In discussions yesterday afternoon they said, yes, if
you can get the letter tomorrow and fax it to us with the permanent
copy to come by mail, so that's why we tried to move this. There's no
attempt to act irresponsibly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies if you take affront
to that. But from my perspective to be asked to review this sight
unseen in this time frame is very, very difficult, if not impossible,
to do.
MR. COLLINS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my apologies if you've taken
affront to that statement. It really wasn't intended in that manner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in an effort to focus what
-- the agenda item that I asked to be added today was not would we
endorse -- would we see that this -- that everything in here is
correct. The agenda item was intended if we could look at this letter
and see if there is a way to write a letter that says we don't know
what they put in their grant application, but here's what they're
permitted to do in Collier County. We talked about having that
obligation to notify other governmental agencies anyway. Perhaps just
that letter would be better than no letter. If we had a letter that
said we haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly review the amended
application; we did see the first one and we rejected it; but here's
what we do support their ability to do in Collier County. Perhaps a
letter like that would at least keep the door open. And -- and,
again, we talked about having an obligation to provide that
notification to this other governmental agency.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's not what the
proposed letter says.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says we agree to endorse
the above-referenced grant application.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ANd I'm suggesting something
else. I hear from you that there's not support on the board to do
that, and so I'm suggesting that maybe we write a different letter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Write a different letter. Also
could I ask -- Commissioner Norris's comment that this letter would
probably be separated from the grant application, and once submitted
never the two would meet again. I see attached to the grant
application are a number of -- of letters from various organizations,
groups, and representatives that are a part of this application.
Can't we make this letter as much a part of this application as these
other letters are? Is that possible?
MR. COLLINS: I would think so. I wouldn't know how to
answer that 100 percent without talking to Mr. Hansen. But the
problem they're having is they're wanting to give $182,000 to the
people of Collier County to deal with a very significant problem, and
we can't seem to get connected here as to the wording of the letter,
and that's all we're trying to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a misunderstanding, I
guess, because in our previous meetings -- and I've met with the board
members -- the indication was that an endorsement letter from a local
government agency, being the board of commissioners, was a 100-point
checkoff on the point system toward what grants fall where on the
scale. And so that if you do not get a letter, it means you have a
hundred-point disadvantage from those communities that did get a
letter from their local government agency. But what I've heard Mr.
Goodlette say is, gosh, if we don't get this letter, we're absolutely
positively not going to get the grant approved. And those are two
very different statements. And I'm wondering are we entering a
different process than what was explained to me in the meetings in the
other room? Is it a hundred points, or is it a yes or no?
MR. COLLINS: My understanding, Mr. Constantine -- and
let me tell you that I'm not the board member who's worked directly
with the grant -- is that it was a 10-point --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. COLLINS: -- deficit. That was our understanding at
the beginning. Then when we say, well, we may not have it, it then
moved from the state's perspective to, well, there's not much chance
of getting it to you won't get it without the local government
endorsement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So while the -- while the --
MR. COLLINS: See, we're trying -- excuse me,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. We're trying to deal with the state and their
language to us and try and filter that to you in a positive way, and
that's been some of our struggle with them, to be very honest about
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's not just a point
criteria now the -- despite the fact that's how it appears on the
application. They verbally told you that it is an exclusionary
criteria?
MR. COLLINS: Well, I think the terminology was there's
no chance you'll get this without the county -- local county
government.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you ask them to clarify
that?
MR. COLLINS: Well, there was another word used in
there, Commissioner Norris, but I would not use it with the commission
this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you
have another comment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I would just ask your
consideration of our drafting a letter modifying what we have in front
of us that tells -- that goes with this application, becomes a part of
it. And it could be drafted to say there -- just what I said before;
there are -- there were definitely problems with the original
application. We understand it's been amended. We haven't had
adequate time to review it. We do, however, want to inform you that
the following is permitted under this PUD, STP, whatever it is, in
Collier County, period.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: LDC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do we have speakers,
Mr. -- MR. McNEES: Yes, ma'am. You have one, Dave Carpenter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Carpenter.
MR. CARPENTER: Hi, Dave Carpenter, East Naples Civic
Association. Still have a tie on today. See, I didn't know about
this. I'm like you guys. I can't think of a more controversial issue
that's come before this county commission in the past two or three
years than -- than the question of St. Hatthew's House. You're being
asked today, despite how you word it, to sign off on a grant which the
last version you saw of it you basically rejected. At least
St. Hatthew's House has a representative here today. They didn't when
they first submitted the grant, which might have solved some of these
problems. You're doing it without the public seeing the document,
without the public seeing the letter, and without you folks having the
time to look at the document or really study the letter. My
suggestion would be on this that you say, thank you, we will consider
it, and we will have it on the agenda next Tuesday regardless of what
their time problems are. I don't see any other logical way out on
this. I think if you go ahead, this amounts basically to an
endorsement of the grant application. If you go ahead with that
without the documents being in the sunshine for the public of Collier
County to see it, I think you're making a grave mistake no matter how
you word your letter on it, and it may come back to haunt you. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a response to that, if I --
if I may. Apparently the grant review process is almost over. If, in
fact, we as Collier County government are going to have any input at
all, this is our opportunity. If you want to write a letter that says
their -- their grant application is full of lies and we don't endorse
it, we have some obligation to correspond to these agencies. I think
that a factual letter that says this is what is permitted -- for your
information, this is what's permitted in Collier County. We talked
about that as an obligation. But I think we have an obligation to
communicate with this agency whether it's positive, negative, or
neutral.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Collins, you have something to add, Dr. Collins?
MR. COLLINS: Yes, if I may. I would recognize part of
Mr. Carpenter's statement. There has been some controversy over the
issue of St. Hatthew's House, but the fact remains that St. Hatthew's
House is here and in place and is doing good ministry in this
community. And I would hope that the board could in some way support
that ministry with some kind of letter to the government so we would
at least have an opportunity to provide better services to the people
of Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
review the item and be prepared to create a letter with our response
on Tuesday, the 19th, after we've had a chance to review it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
review the item, review the letter, the grant and so forth, and bring
it back on the 19th. I'm not going to support the motion, because I
think it essentially kills the opportunity for St. Hatthew's House to
receive this grant. I -- I would prefer -- I know we're on short
notice to take a table and review it in the afternoon and hear it
again at the end of the day. But we have a motion and a second. Any
further comments?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make one amendment to
the motion, too. I'll ask that Mr. Weigel contact Mr. Hansen and
inform him of our intent so that if there is a way for them -- I think
usually if communication is clear, most government agencies are fairly
cooperative. So if we communicate clearly with them, they may well be
open to that. I'll make that part of the motion as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
change?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
I have a --
Does the second accept the
Yes. Question.
Commissioner Hancock was first.
I -- I sincerely appreciate what
Commissioner Mac'Kie has said today. And if there were a way to do it
and be reasonable, I would. Unfortunately, the only letter I can sign
right now says I haven't reviewed it; I can't agree to it; I can't
agree to its content; however, this is what they can do in Collier
County. However, that to me does nothing. It says this is what their
permitted uses are, period. By the way, we didn't get a chance to
review the application, so we can't support the grant per se. That --
that's the only thing I can sign on to, and that does absolutely
nothing. So I'm going to support the motion in the hopes that this
gets back to the state agency, and they can give a one-week leeway so
we have the ability to review this and make some meaningful
statement. Otherwise I -- I just don't see any good coming out of a
letter that says we don't support the application but, by the way,
they're zoned to do X, Y, and Z.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is whether or not the
board would indulge -- would indulge me to give us until the end of
the day to ask if, in fact, a factual letter would do any good or to
ask if, in fact, there's any consideration will be given to this item
if it's postponed for a week, just that we table this motion --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a motion -- is that a
motion to table?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. It's a motion to table
until the end of the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll second the motion to table
until the end of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a motion and second on
the floor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to table -- motion to
table takes precedence.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I see.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
table the motion until the end of the day where we've had time to
further address it. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion fails two to three. We
have a motion and a second on the floor to direct -- direct staff to
bring this issue back to us on the 19th to further address the letter
and the grant application.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that we contact -- we ask
Mr. Weigel to contact Mr. Hansen and that we're prepared to issue some
sort of written statement next Tuesday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have the motion restated. All
those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes three to two, Commissioners Mac'Kie and
Matthews being in the opposition. MR. COLLINS: May I speak?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Collins, real quick.
MR. COLLINS: Would that be able to be done very
quickly, because to be honest about it, if we don't get something to
them today or some word to them today, then there really is no use to
proceed, and there's no use to waste your time next Tuesday reviewing
something that we can't submit?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Mr. Weigel can call
them when we go on break in two minutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And let us know if that will work
or not.
With that in mind, why don't we take a break. We'll
come back at eleven o'clock, and the Naplescape item will be on the
agenda at eleven o'clock. Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8B5
REPORT WITH RECOHMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO INITIATE A COLLIER COUNTY
URBAN AREA TAXING DISTRICT FOR MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION - MEDIUM MAINTENANCE TO BE FUNDED FROM
THE GENERAL FUND FOR NEXT BUDGET YEAR AND THIS ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK
TO THE BCC AGAIN NEXT WEEK
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of
Commissioners' meeting for December the 12th, 1995. We have a time
certain that we are addressing as close to eleven o'clock as possible,
and that's the Naplescape median program. Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioners, I'm going to introduce this
item and provide the highlights to it. The Naplescape people are
here. They will participate in terms of the type of projects that
have been conceived and are in their five-year work plan, and they
also have developed some schematics in terms of a good, perhaps the
best, representative project of the type of ongoing work that they are
involved in, and that includes Davis Boulevard. So I've got a couple
of -- of exhibits that I hope will provide some clarity to this item.
There's been a great deal of confusion as a result of people reading
or trying to follow this in the newspaper.
For whatever reason we don't have a hand-held mike on
this side, so I'll stand here. What we are portraying in this
particular slide shows you the extent to which you currently have an
investment in improved and irrigated medians in the urban area, the
exception being Marco Island where many of those medians are not
irrigated. And, thus, we have the problems that we experienced over
the summer and last spring with the need to have an irrigation truck.
But I think what you can see from this first exhibit are
two things. You can see the county's growth in providing for improved
medians, and I will tell you that I think perhaps second to our
beaches, the most recognizable asset that we have, at least when --
when I hear people say or who visited Naples, is that we seem to have
the cleanest, most attractive streets and efficient roadway system of
any community our size, and I don't think that I would disagree.
You can see the growth in the county system now to
include streets, arterial streets, or major collectors that include
Seagate, Pine Ridge, Goodlette Road, the lower portion of Goodlette
Road, in addition to the Trail and Airport Road. We have also
sponsored in the past year to 18 months two private-sector projects
that were built with either partial or full support from the private
sector, and those include the medians on Immokalee Road that run from
U.S. 41 to Goodlette that were installed as part of an agreement with
Collier's Preserve and also Pine Ridge extension which was done under
an agreement with the Vineyards Development Company and extends just
east of 1-75 all the way to Santa Barbara.
The second distinction on this slide shows one of the
problems that we have in terms of -- of what I will call fairness for
median beautification. In addition to the city that historically has
maintained the U.S. 41 median and also the Goodlette Road median up to
Coastland Boulevard, we have two other communities that are paying the
sole cost of the arterial medians in their community. That includes
the Golden Gate beautification MSTU, which is here (indicated) --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You aren't thinking of the
Telltale Heart right now? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: -- and also the Marco Island
beautification MSTU, and the contention being that aside from the
taxes that are collected in those districts, the community at large
derives a greater benefit for having improved medians. I think that's
particularly true in Golden Gate. Only the people who live in Golden
Gate city are paying into the cost to improve and then maintain Golden
Gate Parkway medians. But I think it's safe to assume that a much
larger part of the community derives some benefit directly or
indirectly from having those medians in their community.
The second slide shows essentially what is the -- the
basis of the proposal, and there are a series of options. And this is
where the proposal has become somewhat confused. In order to
establish current county commission obligations for maintenance and
also to provide a mechanism for future improvements in capital
projects, it has been proposed that a taxing district be created to
replace sort of what is the current hodgepodge arrangement for
revenues that are raised to support median projects. The area that is
designated in yellow shows and is the urban area as defined under your
comp. plan, which is essentially everything one mile east of 951 and
then running out the east Trail for about an additional mile or so
exclusive of the City of Naples. And this is important, because if we
are to create an urban area-wide fund as one of the options, the city
wants to remain independent for at least the next year, their
rationale being the very large cost that they incur independently to
maintain those two median projects that I've already mentioned. In
addition, the city maintains an elaborate series of residential
streets and minor collector streets, and I was even surprised to find
out just the other day in discussing this with Dr. Woodruff, the city
maintains 61 different cul-de-sac locations throughout the
incorporated city limits. They're not being maintained by homeowner
or property owner associations. So the city feels that for the coming
year they've got more than what they can handle in terms of doing with
city revenues those two projects that are otherwise county arterial
roads, U.S. 41, and also the lower portion of Goodlette.
And in an effort to then bring some clarity to this, I'm
going to continue to defeat the general fund budget dilemma that will
confront you this summer. But I'm reminding all of us that one of
your primary stated goals that you identified for 1996 was to continue
to have fiscally sound and I might add conservative local government
as one of your primary stated goals. We have worked with the
Naplescape people to produce this option proposal for you in
recognition of that.
I think the Roman numeral number two there clearly shows
what is happening to the county general fund and the road and bridge
fund. Historically the road and bridge fund for maintenance -- the
road and bridge department has been paid for with gasoline taxes.
Prior board action is using every dime of gasoline taxes in this
county to construct new roads. As we have then looked to find a
replacement to those gasoline taxes, which just a year ago were 4.2
million dollars in support of road and bridge maintenance, we have
turned to the general fund and are using essentially your excess sales
taxes that are currently a non-ad valorem revenue in the general fund
to replace the gasoline taxes. Ultimately we are impacting the
general fund by this revenue going in support of the road and bridge
fund.
In addition to that, and I'm -- I won't beat a dead
horse on this issue, but preliminarily the sheriff's budget for -- and
if you annualize the 28 new deputies for this year and you also take
into account the cost associated with the special pay increase for the
sheriff that was approved a month or so ago, the potential increase in
the sheriff's budget next year could be 5 to 6 million dollars. And
the countywide tax implications of that could be at least a 20 percent
increase over the rollback rate in the general fund. So I -- I
mention that because of at the same time we are building median
beautification projects, we need to find a -- a fair and consistent
and either countywide or urban area-wide source of maintaining these
districts once they're put into place, because gasoline taxes are gone
in the road and bridge fund, and increasingly sales taxes from the
general fund are keeping afloat your road and bridge department as we
know it. There is an extensive amount of detail that is in the
executive summary, and we didn't intend to overcomplicate it but to
try and show you all of the different angles and all of the history in
terms of expense and revenue projections that have gone into place
here.
In the very last -- I have just attempted to show you
the major options that are there. Obviously the biggest and most
expansive option is to continue to recognize that medians throughout
the community derive a countywide benefit, whether they are in
Immokalee, whether they're on Marco Island, whether they're in north
Goodlette Road as we look to expand those projects in the future, or
Davis Boulevard in East Naples are two representative projects that
are important to the staff. Countywide value is 18 billion dollars or
one-tenth of a mill, whether either in the general fund or in some
special fund would raise obviously 1.8 million dollars a year, and
then you can take that up in terms of a fraction of a mill as you add
additional capital projects. And this is something that the
Naplescape people want to touch on briefly. They're interested in how
are we going to continue to take advantage of the success that we have
had; how are we going to continue to build additional projects.
My interest as your county manager is to keep reminding
you that we've got operating responsibilities, and we need a more
consistent way. So then we have stepped it down to if you only look
at the urban area, that value is 14 billion dollars. If you look at
the urban area exclusive of the city, which is something that the city
desires here at the end of 1995, you're down to 10 billion. And if
you excluded both the city and Marco Island, they alone account for
almost half of the assessed value in the county, so then we're down to
just seven and a half billion dollars.
And so these are the options. I think if I had my
druthers, I would say that we ought to continue to recognize the
responsibility to maintain medians. We already have in our annual
work plan that you're going to see what Mr. Sumac called the action
agenda, wide-scale privatization of median beautification projects
that will occur in the coming year that will account and anticipate
increased cost.
In addition, I will tell you that we have already heard
enough from the communities that have their own district, that they
want to preserve the right to be left alone, whether on Marco Island
or Pelican Bay or Lely. Pelican Bay and Lely from my perspective are
residential beautification districts. They don't deal with arterial
road systems. But even the little West Lake community that is only
levying about five or six thousand dollars a year in ad valorem tax --
I think where we have special districts in place and an overriding
desire for those people to continue to do their own thing, it would
certainly be my recommendation to you to let them do that if that's
what they want to do.
My interests are the countywide or urban area assets
that you're putting into place on arterial roads and to recognize here
today and show you some options associated with that. With that I'm
concluded, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If I -- Mr. Dotrill, if I could
ask one -- one question that I'm -- I'm getting a little bit concerned
about the MSTUs in general and the blossoming that -- that we're
seeing. Is there a millage cap statutorily for MSTUs?
MR. DORRILL: We're -- we statutorily are required in
aggregate not to exceed a 10-mil cap. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For all MSTUs?
MR. DORRILL: That -- I'm saying in aggregate for any
particular district that would have a county tax, and let me give you
the best example. The assessed value at Ochopee for the Ochopee Fire
District is very low, and as a result of that, their fire district
millage is very high. And the Ochopee area is the only area in the
county where we are running the risk or nearing the risk of having
problems associated with a 10-mil cap, but it likely will not occur in
the coming year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about the MSTU involving
Sabal Palm?
MR. DORRILL: That could be one, and I'd have to look to
my budget office to provide me a little more -- because, see, Sabal
Palm may not be in some other districts. I don't know all of the
districts that would affect Ochopee. They've got the additional one
that they've had down there in the past that involved the MS. I'd
really need Mr. Smykowski to help me with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We may, if we elect to do this
and proceed with the sheriff's MSTU, be coming to an area where we're
approaching in some districts that 10-mil cap.
MR. DORRILL: People should recognize clearly as we
discuss a countywide district for sheriff's protection -- know that we
will see a corresponding decrease at the same time in the general fund
millage, so that is a straight wash. That is not a new tax, nor would
a countywide or urban area-wide MSTU here be a straight -- because we
will see corresponding decreases in all of those other MSTUs or to the
extent in which the general fund is subsidizing median beautification,
which for the last year was about a quarter of a million dollars.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's -- that's the point I was
hoping that you would make is that we're not really doing anything
different than what we've been doing. We're merely going to
reallocate it and give it a different name.
MR. DORRILL: I'm taking full responsibility for that.
And I even shared with someone in the audience earlier this morning,
because they didn't understand, and they asked me. And when I come to
work every day, I deal with this every day. And this is just like the
back of my hand. I think when people read or hear that the county is
considering an MSTU for this, that, or the other, they suddenly think
this is a new tax that is going to be added on top of all the other
taxes that I'm paying. That's not correct in this particular case or
in the case of the sheriff's MSTU.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, based on last year's
maintenance budget alone for landscape medians, if you converted that
to millage -- in other words, I'm a county resident. And I say of my
taxes I paid last year, approximately what millage would it -- since
we're -- today we will be talking about millage. If I were -- if we
were to convert the monies spent on maintenance of medians last year
to a millage rate, do you have a ballpark idea what that would be?
MR. DORRILL: Well, I'm -- I'm going to keep my answer
as simple as I can and, again, just focus with the arterial roads that
we were responsible for --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. DORRILL: -- so automatically I take out Golden
Gate, and I take out MArco Island. And Mr. Archibald will help me
here if I get off track. I think the road and bridge fund spent about
$330,000 last year in addition to the maintenance districts that are
in place. So there's a third of a million right there that was, we'll
call it, an ad valorem-type requirement. In addition, we have now
built this year the Airport Road median, and I will say that that's
going to increase by a function of whatever the lineal foot cost is.
We also spent a quarter of a million dollars last year to undertake
the Collier's Preserve improvements, and that was a subsidy from the
general fund. And I, frankly, will need a little help with what our
continuing commitment is to the Vineyards where you are subsidizing
the Vineyard's Development Corporation maintaining their fund, so
we're paying for that as well. I'll say in aggregate last year we
probably spent $750,000 or -- or thereabouts, and if you'll look at a
countywide perspective, that would -- would be only about
fifty-one-hundredths of a mill or one-half of one-tenth of a mill, and
it starts to get real complicated. But you can see that we spend
about half of what one-tenth of a mill would generate countywide.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because I think when we
talk about finding a fairer way countywide to handle the -- the
increasing maintenance burden, we may not be talking about a -- an
increase per se. But when we talk about the potential construction
schedule and the addition of median beautification throughout the
county, which I am -- am a proponent of, we do have to look at that as
an increase because, in essence, we will be asked to spend more than
we're spending on maintenance and construction right now from what I
see. So the increase needs to be measured against what we currently
are paying on an annual basis to determine -- you know, in other
words, if we talk about two-tenths of a mill, we're not talking
two-tenths of a mill increase. Part of that is subsidizing what was
already being paid for maintenance and construction on an annual
basis. So the increase in that would be marginal. I think that's a
key point.
MR. DORRILL: As -- as we look to build future projects,
and your executive summary includes a very fine analysis and
spreadsheet of potential costs that was prepared by the Naplescape
organization, I will tell you increasingly I don't think that gasoline
taxes are going to be available to pay for those types of projects.
We did pay for the Airport Road project with gasoline taxes, because
that project came in a half a million dollars below the engineer's
certified estimate of costs. So it -- it was an extra that we added
to that project that we were able to do for no other reason than it
came in below the engineer's certified estimate. Otherwise, we're
going to have to look to what I would call what is the general fund
equivalent of your capital improvement program, which is your 301
fund, and that is something at the moment we levy about, I'll say,
four-tenths of a mill, five-tenths of a mill countywide for pay as you
go capital improvement projects in your 301 fund.
Aside from that, the only other way we're going to see
projects be developed is through the continuing work of the Naplescape
people to be a facilitator to developers who derive a benefit, as was
the case of Collier's Preserve and the Vineyards, or what is a very
difficult project for them on Davis Boulevard where you have an
established community and they're trying to raise a piece at a time or
incrementally the funds associated with doing the Davis Boulevard
project between Airport Road and U.S. 41.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I was going to save
most of my comments for later, but I hear the train warming up
already, so I want to make sure I get my comments in early.
Commissioner Hancock, you mentioned as we look to increase two-tenths
of a mill, all of that isn't necessarily new. But, Mr. Dotrill, if
I've understood you properly, what's currently being spent out of
general fund is about half of one-tenth of a mill. So we're looking
at well more than double -- perhaps we can get some lights back --
well more than double what we're currently spending. Am I incorrect
in that?
MR. DORRILL: You're -- you're not incorrect, but if --
if you want to take it to the higher plane, and to pick up Golden Gate
and to pick up Marco Island, it is going to be much closer to
one-tenth because I'll tell you, they spend over a half a million
dollars a year alone on Marco Island for what is that one major
project that they have there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't -- I do want to
clarify. I wasn't advocating necessarily two-tenths. I was using it
for an example.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. The -- and
what's the total expenditure in Golden Gate annually?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say it's in excess of $300,000 for
Golden Gate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right. One of
the things Commissioner Matthews said earlier that concerned me was
we're not really changing it; we're doing an accounting change. I'm
rewording what you said, but I think we are changing what we're doing
quite a bit here. Marco Island and Golden Gate are two examples you
just mentioned and probably two very good examples. They are two
communities which have voluntarily taxed themselves and which hold
their own destiny. They decide what they're going to do year to
year. They have a board that oversees, and they make up their own
priorities, that if we suddenly turn those over -- if we were to turn
over Marco Island, if we were to turn over Golden Gate, those
priorities will then be determined by someone other than the residents
of those communities. So we're looking at a very different way of
doing things. I think the same can be said in Pelican Bay or any
other areas which voluntarily --
MR. DORRILL: Which was the point you made to me last
Wednesday, which was we shouldn't overlook. And that's why I said
earlier that for communities that want to continue to do their own
thing exclusive of the road and bridge department in a countywide or
urban area-wide for the other projects, I couldn't agree more.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But what I hear you saying --
and you can correct me if I'm mistaken. What I hear you saying is
they can continue to do that, but they're also going to pay the
countywide assessment. So if they want to tax themselves over and
above that, now they can be taxed twice. And the difference is right
now they are voluntarily taxing themselves and determining their own
destiny. What will happen under this scenario is they will be taxed
whether they want to or not. Countywide everyone will be taxed
whether they want to or not, and someone else will determine the
priorities and where that money will be spent. Now, if they want to
tax themselves again over and above the involuntary tax, they're
welcome to, by golly, good luck, and they can determine where that
money will go. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I say this week after week. I see the charge of this
board as health and safety and welfare. And planting sticks and
shrubberies and flowers is not a health, safety, and welfare issue.
It certainly beautifies the area, but the system we have right now
isn't broken. It has worked very well, whether it's -- Marco Island
has chosen to beautify their own committee -- community and has
benefitted from that. Golden Gate has done the same. Pelican Bay has
done the same, but all of those have been voluntarily. And to say
we're going to put a tax on somebody, whether they want it or not for
plants and sticks and shrubs, I don't think is appropriate.
The -- you mentioned a couple of shared-cost projects.
The Vineyards has split some costs with us, Collier's Preserve
splitting some costs with the county on those major thoroughfares.
And I think some of the incentive for that will disappear under this
system. You mentioned, well, that will be Naplescape's responsibility
to still try to encourage that. I think the best way to encourage
that is make that be the manner in which those community districts are
provided, not as a sideline maybe if they're, you know, a good
resident, and they will contribute. I think right now the system
works very well, and if an area wants to beautify their area, they
help make that happen. In many cases they solely make that happen.
I guess the original concept had some merit to me. I
still had a number of questions. I still didn't like the idea of
putting a plant tax on, but the -- with the -- with the city opting
out, with Marco Island preferring not to be in there -- that number
keeps growing and growing -- for the rest of the community to shoulder
the burden, I think we've all got voter letters on this, some in
support and some against. But I think virtually all of the civic and
taxpayer groups on Marco have been opposed. I know early on in Golden
Gate the groups liked the concept because of what you had said; if
they want to use their own money that they're collecting now for other
projects, that would be beneficial. But they do not like it -- since
they've seen the final proposal, they no longer like it, because
suddenly the numbers have gone up and gone up and gone up. And you
look at the long-term projections, and the maintenance comes on as we
build each of these. And I think we're not talking about a tenth of a
mill tax. We're talking about a lot more than that long term. And
we're talking about a lot more than that short term now.
It's plain and simple. If a community wants
beautification now, they set it up themselves, they voluntarily tax
themselves, and they move forward. And that has been extremely
successful. And I'm not sure if it's not broken why we want to tinker
with that.
MR. DORRILL: Let me take you back to my first exhibit.
That's only the case in two communities, because you now have five
other projects that need to be maintained that -- that are the reason
for my general fund, road and bridge fund analysis. Airport Road,
Pine Ridge Road, Seagate Drive, Immokalee Road and Pine Ridge
extension are all arterial median projects that are not in a district
and for which there will not be any gasoline tax money at all next
year to replace. And it's going to require general fund participation
in order to continue to allow either road and bridge or a road and
bridge private contractor to do that maintenance work if we continue
to want Marco and Golden Gate to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad you brought that
back up because I had forgotten. I was going to make a point on that
as well. If you shift the general fund dollars over to an MSTU, the
tax burden is still on John Q. Public, whether he's paying in one or
paying in the other. It may look great in accounting and make this
board look good to say, boy, the ad valorem tax has gone down a tenth,
but they're still paying it. And, frankly, if it goes down a tenth,
I'm not sure this board doesn't find -- maybe not this year, but in
some year -- some other expenditure that will make up for what we've
dipped down. And I hope we don't do that, but that's human nature.
It's like the old -- the lottery was going to have all kinds of money
for education, and what it did was the money they made on education
then they took what they had allotted and put somewhere else.
MR. DORRILL: Well, I'm not espousing that at all. And,
in fact --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure you're not saying in
favor of that, but what likely will happen is exactly that. We'll
take the money out of the general fund and put it in this special tax,
but then we'll spend general fund monies on something else instead.
And I have a real hard time with this, because any way you look at it,
it is an additional tax.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I have to say that I agree
in concept with a lot of Commissioner Constantine's comments. I know
I have not heard from a couple of beautification districts, but I have
heard from a couple. And I think the consensus is that they would
like to keep their independence and their local control. And I think
that's very important to some of the districts that are already out
there.
At the same time I think our FOCUS meetings as well as
our Vision 2000 meetings around the county in different areas have all
said that beautification is a very important matter. We have a lot of
medians that are already beautified, and Naplescape is going to show
us their plans for the future to continue to do this.
We have a number of medians that are built. We have to
maintain them. We don't have a choice. I mean, you've got to
maintain them. And those that we build in the future you have to
maintain. But at the same time I agree with Commissioner Constantine,
that to set up a separate new taxing district is probably not the way
to go. The way we are doing it now is to fund it through general
revenues, and I think that's the way we ought to continue. It's in
everyone's best interest to have a -- an attractive well-maintained
community. Everyone's property values go up at that -- at that
level. And if -- on the converse, if the community does not look
attractive, then everyone's property values are going to go down. And
it's -- you know, take your choice. Personally I think an attractive
community with higher property values is in everyone's best interest.
Now, there may be some that would disagree with that, but it certainly
seems to make sense to me.
So what I would suggest is that to -- to uncomplicate
things, that we don't set up a special district to do any of this
funding, but just to continue funding the medians that we have now and
the ones that we will have in the future strictly through general fund
revenues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, I thought I heard you
say something.
MR. DORRILL: We have a handful of speakers, and I do
know that Mr. Botner has a brief presentation to show you in terms of
what the future has in store in the way of additional capital projects
that ultimately you're going to be asked to maintain.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, why don't we ask Mr. Botner
to make that presentation first, and then our public speakers will
have the entire picture so that they can comment on it.
MR. BOTNER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record
my name is George Botner. I'm executive director and president of
Naplescape. We appreciate your time and your indulgence, and as you
know, this is not a new item. You know that this is an issue that we
have been wrestling with, frankly, amongst ourselves for about the
last two years. And that two-year time frame relates back to the
initiation of the development of a comprehensive master plan for our
streetscape throughout Collier County. And I just want to show you
one graphic related to that. And I'm sure most of you have seen this,
because we've tried to keep you up to date on the progress of the
master plan.
This graphic came from HPO's 2015-year plan when we
started the master plan effort a couple of two or three years ago.
And as you know, HPO now is up to the 2020 master year plan. But
basically what you see up here is that urban area that Mr. Dotrill had
represented as being the potential area for a new taxing unit. What
it represents is all of the major arterial roadways within our
community, both landscaped currently and as yet not landscaped. And,
in fact, it also shows some roadways that are not in existence yet but
that were a part of HPO's plan, and so we thought to be comprehensive
about it, that we needed to look that far into the future so that we
knew what we were dealing with.
So this network represents 144 miles of roadways within
our community. And to do the quick math on that, that represents over
2,600 acres of public ownership within our community, even perhaps
more importantly than parks in terms of our actual utilization of that
open space, if you will. Everybody uses our public rights-of-way.
They are our window into this community.
I don't think that anybody is going to dispute the fact
that where we have been able to landscape under several different
mechanisms over the past several years back to 1987, that it has been
a worthwhile project, and I don't think anybody is disputing that.
But when Naplescape came to this new larger project and decided that
we wanted to try to find a way to extend the benefits that have been
enjoyed by landscaping within the context of existing taxing districts
and within the context of downtown Naples, the North Trail, most
notably, that we needed to find another way to try to fund this,
because it wasn't necessarily going to happen unless we were able to
come up with a comprehensive mechanism for funding that represented
the comprehensive scale of the project that we were looking at.
And when you look at it -- the landscapes have been
developed in three ways physically. They have been developed as -- as
an outgrowth of public-private partnerships. And I can tell you that
as executive director for Naplescape over the last three years that we
haven't had one that is replicated. They're all different. They all
respond to -- to different conditions given who the proponents are and
what they need to bring to the table in the way of a deal. That's one
technique. And, in fact, that was the technique that was the
Immokalee Road approach.
I can tell you right now that there are at least three
other deals that are on the table like that that we're working on, and
so we see that that funding opportunity would continue. But what that
funding opportunity does not allow us to do is to develop a
comprehensive way of guiding the future of these landscapes throughout
the community and what it's going to ultimately cost us. And that's
why several years ago we started the development of a comprehensive
master streetscape plan, which if it were to come to fruition, if we
were include it, would have development schedules for roadways in a
manner that was consistent with whatever funding mechanism we
devised.
I also wanted to mention that the other biggest means of
funding landscape, especially outside of the City of Naples, has been
through this approach. It's not a new idea. We've already talked
about MSTUs. That's how people are able to organize themselves for a
few dollars per capita to be able to landscape extensive road
rights-of-way. So it did not appear to us to be, you know, a
tremendous extent of that logic to say that instead of a proliferation
of MSTUs, let's just do one, and let everybody buy into that program,
because the cost per capita reduces dramatically. And it also
increases dramatically the opportunity for everybody in this community
to enjoy the benefits of those landscapes.
If you came to me and you said, okay, Mr. Naplescape,
what are you going to do, and how are you going to fund the 9 miles of
the improvements to the East Trail -- and, believe me, we hear that
all the time. I don't know. If we don't have this pro -- the State
of Florida's turned their backs on us. We need to be able to come up
with a mechanism to do that ourselves. And, frankly, this seemed to
be an approach, a logical approach, a logical extension of how we have
funded these things outside of downtown Naples in the past.
And the same thing goes for Davis Boulevard, which is
represented in the drawings on the floor. I know a lot of you have
already seen this, but two years ago you funded $5,000 for us to go
out and create a design for this so that we could then go out and try
to secure some private sector funding and then come back to you for
perhaps some matching funds. That was two summers ago we did that.
And Dawn Fiala (phonetic), one of our directors, is in the audience
today. And she has been working very hard with East Naples Civic
Association, as has our group, to sort of joint venture a fund-raising
opportunity. Commissioner Mac'Kie was at an event. Commissioner
Norris was at an event where from a grass-roots level we've attempted
to secure the pledges necessary to support that 50-percent private
sector funding. As of yesterday we have raised pledges in the amount
of $14,600. The private sector amount needs to be at 90, and we've
been at it for two and a half months. It's not an easy thing to do.
And that's what we want to impress on you. We do this. I mean, I do
this every day; that's my job. But when you leave the City of Naples
and you go further out into the community, there are not necessarily
all those benefactors that we have enjoyed in the past to do this kind
of program.
Stepping back from all of that, I would have to tell you
that this is one way perhaps among several that we could get a grip on
dealing with this subject in a comprehensive way, but we have been
working very closely with staff to come up with the beginnings of a
program to do it in a manner that is consistent with the way it's been
done in the past.
I'd also -- while I'm here, I'd like to recognize some
other Naplescape board members, Judy Sprowl (phonetic), our current
chairwoman, is in attendance. Judy served as our chair last year and
has graciously decided to do that for another year with us. Terry
Tragesser is here; she's been on our board for a couple years. Susan
Watts is here, and I've already mentioned Donna Fiala.
And two years ago I'd like to say that, you know, we
decided to take this show on the road, if you will. We were very
successful downtown, and one of the reasons why we've got the
representation on our board that we have now is in recognition of the
fact that we need some regional input and assistance as we go out into
the community and try to achieve other good things for us.
That being the case, if there's any questions of me, I'd
be happy to answer them for you. But that's why we worked with staff,
to try to generate this funding mechanism that could be as
comprehensive as the program.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are -- are there questions of Mr.
Botner?
Thank you, Mr. Botner. Why don't we move on to the
public speakers and listen to a comment on the overall project.
MR. DORRILL: We have six. The first will be Hiss
Straton and then following her Mr. Keller.
MS. STRATON: Good morning. I'm here representing the
Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust, and at our December 1st
meeting of the board of directors we voted unanimously to support
Collier-Naplescape in its efforts today to establish permanent funding
to move forward the Collier-Naplescape program. And so I wanted to
share the board's support with you today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Scholes.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen and also a
spokesman for the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. There's no
question about it that it's very nice to have landscaped medians.
There's no question it's nice to have the buildings that are alongside
these medians beautifully landscaped.
There's only one question. I've -- I've lived in a lot
of cities. I worked for the federal government, traveled, and I lived
in a lot of cities, and every single city or area that is developing,
they all have this idea that what we want to have is beautiful
parkways. We don't call them highways; we call them parkways. We did
it in Long Island. They did it in Chicago. They did it in almost
every city. It's ideal. There's only one problem; they keep on
expanding with population. The traffic in Collier County in the last
ten years has tremendously increased. Davis Boulevard, we can't even
afford to spend an inch of Davis Boulevard on landscaping, because
it's going to have to be six- or eight-laned within ten years.
Airport Road's the same way. We have to buy all of the property on
each side of Airport Road or get rid of any medians.
Every single city in the United States that has expanded
the way we're expanded ended up with a strip of concrete about 2 feet
wide in between the roadways and a fence, a metal fence so the cars
wouldn't go across the thing and bang into one another. So it's nice
to be -- be -- looking at this thing from a beautiful picture, but
let's try to be practical.
Secondly, we already have districts that decided that
they would want to spend money to improve their own districts. Now,
no matter how you work this thing out, who's going to pay back these
districts for the capital improvements that they spent? Why should
those districts who already spent capital improvements -- and I'm in
one of those districts -- pay to go and improve -- make capital
improvements in other districts and then also pay for maintenance of
the other districts? So it doesn't make any sense. We already passed
the -- we already passed the thing. We have already had more traffic
than we know what to handle with, and we're going to have to increase
laneage on every one of our roads, every one of our roads.
Unfortunately there are some roads like Rattlesnake Hammock Road that
is going to be very difficult to go and six lane. We may be able to
four lane it, but we're going to have a difficult time six laning it,
but we're going to have to six lane it if we keep on.
Our real problem in this county has been and it
continues to be increasing density. Property is getting very
valuable, and when property becomes valuable, it becomes economically
unsound to go and keep density low. And if we don't keep density low,
this place is going to be another Fort Lauderdale, no matter how you
look at it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Schole and then Dr. Biles.
MR. SCHOLES: Good morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you. I'm Gil Scholes, chairman of the Marco
Island Beautification Advisory Committee. I would like to say that
our committee is made up of seven persons. Five of those persons are
appointed by five of the major civic associations on Marco Island.
Several of those associations have taken the approach that this
represents double taxation, and they have said that Marco Island
should stand alone. There are two at-large members. I am one of
those at-large members. And I believe most of the people on Marco
Island have been totally confused with what has been in the press
during the last week, as Mr. Dotrill had said. We've seen figures for
the county tax of .10 mill, .20 mills, maybe up to .3 mills with a
cap of .5 mills.
We are currently in Marco Island paying .17 mills
annually for our beautification efforts. Will that continue at that
level? North Collier is a so-called signature highway. Will we get a
credit or reduction if we would participate? We don't know. We've
seen no firm figures.
We've seen articles that said that our beautification
unit would be eliminated and that the taxing unit would be eliminated
and everything would be run by the new county community. So basically
the people on Marco are confused. And our beautification committee
unanimously at the meeting on March 5th asked me to write the
commissioners. I wrote all of you as promptly as possible saying we
think it's unfair to go forward so fast without the people on Marco
knowing how they would be impacted. And if you do go forward with
something, we would ask you that you wait till 1996. Perhaps in
January hearings could be held on Marco to tell the people how they
would be affected, and I would like to make that request to the
commissioners again.
Finally, let me close and say that if for some reason
you feel something has to be finalized this fiscal year yet -- I'm
sorry, not fiscal year, but this calendar year yet, within your next
two meetings, then I would like to say that Marco would like to be
excluded from the county taxing district and that the HSTU that's been
in place about 15 years there would like to continue Marco Island
beautification efforts unto ourselves. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock,
you had a comment?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, there were -- actually I
had a couple of comments. If there are more speakers, I'll defer to
them until they've -- until that's done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Biles.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles and then Mr. Pettersen.
MS. BILES: Fay Biles, president of the Marco Island
Taxpayers' Association, HITA. Our board unanimously voted last week
to please ask that we do remain independent. I think some people are
confused about Marco Island. Collier Boulevard under this program
would only go to the residents' beach, which is San Marco 92. The
rest of South Collier all the way down around would be a separate
tax. And that's our hotels, our condos. It's for tourists a main
attraction. They love those medians, but that is not included under
this plan. That's only 60 percent of Marco Island. Our own
beautification committee, of course, attends to Barfield and all of
the other streets and roads on Marco, and we do pledge ourselves, of
course, to do that.
Unfortunately, last year with the water situation, the
tremendous amount of rain we had, and then plus the man who was doing
the watering -- and Mr. Dotrill noted that we have to irrigate our
medians -- went belly up. And so it took months before we got a
watering truck out there. Then the drive shaft went out. In the
meantime, the medians have died. Our medians are in terrible shape.
Anybody who comes onto the island now, everybody noted what has
happened to those beautiful median strips. So it's going to take a
long time and a lot of expense to get those medians to come back to
where they were. It's going to cost the county a heck of a lot more
money on that. Otherwise we will tax ourselves and do it ourselves as
we have done.
So we really feel that -- and I speak for both -- all of
HITA, MICA and MAC and Kjell -- Mr. Pettersen from MICA, all of us
have agreed that we would like to tend to our own. Leave us out of
this new plan, and we'll do it. And we'll bring the medians back.
We are all for a beautiful Collier County, please. In
fact, MITA went to all the Naplescape meetings. We had representation
there from the very beginning, the first meeting. And it was private
funded, and we were all for that. In fact, we even helped try to
raise money from Eagle Creek and Coral Isle shopping, all those shops
there, to beautify 951. We were not successful. They weren't
interested.
951 is a State Road, and on our master plan vision for
Marco Island they -- in fact, we approached them to find out what
their plans were, and they have told us they're not going to do
anything on 951 until the widening is completed, completely completed,
and then that they had very strict guidelines. They like sod and very
small trees. That's not our idea of beautification. So in the future
I think we have some things to look at. But in the meantime, please
leave Marco Island out of it. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pettersen and then Ms. Tragesser.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Biles.
MR. PETTERSEN: Thank you. My name is Kjell Pettersen.
I'm on the executive board of Marco Island Civic Association. I also
speak for Marco Association of Condominiums. They have asked me to
speak for them this morning.
I simply would want to underline the statements that we
made in our letter to the commissioners recently in our opposition to
the proposal that has been made, and I would like to echo Commissioner
Norris and Commissioner Constantine's statement that please let us
continue to do what we are doing. Let us maintain our independence.
Simply please leave us alone, and please fund the urban area through
general funds. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Tragesser and then Mr. Olds.
MS. TRAGESSER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Terry Tragesser, and I do sit on the board of Collier Naplescape. And
I -- I see and hear what the Marco people today want. I see very much
something that exists in all of Collier County, and that is community
pride. I think that when they talk about Marco Island and its
beautification, that they truly have taken ownership of the way their
community looks. And as I go out in Collier County, I see that played
out consistently. What I would hate to see happen in Collier County
would be for us to have a very graphic display of inconsistency
because we have not developed a comprehensive plan for our county.
The City of Naples is an example of a plan that has
developed into something superior. I would hate to see people say,
oh, I must be leaving the city; it's looking pretty grim. So I would
encourage you as -- as leaders of Collier County to look upon this
item as something that is important and to find solutions. You know,
getting mired in the details of it in a -- in a negative way won't get
the job done. And I would hope that you could look at this as
something that -- that we can solve.
And just as an aside, the Second District had a board
meeting last night, and I wanted to kind of test the waters with
them. We brought this subject up, and we received nothing but
positive responses as it would relate to landscaping and a
comprehensive plan. Their interests lied with, you know, what types
of plants we would use, the maintenance issues. But out in the
community by and large I have not seen anything but positive reception
to our signature corridors and -- and making them nice. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Olds will be your final speaker.
MR. OLDS: The name is Stanley Olds. I'm a concerned
citizen, and I think in all of this discussion we've forgotten one
factor, that the beautification of a city is certainly a tourist
attraction, and I don't know why we couldn't take some of the money
from the tourist tax appreciation and put it into this. And if -- if
it could be adjusted that way, I -- I would like to see that rather
than to have a new taxing unit, because once we get a new taxing unit,
again we're going into another tax, another tax, and it could rise and
rise and rise.
And I think that if you people could work out something
about -- forgetting about putting in a new tax, but maybe get the
funding from that tourist tax bill, because there have been many
people that have been trying to get money out of that, and I think it
could be adjusted because beautification is what? It makes the
tourists come here along with the other things. So my appeal is that
you get the money from the tourist tax thing. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the beds?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
question is best for you.
How do we measure the heads on
They came because of the trees.
Yeah, I came for plants.
I have a question.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
Just -- Mr. Dotrill, maybe this
I love this program. I love Naplescape.
I've been a big supporter the whole time. I want to see a
comprehensive program.
I -- I have a problem with the concept of an HSTU, and
I've only been through the budget process once, and that's why I
wanted to ask you this. If we adopted an HSTU for landscaping and
maintenance, then as we go through the budget process, am I correct
that if it were in the general funds, I can prioritize it? I can -- I
can cast my vote; based on this year we really need to take money out
of -- we can't spend it on landscaping this year, because we have a
huge flooding problem or we have some other problem. If it's in an
HSTU, have I closed that door? Do I have the opportunity to shift
money? I think -- I'm afraid I know the answer, and that's my
fundamental problem with this is that I think it's important. I think
it's very important, but I don't think it rises to the level of
something that requires a tax that can't be touched in the event
there's -- there are other problems in the county that the then county
commission prioritizes is more important in that year.
MR. DORRILL: I think my answer would be, all things
being equal, the best way to pay for this program and to have you, as
the Board of County Commissioners, who are the ultimate policy makers
and the only source of appropriation is to do it through general
revenues in the general fund. My efforts this morning are to remind
you that in addition to that need, because gasoline taxes is gone and
is no longer an option, is in as diplomatically a way as I can
reminding you of the other general fund sensitive issues that are
going to confront you this summer.
Secondarily to that is the proposal that has been
developed jointly since last spring with the Naplescape folks is to
try and identify and recognize our obligation, thus, this special
taxing district. But you're correct. If you levy that money for that
single special purpose as you do the Collier County street lighting
district if you live in a subdivision that has street lights, then you
cannot commingle those funds, and you're precluded from taking money
from street lighting districts or from tourist taxes and then throwing
them at median beautification projects. You cannot do that. And
somebody out there who's smart enough would slap you with a taxpayer's
suit to contest your trying to do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's fundamentally what
gives me the greatest amount of fear about this. When we're talking
about neighborhood districts, and people again have chosen to tax
themselves, I -- I love this program, and I want to see it. And
you'll find as we go through budget hearings that I'm going to be
supportive of maintenance and supportive of capital improvements that
have to do with streetscapes. But I'm unwilling at this point to say
as a priority for Collier County taxes, this is one that we've got to
protect. I'm afraid -- I'm afraid we have more critical needs.
Landscaping is important as it is in that if we adopted this MSTU, it
-- it's sort of an easy out for future boards instead of having to
make hard budget choices about how to spend money. And I love the
idea, but I just don't think it's the priority for Collier County that
this is a little pot of money that we've got to preserve.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- today's discussion reminds
me of a conversation I had with Ned Putzell, former mayor of the City
of Naples, about ten months ago. And it's amazing. If you talk about
the beautiful medians in the City of Naples, some officials will break
their arms reaching back to pat themselves on the back and talk about
what a wonderful job they're doing. But if you go back to when it was
originally formed when Ed Putzell, the mayor -- he took a lot of
heat. He took a tremendous amount of heat for establishing something
and going out on a limb, if you will, to establish something that now
has become a landmark not just to the City of Naples, but carries over
-- and has carried over to the county through the efforts of
Naplescape. It used to be five years ago when someone said, oh, I
love the beautiful medians. Your response was, oh, on 417 Now, when
they say I love the medians, I like to hear they were in Immokalee
when they realized that or out in the Everglades.
So, again, I commend the efforts of Naplescape, and I'm
reminded of -- of the limb Ed went out on and the rewards that has
reaped for this county as a whole. And for Mr. Dotrill, I commend you
for bringing this forward today. Have I commended everyone now? Not
you. I'm going to hold off on that.
I think we need to retain some incentive for
developments and businesses to -- to make that extra participatory,
you know, step. By blanketing this thing as a whole and taking away
that incentive, I think new developments that come on line would not
be as ready to spruce up that median as they are now. And so I think
that needs to be a little more clear. I would hate to see us take
such a comprehensive approach if we were to do this at all, that we
eliminate that incentive, and that's a concern.
There's a question of control here that Marco Island and
-- and the Golden Gate community feel, and it's very similar to what
I'm experiencing actually in fire consolidation. It's that if with a
small area we have absolute control over what happens and how the
dollars are spent, and we're more comfortable with that than we are
giving it to a larger whole. And I fully understand that, and I think
if this is to move forward, whether it be a minimum maintenance level
or level in which it expands the actual creation of medians, there
should be some contribution to subsidize the efforts and the dollars
spent in Golden Gate and on Marco Island. There's no way we can
fairly say, okay, you decided to do it so you keep paying. And, by
the way, we're going to add on to that. I think there has to be a
give and take there, because when I drive down Golden Gate Parkway,
you know, I'm amazed that -- that that community has done that, and
yet the county tax base who enjoys it every day -- I don't live in
Golden Gate, but I've been up and down that parkway several times in
the last month alone, but we get to enjoy it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we welcome you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, both of them. There are
only two people that said welcome. So, you know, I think, again,
there's another element to this that we have to look at that we can't
really layer it. If it's going to happen, there's going to have to be
a commensurate reduction or commensurate contribution to the existing
MSTUs and then let them stay in place to maintain that control. You
know, I think a hybrid of those two things is going to achieve the
most -- most of what we're looking at. What I would like to do today,
rather than either propel this thing where there are -- are
significant questions or to kill it in its entirety, is to ask the
county manager -- manager to try and address what concerns are raised
here today and see if there is a form in which this can be brought
back to bring some fairness and equity to the folks in Golden Gate and
Marco Island so that they can continue what they're trying to do. But
I think it's a good idea to establish a minimum maintenance level and
to make sure those funds are available for maintenance on an annual
basis. If at any given time a future board decides to cut into those
maintenance dollars and ruin the efforts of what has been achieved in
the past, I think we'll all rue that day and -- and if it takes
five-hundredths of a mill to maintain, well, let's at least set that
aside so that maintenance can continue. And if there's substantial on
top of that, that would fund the general fund. That would be my
recommendation, because I don't think it -- it takes away from
anything, but it does ensure at least the maintenance of what we have
and what we may have in the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I think it's been
pretty clear from all the FOCUS meetings and Vision 2000 meetings that
the common thread is over and over and over; we like medians
beautified. We want Naples to remain as it is. We don't want to lose
the character of Naples. We don't want to lose the character of
Collier County. We like the ambiance. We don't want it changed, so
forth and so on. I think that these issues are very important to
people. It's -- it's just always at the top of the list in these
meetings. Let's keep the character. Let's keep the community looking
good. And at the same time it's very important that these -- to these
groups that we've heard from for them to keep their local control, and
that's fine. I think they should. And the simplest way to take care
of everyone's problems is to simply continue to fund these issues out
of general revenues.
Now, one thing that we haven't heard here today yet and
I think we need to hear is -- or have a discussion on is Naplescape's
long-range plans and the implementation schedule for those plans and
whether the county intends to formally or semi-formally adopt those
plans and to commit to try to adhere to those plans as a schedule and
guide for the future. I think we need to -- to -- to hear that part,
too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good -- good point. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right.
Regardless of whether we create a special tax or not, we do need to
look at what extent do we want to do this. How far do we want --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask someone from
Naplescape; do we have -- are you prepared to come forward with a
plan, or would you feel more comfortable coming back in a few weeks?
Give us an idea here what we -- where we can go. Maybe that's not the
good phraseology.
MR. BOTNER: For the record, George Botner again. I'm
glad you brought that up. That's been a major project of ours, as you
know, for the last couple of years at Naplescape. It was like an
eight-phased master plan project that Naplescape funded the first
phase of which, and then the second phase was privately funded. And
we haven't pursued the project past that point as a result of some
funding, but it would certainly be within the realm of -- of our
interests in finalizing that plan, because it will answer all the
questions that everybody keeps asking all the way from, you know, how
much is this program going to end up costing us when we're done with
it to what street are we landscaping in 1997. And that's really what
we view as being a priority as it relates to our activities.
Now, what we would like to also suggest is that in the
spirit of a public-private partnership scenario is that the county,
since it will be the beneficiary of the ultimate result of the plan,
share with us in the cost of finalizing that. Now, that could go a
long way to -- to getting it completed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make this suggestion, Mr.
Botner. This is really not technically a part of today's agenda. MR. BOTNER: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When would you feel comfortable in
bringing back a proposal or your plans or whatever information you
think would be helpful to this board? MR. BOTNER: Next week.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next week, that was pretty quick.
MR. BOTNER: No, we've got all the information
together. I don't mean to sound flip about that. We've got it all
together. We know what the whole scenario relates to as to schedule,
and we can show you what we've produced today, and we can show you the
cost -- the projected cost to complete the project. But if -- if we
did develop a public-private partnership to conclude the master plan
that we've already started and funded ourselves and the private sector
has started and funded itself, within six months we could have a
completed comprehensive master plan to bring to this board for your
ratification.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- that's what I think this
board ought to do is to -- to work towards getting a master plan so we
have a direction for the future and we're not just zigzagging around
in the future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put that on an
upcoming agenda?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Matter of fact, I'll make a
motion here. I think we've gone far enough into the discussion to do
that. I'll make a motion that we -- that we do not change any of the
existing HSTUs at this time, that we continue for the next budget year
at -- at the minimum to fund our maintenance -- median maintenance
through general revenues and, further, that we direct the staff, if
possible, to have this -- have Mr. Botner's proposal back on the
agenda next week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. I just
want to share a couple thoughts. I am certainly in favor of
beautification and all you're doing. I commend George in particular
but the Naplescape group for its efforts, and it clearly does benefit
the entire community.
The -- I think Commissioner Hac'Kie said it very well,
that I'm not sure that this by itself, though, rises to the level that
I think is necessary to have its own special little taxing peg that is
very difficult to touch later on. I agree with Commissioner Norris;
we should keep it in the general fund. What that does is keeps us
accountable, but still it also keeps us or allows us the leeway that
in those emergency years if DCA throws us a curve or if there is
flooding or whatever, if there is some human interest priority, then
we have the ability to drop that out for a year, pick it back up the
following year, or for that matter, to increase in a year if we have
market dip. So I think it leaves us a lot of the leeway and still
holds a tight responsibility on it, so I'll gladly second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
I have a question for Mr. Dotrill. In your presentation
I seem to remember your saying that in the current fiscal year we were
going to be spending -- or at least in the next fiscal year you
anticipated spending about three-quarters of a million dollars in
maintenance on the existing medians that are not already in a
district?
MR. DORRILL: Approximately.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At eighteen -- at eighteen
billion dollars of assessed value countywide that's .04 mills
distributed countywide. Everybody's paying. There's no exclusion.
The city's not excluded. Marco's not excluded. Golden Gate Estates
is not excluded. Nobody is excluded. Everybody's paying their fair
share. If we are going to leave it in the general fund, I don't have
any objection to that. I see this as one of those quality-of-life
issues. I like the Naplescape idea, and if -- if we're going to leave
it in the general fund, I would prefer to do that as opposed to
setting up an HSTU with all these other areas excluded, because
currently everybody's paying their fair share for whatever roadway
they are using. So with that, I'm not sure there's a whole lot more.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the path I would prefer
is a little different, but I'm -- I'm not making a habit of swimming
upstream, so I think maybe we can continue to have some positive
impacts on the Naplescape plan, and I -- I will support the motion.
And, again, I appreciate everyone at least wanting to move ahead and
make some level of commitment that this is a priority in the
community.
MR. BOTNER: Could I just make one comment to that,
because we really appreciate hearing that? I know it's not my turn to
talk, but we really didn't have the guts to come to you with a general
revenue fund request. But if that's the way you'd like to do this,
and if we can use the master plan to give some guidance to what's
going to be done in the future, then that does what we primarily
wanted to do, and that is to put together some sort of mechanism to
develop a comprehensive approach to this rather than just shooting at
every project that comes along and hoping we can beg, borrow, or steal
the dollars to do it. So --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Botner and I had this discussion
yesterday afternoon, and I told him to anticipate that you may want to
go to general revenue as opposed to the special revenue route, and --
and he will leave here today if that occurs, and I -- I think that he
will, having won a victory for Naplescape and the board's realization
that general revenues are to be used to maintain your existing assets
countywide. You took that a step farther and said that special
districts can remain where communities want them to. But then,
frankly, that puts the burden on them continually to be the advocate
for future projects because, frankly, there would not be an Airport
Road median north of Golden Gate Parkway had it not been for their
efforts. I can assure you there wouldn't be one on Davis Boulevard
were it not for their efforts, because the staff is still trying to
get there, but by and large my public works people think that roads
should be asphalt and Bahia sod that gets mowed two or three times a
year.
MR. BOTNER: They're coming around better.
MR. DORRILL: And so that keeps them involved for
capital funding, and they'll have to be here -- I wouldn't say that
next week is the best time. I think the best time is during your
preliminary program budget reviews. And then they're going to have to
be here the day that you review the 301 capital improvement fund to
see what projects and under what conditions the county commission
wants them to proceed. And so that forces them to remain involved and
to be an advocate on behalf of the private sector.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But Mr. Botner was going to come
back to say that Naplescape did not have the funds to complete its
master plan.
MR. BOTNER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're going to make a
request of this board to participate in that.
MR. BOTNER: And we can make that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's not next week -- well,
next week's a pretty heavy agenda already, and I think -- I believe.
MR. DORRILL: We'll look at that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone and their mother is
coming next Tuesday for something.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me change the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say, didn't the
motion include that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. But why don't we just amend
the motion to let Mr. Botner and Mr. Dotrill to work that out to be a
more appropriate meeting if necessary.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it happens actually
fine. I just want to make sure it gets in time --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fairly lengthy discussions.
MR. DORRILL: That's fine. We'll handle that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the
change?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Botner.
MR. BOTNER: Thank you. I appreciate your help and
support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Lunch.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we take an hour, full
hour for lunch. Come back at 1:30. It's now 12:25.
(A lunch break was held between 12:25 p.m. to 1:36 p.m.)
Item #10A
UPDATE REGARDING ENDORSEHENT OF REVISED ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE GRANT
APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for December the 12, 1995. I think, Mr. Weigel,
I'm going to ask you to put the information you just gave us on the
record, if you would, that you've just talked to Mr. Hansen.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I -- I had an opportunity to speak
with Mr. William Hansen in Tallahassee of -- with the office that is
reviewing grant applications for St. Hatthew's House and others, and
he indicated to me that they will be making a determination today in
regard to the award of grants and that any communication for the Board
of County Commissioners would have to be received by today, preferably
by early or mid-afternoon for them to be able to utilize it in their
determinations. That's pretty much the essence of the conversation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Any further
discussion by the -- by the board on -- on this issue? If there
isn't, we'll move forward.
Next item on the agenda is -- We're at public comment.
Mr. Dotrill, was there any today?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. And the only item for which we
have public speakers for the afternoon would be 12(B) 2) and its
companion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12 (B) (2) ?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- I'm sorry. You said that
was continued?
MR. DORRILL: And its companion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And its companion.
MR. DORRILL: There is a companion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Companion. Okay. I'm sorry.
Thank you.
(Commissioner Hac'Kie entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So that's got speakers.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-95-7, KAREN K. BISHOP OF PROJECT HANAGEHENT SERVICES,
INC., REPRESENTING BLACK FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A
REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM RSF-3 AND
RHF-6 TO PUD (MOONLIGHT COVE) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 1/3 MILE SOUTH OF
THOMASSON DRIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF BAYSHORE DRIVE - WITHDRAWN AT
REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER
Okay. Let's get moving. Item 12(B)(1), petition PUD-95-7. Hr.
Milk.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bryan Milk, current planning. I am presenting
petition PUD-95-7, Moonlight Cove. Petitioner seeks to have certain
property as described in the staff report rezoned from RSF-3 and RHF-6
to a planned unit development consisting of single-family and
multi-family dwelling units on a 15-acre parcel.
The subject property is located adjacent to and
contiguous to the west side of Bayshore Drive. It is located
approximately one-third mile south of Thomasson Drive. Access
proposed for the subject property aligns with Colonial Drive which is
opposite Bayshore Drive. The subject property being 15 acres in size
has 12 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the property. It has a
three-acre upland. The project proposes to fill five acres of the
subject property and return seven acres to its original wetland
status. That being because the site is inundated with melaleuca and
Brazilian pepper and has been historically impacted by a residential
dwelling on the subject site. It -- It histot -- Historically it has
been excavated in some places. There's some low-lying areas. I think
from an environmental standpoint it's manmade rather than natural.
Petitioner --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to interrupt just for
clarification if I may.
MR. MILK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we talking about 74 units on
three acres of upland --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in addition to filling of --
of -- of -- some level of filling on the wetlands?
MR. MILK: Twelve acres of the site is jurisdictional
wetlands.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: Three acres is upland adjacent to Bayshore
Drive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And were you saying
they're proposing filling some of the wetlands?
MR. MILK: Five acres.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: It's jurisdictional; however, it's impacted
by exotics.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the net density is
going to be 74 units on eight acres? MR. MILK: That's correct. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead, Mr. Milk. I'm sorry.
I just needed to clarify that. Thank you.
MR. MILK: As it exists today, ten acres of the subject
property is currently zoned RMF-6. It's maintained that status
through an improved property determination in 1991 per policy 5.9 of
the Land Development Code. What that policy says is that if you have
zoning and it was deemed improved, you can build 65 units on that
subject site according to the RMF-6 standards.
Also, the five-acre property to the south that's zoned
RSF-3 is five acres. Five times three would allow 15 units per the
subject property. In all, the petitioner has the right as of today to
construct 75 dwelling units on the three acres or eight acres as it
exists.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that be affected at all by
the fact that this is substantially jurisdictional property? I mean,
if -- if your fezone didn't go through, they would have three acres of
buildable property until they filled -- until they did the filling
work.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So under our code they could
build 75 units on the three acres?
MR. MILK: On the subject 15-acre site after it's been
mitigated for the wetland encroachment. So what we're saying is,
based on the mitigation proposed for the entire property, it looks
like seven acres are going to remain wetland, five acres are going to
be filled, and the remaining three would be also used for upland
areas. Of that eight acres is going to be a one-acre lake set in the
middle of that for water management in that vicinity.
I guess the reason we're going through the PUD is,
number one, the RHF-6 zoning district and RSF-3 district are
conventional zoning districts with very specific development
regulations setbacks standards. The reason to go through the PUD with
this particular property is to offset the unability to develop in that
jurisdictional wetland area and provide some development flexibility
with two-story buildings and setback softenings on the side yards and
particular properties in and around the lake on the upland area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
MR. MILK: The petitioner could not achieve, in my
opinion, the net density that was provided for through the zoning
re-evaluation and improved property evaluation back in nineteen one --
1991 because of the physical constraints of the property today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like what we're doing
is very similar to a recent change in -- in cjuster developments. In
essence, we're reducing setbacks and interior setbacks possibly to
allow for more density, and in order to do that, there has got to be,
in my opinion, a community tradeoff. I mean, that was part of the
cjuster development requirement, is that there's got to be some
benefit to the community. And -- and -- Does that apply here -- I
mean, in -- in principle? It sounds like what we're -- In essence,
what we're doing is very similar to the cjuster development clause in
the Land Development Code.
MR. MILK: That is a provision of the development
standards outlined in the PUD document. That's correct. What you
have is single-family and multi-family development standards, those of
zero lot line cjuster and multi-family two-story buildings. So the
parameters that are applied to this particular district are very
similar to those in the RHF-6 district which is already approved on
the existing site. The problem is, is the site is constrained by its
jurisdictional boundaries. The PUD gives the petitioner the
flexibility of achieving its maximum density on that portion that can
be built upon, and that's the reason we're here today.
Policy 5.1 of the Land Development Code says that if
you're going to fezone the subject property, as we are requesting
today, from its current status, it cannot go up in density. It has to
be a reduction of -- a reduction from 75 units to six -- or 74 units.
It's a net reduction of one. There's no real policy that says that's
enough or that isn't enough; however, it is consistent with the future
land use element. It is deemed consistent with the Growth Management
Plan; therefore, staff is bringing this forward to you saying it is
consistent by our policies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They met it by reducing one unit?
MR. MILK: In effect, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We may have altered your
presentation. I apologize if I did so. What are your views on
compatibility when the end product is built and, in essence, a net
density of somewhere around nine units an acre is achieved? If this
were to be built out at 74 units, how is that compatible both to the
north and to the south?
MR. MILK: To the north, you have undeveloped RMF-6
zoning which allows multi-family and single-family and three-story
buildings. That is very compatible.
To the south, it's residential single-family. It's also
undeveloped. That, in essence, could be construed to be compatible
from a residential standpoint. From a height standpoint, there may be
some aesthetic concerns on that behalf, although there are buffering
requirements per the PUD which would allow a buffer and trees and --
and that sort of thing in that zone between the single-family and the
proposed development. Bayshore Drive acts as a barrier to those
properties that are east of the subject property which for the most
part along Bayshore Drive is undeveloped. There is a band of
commercial C-2 property that's undeveloped. That subdivision that
fronts Colonial Drive for the most part is developed with older
single-family homes.
To the direct west of the property is the Collier
Development Corporation's DRI. In that particular area, there are
buffers and residential and a mixed development on their particular
DRI master plan. It -- It's kind of a bubble diagram in that area,
but it does show residential and conservation areas abutting the
subject property. So, in essence, what you could possibly have here
ultimately is two-story buildings that pretty much similarize the
multi-family buildings of eight-plexes and ten-plexes in and around
Collier County which would be according to the petitioner a
condominium project.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Typically -- If I may, typically
we look when we go from single-family to multi-family zoning for some
level of transition so that, in essence, whether the southern
boundary, northern boundary are treated differently or whether the
project itself is transitional, what is your opinion on -- on this
project, in essence, being a transition from RSF-3 to RMF-6? Is that
evident in what's contained in the document, or do you feel there are
some gaps there?
MR. MILK: I think on the north, on the east, and on the
west, it is evident because there's jurisdictional wetlands to the
west of the project -- project. There are RMF-6 properties to the
north. Bayshore Drive is to the east. The subject RSF-3 property
located south, that has somewhat some compatibility issues with
probably height rather than residential to residential, but that's my
answer to that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: The -- Another thing to remember too is the
trips that are generated from the project are basically the same, if
not somewhat less, because with the mix of single-family and -- and
multi-family, there's about 441 trips they've projected from this
project at a buildout of 74 units. The particular roadway on this
particular area is a two-lane collector road or local collector, and
it's currently operating at level service A. The subject property
does have water and sewer availability. So from the aspects of
residential, it's compatible to the degree that it has all the public
services in the urbanized area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions?
Does that conclude what -- what you need to put on the
record for the petitioner?
MR. MILK: The only other comment I'd like to offer for
the record -- and it's merely because we want to be a little bit more
specific on -- on time frames. For the transportation -- On page 5-2
of the PUD document under transportation which would be item 5.4(B)
where it says, "The developer shall be responsible for installation of
arterial level street lighting at the project's entrance," I'd like to
add, "prior to the issuance of the initial certificate of occupancy."
Then on item D, I'd like to amend it. "The applicant
shall be responsible for the construction of the northbound left turn
lane prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy and
the southbound right turn lane prior to the issuance of the initial
certificate of occupancy on Bayshore Drive."
And that's merely some housekeeping measures on the
timing issue for those improvements. That's the only changes or
comments that I have. I would be happy to answer any other questions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have just one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, two. What was the vote
at the Planning Commission, and -- and did you get letters of support
or opposition? Did anybody speak?
MR. MILK: The vote at the Planning Commission I believe
was seven to one, and I received some letters or actually some phone
calls of inquiry on what the project was about, where it was located,
who was developing the particular project. No one spoke in opposition
to that particular project at the Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from the
petitioner if he has anything to add to the presentation?
MR. BARNARD: For the record, Commissioners, my name is
Tom Barnard. I'm a consultant representing Black Forest and would be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a level of discomfort with
the project's ability to transition from RSF-3 zoning to RHF-6 on the
southern boundary. I read in your development standards a 20-foot
setback from project boundaries, meaning that 20 feet from the
property line of RSF-3 zoning, we can have the back wall of a
two-story or three-story building, Mr. Milk, is it?
MR. MILK: That would be a two-story building.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two-story. I'm not so sure
that's a sufficient transition. So I need to -- I need to ask how
you've -- you've addressed that.
MR. BARNARD: Well, if you view the property from the
other -- current stan -- standpoint of zoning, you have RHF-6 against
RSF-3, in which case I can't give you the exact dimensions of how many
feet further north you would then have three stories impacting
single-story -- presumably single -- single-story single-family.
that, in essence, the two-story does become a transitional buffer
between RHF-6 and the probably single-family at -- at single-story so
that you're going three, two, one rather than three, one which you
would if it remained as it's currently zoned. I don't know if that
answers your concern.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what -- what you could do
-- What you could do I don't view as -- as addressing the matter.
What I'm dealing with is what you're proposing to do. Okay? So don't
-- don't bother telling me what you could do. I fully --
MR. BARNARD: No.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- understand that.
MR. BARNARD: I'm simply saying that in -- in -- in our
opinion, three, two, one is -- is a transitional type of residential
development. We -- We think that it does that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Any further discussion or questions from the commission?
If not, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm kind of flipping
through here looking for things to -- to give some ground. I'm -- We
dealt with this about two weeks ago on the Airport Plaza issue where
when you look at what is on the books for zoning and dealing with what
can happen or what may happen -- you know, here we have two vacant
parcels so it's tough to gauge. But when we start talking about
eliminating a significant amount of the piece and -- and the net
density grows significantly here to -- over nine units an acre would
be a net density -- I'm concerned about that density on such a small
parcel being adjacent to residential single-family. You know, whether
it's one building 20 feet from the property line or whether it's, you
know, ten buildings cjustered 20 feet from the property line is -- is
a visual impact difference to me. What I don't see and -- and maybe I
can get some help from the petitioner. I take it, Hiss Bishop's not
here?
What I -- I don't see or don't hear is the increase in
-- in buffering attempts to that southern property line. I mean,
let's face it. If there's going to be single-family homes, they're
going to be about -- anywhere from 30 to 40 feet from the property
line, and I -- I picture things such as in the Crossings development
where you have single-family homes and right benea -- right behind
them you have Arbour Walk, and there's someone's second-floor balcony
right above your fence. You can't build a fence and you can't grow
trees within 20 years high enough to give yourself a little bit of
privacy there. So what we've looked for in the past is those -- is
increasing that setback to give a better line of site to installing
sufficient vegetation to -- to give a significant buffer there, and I
don't see an effort in that regard, and unless I do, I can't support
the petition.
MR. BARNARD: Well, in truth, obviously in the location
that we're considering and where the property is located, a project
such as this has a limited window of economic viability. Certainly we
are developing it less -- to less than the maximum but not by
significant numbers less. The density --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe one unit was the
amount.
MR. BARNARD: Well -- But there is a further reduction
of -- We have a site plan which calls for a maximum of 72 units rather
than the 74 which is on the approval. I'm -- I'm not sure that --
whether that meets your concerns or not. As I say, as far as buffering
and -- and setbacks, obviously increasing the southern setback may
further reduce that to a point where the dwelling makes -- make --
makes no sense whatsoever because increasing obviously the -- the --
the buffer has to be in the upland area because that's -- that's where
it happens to be located. So I'm not sure that it isn't possible to
-- to add some buffering language in terms of vegetation, berming,
whatever -- whatever might be -- make sense and would be -- would be
willing to -- to live with whatever. I -- I can't speak to exact
vegetation types and so on, but certainly anything that's logical and
makes sense, we would be happy to comply with.
MR. MILK: Right now the minimum landscape buffer per
the Land Development Code is a ten-foot buffer with a tree planted
every 30 linear feet. That is the transition between residential and
residential. If you wish to make that further opaque, there's the
requirement for the opaque fence and vegetation and/or the berm
combination of that within that ten foot that would offer the opaque
buffer in that ten-foot landscaped area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, could you point out on
that map for me which of the -- which of the parcel -- what portion of
the parcel is currently zoned RSF-3?
MR. MILK: Currently the southern five acres is zoned
RSF-3. In 1991 that was down-zoned to be compatible with the RSF-3
property that was set just to the south of that. The RHF-6 property
to the north encompassing the ten acres and the other ten acres was
deemed improved property; therefore, they maintain their RHF-6 status.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So in 1991 the -- the southern
portion there was down-zoned to be more compatible with the property
adjoining?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, this -- this request that we
have before us today would reverse that 1991 action in effect?
MR. MILK: For a net density standpoint, no. But for
the flexibility of putting more units on that particular five-acre
subject property, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MR. MILK: It's a catch-twenty --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- let me -- let me make sure I
understand. In 1991 that property was -- was RHF-6 and was down-zoned
to RSF-3 in order to make a transition to the -- to the RSF-3 that is
directly to the south to protect the rights of the people that have
the property to the south?
MR. MILK: I think in conclusion that's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And now this petition, as I
understand it, would allow multi-family units to be placed at -- at a
net density of over nine per acre in that southern portion that was in
1991 limited to three units per acre for the protection of the
neighboring property?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I follow what you're saying now,
and I wasn't at first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an excellent point.
MR. MILK: What -- What happened -- That's absolutely
correct. What happened is, to the zoning teevaluation process, there
was no improved statuses or exemptions for that five-acre parcel, so
it was down-zoned, period. Again, the ten acres to the north
maintained its RHF-6 zoning because it was deemed improved property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference was, the
transitional boundary occurred within the project limits, and by
virtue of this PUD, the transitional boundary is being forced to the
south where someone else is going to have to deal with it at some
point down the road. And where the petitioner says that there's
economic viability at a certain point for his parcel, I would tend to
believe that that RSF-3 parcel is going to experience some level of --
of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Diminished value.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- diminished potential maybe,
you know. So we establish a transition boundary, and then by virtue
of a PUD, we -- we abolish it and shift the burden to the southern
property, and this -- this is one of those famous ingruns that we hear
so much about.
MR. MILK: We do abolish it, but we limit it to the
upland area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, which we don't have much
choice about anyway. We don't -- We don't control those permits. MR. MILK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the one dissenting vote on --
on the Planning Commission, was it stated the reason for that
dissenting vote?
MR. MILK: The -- The thought there was -- and the same
conversation arose during the Planning Commission, is how much density
should be approved on the subject parcel or on the property as it is.
And the conversation was -- is that they are reducing density, so they
do comply with policy 5.1 of the Land Development Code which makes
this a consistent fezone application from staff's viewpoint from
long-range and planning. The opposing member stated that we ought to
further reduce that one unit to something else. Nobody could pull a
figure out so I think --
MR. BARNARD: If I may, I believe that if you check the
tape of that, you'll find that the dissenting voter requested that
since the site plan called for 72 units, that -- would we be willing
to reduce it to 72. And -- and I can't speak with exact certainty,
but I have -- I have a strong feeling that had we done that, it would
have been unanimous.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- While the petitioner is
up there, can I ask a question?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- The -- Who's going to
develop this property?
MR. BARNARD: This property is being developed by the
gentleman sitting here, Walter Hoffman. Walter is a native of Germany
and has been in this country for some time, and he's experienced with
doing development in Germany but has not done it heretofore in this
country.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- I -- I need to know what
-- what are we going to build here. Are these to be rental
apartments?
MR. BARNARD: No. They're going to be condominium.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Condominium.
MR. BARNARD: Single ownership but in a condominium
form, two-story, garden type with a pool, recreation area. Actually,
an attractive improvement to an area that has some areas that aren't
so attractive, and -- and I don't think I have to explain that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But of course you're not biased on
that opinion --
MR. BARNARD: Not at all.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- at all, are you?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me suggest that -- You know,
the problem is when we go to net density, net density can change
depending on what environmental restrictions you have, what water
management requirements exist, and -- and generally net density is
going to be at least one and a half times your -- your gross density
anyway. I mean, that's -- that's just a reality.
The problem that I keep coming back to is -- and it's
one that Commissioner Norris highlighted very appropriately -- is that
there was a transitional barrier that was within these project limits.
That barrier is being shifted. I disagree with that. What I would
like to see is that transition to occur within your project, not on --
not on the southern border where an adjacent property owner's going to
have to deal with it. Your PUD is not structured in such a way to
give different development restrictions on the south than you have on
the north; is that correct, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Until you can develop
restrictions to the south that cause the transition internal to your
project, I -- I simply see you shifting the problem. You know, it's
-- it's taking advantage of -- of the structure of a PUD to get
around the transition that was imposed in '91.
So unless you're willing to today commit to development
restrictions similar to those established in RSF-3 on the southern
boundary of your property, then this -- this transition I think is --
is unduly and unfair to the property of the south.
MR. MILK: That could happen because it is set up -- or
development regulations are less restrictive than the RSF-3 district,
yet we do have certain categories for detached single-family homes.
So you -- you could call out -- You know, for instance, category one
shall only be built along that southern property line, and that would
provide that transition from single-family to multi-family from the
project to the south.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Help me in the document.
Where is category one?
MR. MILK: It's on page 44 of your agenda. It's table
one on page 3-4 of the PUD document.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, I think we're -- Are we
saying here now that we're going to build only single-family homes in
what is currently the southern five-acre portion -- MR. MILK: Well --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- as defined on that map?
MR. MILK: That -- That's not what I'm saying. I'm
saying along the boundary.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There will be at least -- You're
saying there will be at least one row of single-family --
MR. MILK: At least a row of transition between the
property to the south and the property that we're proposing of
multi-family buildings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that because it puts the
transition back where it originally was intended to be and doesn't
shift it to the southern property.
MR. MILK: I mean, that could happen because it's set up
in a table like that. I can't speak for the petitioner, but, again,
that flexibility could be an input into the PUD document which would
provide for single-family along the southern boundary of the RSF-3
property, not the whole five acres, and the remainder of the project
could be as developed by the petitioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What would that do to the
density?
MR. MILK: You know, according to the site plan, you
come in off Colonial Road. There's a lake in the middle, and there's
condominiums designed around that particular lake. I'm sure it would
take probably 16 or so units away from the petitioner because of the
alignment, the water management, the constraints of the site. That's
my guess. It would take a couple of buildings right away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Based on what Mr. Barnard was
saying about the economic viability -- and I can count the shaking
heads up here -- I don't know if this is something you're going to
want to stop, pull back, and re-evaluate because rather than us right
here going through with a red pen and saying what changes under
category one, what changes under two are voting to deny, you might be
able to be more creative if you went away and came back. That's just
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My proposal -- and I'll --
I'll -- I'll mention this before I make a motion. Mine would be that
only categories one or two type development occur adjacent to the
southern property boundary, period. And what that means is
single-family or single-family zero lot line occur to the south, and
then you can deal with the transition internal to your project in
whatever manner you best -- best see, and that gets us back to where
-- what -- what was done in '91 and I think what was done
appropriately in '91. So it puts a transition in your balipark, not
in your neighbors', and I think that's a fair approach, and that would
be -- I would put that in the form of a motion. So before I do that,
if you wish to, you know, withdraw the application or continue the
application to make changes yourself, you may want to discuss that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's give him a couple of
minutes to discuss what they want to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That theme from Jeopardy would be
welcome at this point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm ready for your motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We're --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're -- We're getting close to
wanting a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
(Commissioner Hac'Kie hummed the theme song to the game
show Jeopardy.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Those viewers at home, please
don't adjust the volume of your TV set.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm going -- Unless the
petitioner has a statement, I -- I'm prepared to make a motion.
MR. MILK: I -- I just want to offer one thing. There's
a little language barrier here a little bit. His site plan shows that
the closest building to the southern property line is about 100 feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that site plan is not a part
of our package or this.
MR. MILK: That's correct. He may not understand that
fully, but according to the site plan -- because what happens, there's
a road that goes in. It's a loop road. All the buildings are
internal, and they have a lake view. So, in essence, that plan
provides for about 100 foot of buffer to the property to the south.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me get this straight. When I
asked about a setback from the south property line, I was told if you
moved it more than 20 feet, it may create an economic hardship.
let's get with the program here. Either --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it 100 feet or 20 feet?
MR. MILK: No. It's only 20. That's -- That's what the
table says.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. The setback is 20.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if you were planning on doing
100, that would have been a real good time to tell me that.
MR. BARNARD: Well, I -- I don't have the site plan with
me unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The site plan is not a
part of what we've been given today, so we're not going to -- I'm not
going to base my decision on -- on something that's out there
somewhere else.
One of two things. You need to withdraw your
application, or I'm going to make a motion and I'm -- You know, I'll
tell you what. I'll just go ahead and make the motion. You can
interrupt me if you want.
MR. MILK: Let me offer one more thing. I'm sorry.
Maybe we can offer a perimeter setback as a part of the regulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I'm not comfortable with that
because I keep looking at that map, and I remember that in 1991 that
line was drawn arbitrarily on that piece of property to keep -- to
ensure that there's going to be a transition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's exactly right.
MR. MILK: Because I think with the right-of-way and the
landscape and the distance between the southern boundary and the
buildings -- again, I offer the perimeter setback.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm -- I'm going to make a
motion that may contain both of these, and you can either like it or
hate it. That's -- That's your option.
MR. BARNARD: I -- I -- At this time I would request
that we withdraw the application for consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a request by the
petitioner to withdraw the application. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need to approve a
withdrawal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
He's -- He's withdrawn it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
We don't need to approve it.
Thank you.
Withdraw the motion to -- Mr. Milk --
-- approve the withdrawal.
-- as far as staff direction, I
think this board has shown one of two things. We want to see a
compatible product to the south property line or a setback equivalent
to the lot size of the compatible product so that, again, the
transition occurs internal with the project. Is that a fair statement
from the board?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
MR. MILK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Sounds fair to me.
Sounds fair to me.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Milk.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 95-73 RE PETITION R-95-7, DR. NENO SPAGNA, PRESIDENT, FLORIDA
URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES P. NEBUS, TRUSTEE, AND IVEY
JEAN NEBUS, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "TTRVC" FOR
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ROCK CREEK CAMPGROUND, 3100 NORTH ROAD - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS (COMPANION TO ITEM #13A2)
Next item on the agenda is item 12(B)(2), petition R-95-7 and
companion item 13(A)(2). Hr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. The petition that is before you seeks to have three
and a half acres currently zoned agricultural zoned TTRVC which is the
travel trailer and recreational vehicle campground district
classification. The property -- The three and a half acres is
immediately contiguous and west of the current Rock Creek TTRVC
campground, and, of course, it is the same owner. The owner wishes to
expand the current Rock Creek campground. The configuration of the
property and the natural conditions of the property suggest that a
substantial portion of it -- namely, that portion contiguous to Rock
Creek -- will remain in its natural condition due to its mangroves and
-- and other qualifying vegetation that demands preservation, and in
-- in reality, we have about -- enough land left over according to
the petitioner for about 18 sites based on their preliminary analysis
of a feasible site plan.
The future land use element provides that TTRVC zoning
may occur in any urban-designated residential area and that the
prevailing density when such an action is undertaken would be the
action -- would be the density that's provided for in the Land
Development Code which is 12 TTRVC sites per acre, and I enunciate
that because we're really talking about a different animal when we
talk about TTRVC sites and -- and a -- and a regular dwelling unit per
acre. So the -- the -- Because of -- Because of that relationship
dictated by the -- by the future land use plan, therefore, the
petition as presented is consistent with the future land use element.
Reviewed by appropriate staff, jurisdictional staff with
responsibility for advising us on levels of service and consistency
with elements of the -- of the Growth Management Plan reveal that the
subject petition in its location is consistent with all elements of
the Growth Management Plan.
This petition was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory
Board and -- and it was recommended for approval by the Environmental
Advisory Board.
The Planning Commission heard this petition, and they
unanimously recommended approval of the petition. There were some --
There were a couple of people that were present and spoke in favor of
the petition. No property owner communicated any level of objection
to our office. The resolution -- I would point out that the
resolution -- the ordinance that supports the approval action would
have one major condition in it, and that is that no a -- approval of
this petition will not result in any additional access points on North
Road. The project -- In other words, the land will be developed
internally from the existing R.V. Park.
With respect to the variance petition, the current Land
Development Code requires a 50-foot setback from roads and exterior
boundaries. That -- That amendment came about in about 19 -- in the
1993 amendment cycle. Prior to that, the setback requirement was 25
feet. Needless to say, the existing park is developed with respect to
North Road with a 25-foot setback and is bermed and -- and fairly well
landscaped.
The staff report suggests that in analyzing the
conditions precedent to support of a variance, that there are -- there
is reason to believe that there are extenuating circumstances and
characteristics unique to the property that -- that support the
consideration of the -- of the variance.
The Planning Commission when they heard this petition
unanimously supported the granting of the petition; however, there was
some modification to the conditions in the resolution of adoption that
they reviewed versus the one that is now before you relative to the
provision of the landscaped berm. You will note -- You'll note in the
resolution that there are two conditions that deal with the quality of
the perimeter berm -- the berm that would separate North -- North Road
from -- from on-site activities, and that condition reads as follows
on your page 26. An earthen berm shall be established along north
boundary -- the north boundary -- namely, North Road -- of the
expanded R.V. Park. The berm shall be -- shall be contoured to
achieve a height of four feet; on top of the berm, a vegetation screen
with at least 80 percent opacity at the time of planting for
additional height of four feet shall be established. And it goes on
to arrive that that will be administratively dealt with at the time of
site development plan. Submission is required which will be required
of this -- this petition at a subsequent development of order of
approval base.
With respect to the west boundary, the condition says,
within the 25-foot west boundary setback, existing vegetation shall be
supplemented, if necessary, to achieve an opacity rating of 80 percent
at the time building permits are at issue -- are issued for additional
R.V. Sites.
Most of the property, incidentally, to the west of this
site is -- is owned by the -- by the owners of Rock Creek. There is
one house on the south side of -- and I -- the name of that road
eludes me now. There's only one -- There's one residence on the very
south end of East Street that would have any relationship to the R.V.
Park and the effect of the 25 feet versus 50 feet. There's a very
dense vegetation screen along there. Quite frankly, I don't know that
it would meet the 80 percent opacity rating, but at the time of site
development plan approval, if you agreed with the Planning
Commission's recommendation, we would ensure that whatever vegetation
is there does indeed meet the 80 opacity rating. Dr. Spagna is here
on behalf of the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just wish to remind the
board that we are listening to both a fezone petition and a variance
request. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned the setback,
and particularly you mentioned on North Road. I might point out that
not only is it landscaped, but it has some of the best Christmas
lighting in all of Collier County on North Road there. MR. NINO: Including the county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. This is -- You said it
is concurrent with our Growth Management Plan, does -- was approved
unanimously --
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- by the Planning
Commission.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I look through the pro and
cons included in our executive summary here, the cons seem weak at
best. The fact that placement of any type of housing that establishes
a population could be viewed not without some element of risk when
next to an airport certainly hasn't prohibited prior growth around the
Naples municipal airport. And the -- As far as the urban
intensification, we're only talking 18 new sites. So I don't see that
as a big impact on travel or transportation. So I'm -- I'm very
comfortable with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Dr. Spagna, there doesn't seem to
be a church involved in this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are you doing here?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why are you doing this one?
DR. SPAGNA: It will be coming later but not quite yet.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
this property in the end?
DR. SPAGNA: Not yet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
The Rock Creek Church.
Are you going to put a church on
Okay.
They'll be meeting on the fourth
pad on Tuesdays. The property -- Mr. Nino, would you help me? The
property that is owned by the same folks that are -- are applying for
this variance and fezone, how much of that -- Is it all but that one
southern parcel that is adjacent to the western boundary?
MR. NINO: No. The owners also own the next -- the
immediately adjacent west properties extending about halfway down East
Street, and there's a house on it and owned by the petitioner. They
didn't wish to include it in this petition.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: It's a functioning residence.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And help me. On the western
boundary, again, existing vegetation and additional plantings to reach
80 percent opacity before a building permit is issued. Is that the
extent of buffering on that side?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're reducing -- No, we're
not reducing the setback on that side, just on the road side?
MR. NINO: Yes, we are reducing the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 50 to 25.
MR. NINO: The setback would -- would currently be 50
feet, Commissioner; however, the Planning Commission supports the --
the reduction in the 50-foot separation to 25 feet on the
understanding that -- that the vegetation screen in there will achieve
an 80 percent rating there -- there -- You know, the -- the feeling is
that -- that -- that you can achieve as much -- and we've dealt with
this before. You can achieve as effective a barrier within varying
horizontal distances. It simply depends on what you do in terms of
its intensity on the smaller horizontal distance.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Spagna, my only concern there
is that folks who do develop those parcels may very well develop them
residentially, and I'm just concerned about the visual, the visual
impact there. So I guess that's about as good as we can do without
putting up a fence so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker on this, Mr.
Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: We have a couple. Dr. Spagna, do you have
any other comments?
DR. SPAGNA: No. I don't have any other comments,
except I want to make sure that if you have any questions, that I have
a chance to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. After the public speaker,
if -- if you need to -- to rebut anything, we'll be glad to hear it.
Mr. Dotrill, you want to call the speaker?
DR. SPAGNA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krantz. And then Ms. Nebus, Ivy Jean
Nebus, if I could have you stand by, please, ma'am.
MS. KRANTZ: Good afternoon. My name is Gwyn Krantz,
and I'm from the Waterfront which is just west of what we're talking
about. And may I say that these people helped us when the city was
going to take ten acres alongside of them and put low housing. All
they kept mentioning was the three shacks on North Road which was this
property that we have in question right now. They bought this
property, took the shacks down, are -- in attempt to make it nice and
put a berm, and we have -- as the Waterfront with units of 125 to
$160,000 have no opposition to these people. We think what they've
done is wonderful, and they've also -- when we had our 100-year rain
and it was flooding right there by their -- about 400 feet in, they
let us go through their park which their roads were better than North
Road. So thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. -- Ms. Nebus. And then, Janet Nebus,
you'll follow this lady. Good afternoon.
MS. NEBUS: Hi. I'm Ivy Jean Nebus, and we currently
own Rock Creek Campgrounds and have done so for many, many years since
it was in existence in 1950, and we strive to be good neighbors and
hope to be, and we are very fortunate to have the people on Waterfront
on the west side of us, and we hope that we can remain good neighbors.
So we hope you see fit to grant us this petition and the variance.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. NEBUS: Hi. My name is Janet Nebus, and I live and
have lived at 2468 North Road which is the neighboring property that
you're talking about. I would be the neighbor to the west of the
proposed site. I work in the office managing it and working with the
family business. Being a native of Naples, I am proud of our small
business and what we have accomplished over the years. We've tried to
maintain a beautiful place and that promotes what Naples is after,
beauty and charm, and I have no reservations, would actually welcome
the opportunity to live next door. I think it will be a beautiful
place, especially since I'll probably be helping to plant most of the
plants on the berm. Thanks a lot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was the last
speaker, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Mr. Spag -- Dr. Spagna, do you need to add anything else? DR. SPAGNA: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval.
DR. SPAGNA: I mean, thank you, no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we need to
take both of these -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we need to take them
separately. Can I have a motion on the fezone petition?
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have a comment?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it wasn't a comment. It was a
just reminder there's two -- two parts.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
of the PUD.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
a PUD.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve petition R-95-7.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
There's two. So I move approval
Second.
It's a fezone petition. It's not
I'm sorry. It's a fezone.
Okay.
I'll second that too.
We have a motion and a second to
Any further discussion?
That -- That's with the
stipulations that were discussed?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the motion?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
I assume, yes.
With the stipulations?
Is that
Second?
Second amends.
No further discussion.
All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 95-690 RE PETITION V-95-21, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA, PRESIDENT,
FLORIDA URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES P. NEBUS, TRUSTEE,
AND IVEY JEAN NEUBS, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING 25 FOOT VARIANCES TO THE
PERIMETER SETBACKS OF 50 FEET TO 25 FEET FOR PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO
3100 NORTH ROAD (COMPANION TO ITEM #1282) - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve V-95-21.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition V-95-21. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
DR. SPAGNA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Spagna.
DR. SPAGNA: Have a nice afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No church on this one; right?
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 95-74 RE PETITION PUD-95-10 GEORGE L. VARNADOE, ESQUIRE, OF
YOUNG, VANASSENDERP 7 VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING U.S. HOME
CORPORATION REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RHF-12 (10) RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY ALL TO
"PUD" FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS ANPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY
CLUB, SOUTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED
Next item on the petition -- on the agenda is 12 --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Varnadoe Baptist Church.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 12(B) -- 12(B)(3), petition
PUD-95-10. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. This petition
purports to repeal the current Shamrock Country Club and Golf Course
PUD and replace it with a new PUD which will be henceforth known as
the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. The PUD in its new form
increases the land area by 35 and a half acres. Most of the added
land is currently zoned RMF-12 with the cap of ten resulting from
rezoning re-evaluation process, and some of the land was zoned
agricultural. The original Shamrock PUD was essentially a parcel of
land that had frontage on Davis Boulevard, frontage on C.R. 951, the
added areas agricultural and the RMF-6 up in this corner here.
(indicating)
The PUD was originally approved for 550 dwelling units.
The new PUD would propose 799 dwelling units. However, as I indicated
to you -- which, incidentally, is substantially -- the total number of
dwelling units is 1.43 dwelling units per acre substantially below the
threshold that is permitted by -- otherwise permitted by the density
rating system. The base density here is three dwelling units per
acre, and because of that frontage on two arterial roads, there's
another density dwelling unit, so that makes it four. And a
substantial portion of this project is within -- is within the
one-mile band of an activity center which would authorize an
additional three dwelling units per acre. So you see the density at
1.43 is -- is significantly below the -- the threshold that is
otherwise possible for this property.
The -- As it's structured, this -- this property is --
is really a green plan and is more as -- so well iljustrated by the --
by the map that is on the wall. If you -- We figured it out, that
about 8 percent -- 8 percent, approximately 40 acres, 45 acres of --
of the 550-some acres is really an impervious surface. I mean, that's
the building area and the streets area. So there's an infin --
infinitesimal small part of this property that will be in hard
surface. Sixty-six percent of the project --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there anything bad about this?
I'm -- I'm looking -- MR. NINO: You might find something bad about it. I
don't know.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Sixty-six percent --
UNKNOWN VOICE: Not if you sit down.
MR. NINO: Sixty-six percent --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So what -- what are you trying to
say, Ron?
MR. NINO: Well, I want to cover -- Sixty-six percent of
the project is an open space; therefore, that meets our open space
element.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I realize Mr.
Nino has a job to do, but I'm very comfortable after reading through
the executive summary and attached paperwork. MR. NINO: Wonderful.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, is there anything else
that you absolutely must get on the record?
MR. NINO: It was recommended for approval unanimously
by the Planning Commission. The only opposition -- I -- I do need to
get something on the record.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. I -- I thought there might
be.
MR. NINO: The only opposition to -- There really wasn't
any opposition voiced. There was a concern addressed that the
residents in the -- in the airpark, Wing Airpark, would not be -- have
future problems by future residents of Naples Heritage with planes
flying overhead, and Mr. Varnadoe consented to provide a declaration
in the PUD which, incidentally, is not in your copy because the
language came along later. So your documents has the revision in it
that provides a declaration to property owners that they are in a
flight path and puts them on notice, and that addresses that concern.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that put --
MR. NINO: Other than that, we have nothing else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does something in this
property's PUD put somebody else on notice?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It puts the owners that are going
into this PUD on notice that there is an airpark --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That they're in a flight path.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- adjacent. Is that correct,
Mr. Varnadoe?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I got it.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. Wing South is about a half mile to
our south, and -- and their runway lines up with the southeastern part
of our development there, and they ask that we put those people in our
contract documents on notice that they are within that proximity of
the airport, and we thought that was a good idea for our own
protection as well, so we've agreed to do that in the PUD.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could -- could ask another
question?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got the floor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I -- I've been hearing
about the Shamrock PUD for about 100 years, and -- and it's never been
able to get off the ground, and I remembered hearing things about RCWs
and environmental concerns. Did this go to EAB, or should it have?
MR. VARNADOE: The project went to EAB when it was first
zoned.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shamrock.
MR. VARNADOE: When it was Shamrock, yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it hadn't been to EAB in this
-- How will those environmental issues be addressed? I trust there
-- there are 5,000 agencies out there waiting to regulate you on that
point, but I just needed to know.
MR. VARNADOE: There are no agencies out there waiting
to regulate us on that point because we have received all of our
environmental permits, and the reason we came back just to be very,
very brief was because during the permitting phase, the green space
got to such an extent that we needed to kind of revitalize the plan,
and this plan you see has got all of its environmental permits with
the exception of parcel or tract B up there which is the part we're
adding. We're proposing only passive recreation uses and maybe a lake
on that. Before any development occurs, we go back to the EAB with an
EIS so they can take a look at that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, there are no public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask something. I
forgot what it was, so never mind. Oh, oh. The-- Our packet doesn't
have a PUD master plan in it. Mr. Nino, was one submitted? I assume
one was submitted. It's just not here.
MR. NINO: Yes. Yes. One was submitted. I'm sorry if
it wasn't in your packet. It's the same plan that's on the wall.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that it?
MR. NINO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With that, I'm ready to
make a motion to approve PUD-95-10.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD-95-10. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nino.
Item #12B4
ORDINANCE 95-75 RE PETITION R-95-8, DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY &
ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING EARL FRYE REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C-3
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT TO RMF-16 RESIDENTIAL/MULTIPLE FAMILY
16 DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4975 BONITA BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item on the agenda is item 12(B)(4), petition
R-95-8. Mr. Nino, you're still with us.
MR. NINO: Ron -- Ron Nino, for the record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This one might be a tougher
sell.
MR. NINO: The petition that is before you seeks to have
property currently zoned C-3 rezoned to the RMF-16 multi-family
district classification. The future land use element actually
encourages people to convert commercial zoning that is otherwise
inconsistent with the future land use plan by awarding them a density
of 16 -- by providing for a density of 16 units, I should say, per
acre.
The property immediately east of this project is the --
is the Hickory Bay condominium. It has 105 units -- 108 dwelling
units in six-story build -- in a six-story building. The project
immediately -- The property immediately to the west of the subject
property is currently under development as a marina, containing both
wet and dry slips. So you have -- You know, you have the property
sandwiched between a condominium project that probably will -- that
this probably will probably end up being developed much like it and --
and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know what the
densities are on those?
MR. NINO: -- and the commercial property. I beg your
pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know what the
densities are on the condo property?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The property to the east?
MR. NINO: Well, the density on the condo project --
here again, the -- Let's see. I had that here.
MR. NADEAU: I can respond to that for you, Ron, if you
wish.
MR. NINO: It's misleading because the Hickory Bay PUD
includes a great mass of water area, and the net -- the gross density
is somewhere in the neighborhood of four or five dwelling units per
acre, but I believe we -- in the -- on the net basis, it's up around
15 or 16 on the net basis.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nadeau, you're going to have
to identify yourself.
MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A pleasure
to be before you again. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau with
the firm of HcAnly Engineering, representing the contract purchaser,
Earl Frye, who is also the applicant. And to go immediately to your
question, the Little Hickory Bay PUD to the east of the subject
property is 108 dwelling units on 24 acres. There are some mangrove
lands there that would provide for that density. The gross density on
that parcel is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, but when looking at the
net density of the building parcel which is actually four acres with
108 dwelling units on it, you have 27 dwelling units per acre. And as
Mr. Nino described to us, this is 2.93-acre parcels that we're
proposing 47 dwelling units on.
MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, I continue to remind you that
-- to present my report, I mean, this petition did go to the EAB. It
was recommended for approval. You'll notice in the resolution -- the
ordinance of adoption that there are -- there are a number of
conditions to that approval. Well, there's one condition, and that
has to do with a common ingress and egress. I believe Mr. Nadeau will
describe that later on, but one of our concerns was that -- that this
property and the marina share a joint driveway to minimize the impact
on Bonita Beach Road, and there is an agreement to that. The site
plan was approved with that shared access driveway for the existing
marina and will be made a condition of this approval solidifying it
insofar as this developer's commitment to the project. The Planning
Commission unanimously endorsed the petition at their meeting, and
that concludes my report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, maybe -- maybe my
calculator is wrong, but when I divide forty -- when I divide 47 by
2.93, I get 16.04 which technically exceeds 16 units an acre.
MR. NADEAU: Well, actually, the -- I don't have the
actual acreage of the property right now, but it did wind up being 47
dwelling units on the subject property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But based on what we're given,
when you run the numbers, it exceeds 16 which we can't do. So I'm --
There -- There's a -- I'm just curious that if we were to do that when
it comes out to 16.04 units an acre, are we --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even if it is, in my experience,
staff -- with 16.04, they tell you, you get 16. MR. NINO: Let -- let -- I'm --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm -- I'm just --
MR. NINO: Well, let me -- let me interject. The
density rate -- The density rating system specifically provides that
you round down and round up at the .5 stage.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
there wasn't a legal problem --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At where?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with that. That's all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: .5.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I just wanted to point
out about this too, something that I liked just in case anybody pays
attention, that instead of coming in with a PUD and being clever, this
is a fezone from one existing zoning district to another, and so, you
know, we are complying with already established standards in the
county, and I -- I just think that that's nice when property owners
can do that and not try to need a break on every setback or every
little regulation.
MR. NADEAU: It's also unique that an applicant would
come forward and try and bring a piece of property closer to
consistency with the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a concept.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many floors over parking do
you have there?
MR. NADEAU: That would be seven over one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seven over one.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sitting here looking
at -- even if we -- you know, if you were to -- to determine the
density was too high and you wanted to reduce it, what you end up
doing is taking a floor off, and you end up with pretty much the same
visual product because typically when someone comes in and -- and you
can request up to 16, the request is somewhere a little less than
that, and in the past we've been hesitant to award 100 percent of the
allowable density. Mr. Nino, have we looked fairly comprehensibly at
the traffic impact to Bonita Beach Road? I know this is a two-lane
road.
MR. NINO: Shortly it will be a four-lane road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Shortly, but it -- it isn't right
now. Would this project have to come after the four-laning? MR. NINO: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But it -- So it's not
exceeding 5 percent of the level of service?
MR. NINO: It's within the window, within the window
that's provided.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Let me point out that your staff report
doesn't iljustrate any site plan as Mr. Nadeau is iljustrating, and we
do that on purpose. You're -- You're not approving that plan. You're
not -- And, in particular, you're not approving those docks. That is
the subject -- That is the subject of subsequent site development plan
application and their requirement to meet federal and state permitting
requirements. Docks are permitted as accessory uses, but whether
they're going to get that many docks and that configuration, you're
not approving that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But correct --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's good to put that on the
record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong though.
By using that site plan and showing it as an exhibit here today, if
they come back for their SDP and that building is minimum setback from
-- See, one of the things I like about this is the building is a
significant setback from the roadway, that it's pushed closer to the
water instead of being right on the roadway and giving a tunnel
effect. Now, do I need to -- to scale off that setback and make it a
part of this approval in order to make that happen? Because that's --
To me, that's an attractive point of this. If you go down Bonita
Beach Road, the closer you get to Lely Barefoot, some of those things
are right on top of the road, and that makes a real visual impact
difference.
MR. NINO: I can't -- I can't conceive within the real
world designing anything other than that. I mean, that's where the
parking lot is going to be. I'm sure they're going to put the
building right back to the water as close as they can possibly do it
because that's where the value is. I don't think you can get the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. People like it better if you
sell them a -- a highway view.
MR. NINO: Unless you want -- Unless you want Dwight to
go out there and tear off the docks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, put a -- We'll verbally put
an "X" on the docks for today -- will satisfy me that we -- It was
good of you to make that record that that's not included in today's
approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I want to ask Mr. Nadeau
-- do you anticipate a setback consistent with what's being shown
here today on that building?
MR. NADEAU: I do, Commissioner. In fact, we have the
engineer that's preparing the site development plan as we speak, and
it is identical to that plan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Should staff see something
different, I will expect a flag?
MR. NINO: You will when you see one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nadeau, you said your
engineers are preparing a site development plan even before you get
approval?
MR. NADEAU: Well, we -- we live in an expedient world,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everybody is an optimist.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's an optimist. Mr. -- Oh,
God. Mr. Weigel, are there speakers on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No. None.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve and
to have the record reflect that we are in no way by this action
approving any boat docks --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- at this time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition R-95-8 with the notation that we are not approving
any boat docks at this time. If there's no further discussion, all in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #12B5
ORDINANCE 95-76 RE PETITION PUD-95-11, SUSAN HEBEL WATTS OF WCI
COHMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-4 TO PUD
TO BE KNOWN AS TARPON COVE FOR 389 SINGLE FA_MILY/HULTI-FA_MILY UNITS ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND TA_MIA_MI TRAIL NORTH -
ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 12(B)(5), petition PUD-95-11.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is your day, isn't it?
MR. NINO: It appears so. Ron -- Ron Nino, for the
record. It's Christmastime.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ho, ho, ho.
MR. NINO: This petition would have you rezoning
property currently zoned RSF-4 which is a single-family residential
zoning district to the PUD planned unit development district. The PUD
as structured presents a mixed use residential project. It allows all
-- It allows all matter of housing forms from single-family to
multiple-family. The number of dwelling units proposed in the PUD
would have 389 dwelling units constructed on the property, exactly
four dwelling units to the gross acre.
The petition is consistent with the density rating
system in that four dwelling units are permitted in the configuration
enjoyed by this land. It is consistent with the traffic circulation
element, coastal and conservation elements, and the open space
element. And I would merely emphasize that this property has a
substantial amount of natural conditions that need to be preserved.
And you'll note on the plan, the master plan that's iljustrated, that
52 percent of that area will qualify as open space land, and given
that starting point, it's obvious that more than 60 percent of the
land when you include the development tracts will be in open space.
This petition was referred to the Environmental Advisory
Board, and they recommended approval subject to conditions which are
included in the PUD that's in your package. That PUD also includes all
of the other concerns that were requested by staff. They are all
contained within the PUD as concluded -- included in your package.
The Collier County Planning Commissioner reviewed this
petition and unanimously recommended its approval. No one represented
any level of objection to this petition. We did have one person speak
to the commission evidencing some concern for drainage and that --
they lived in a project across the street in the Wiggins Bay PUD.
We recommend approval subject to the conditions that are
now contained in the PUD. The development standards are all to our
satisfaction in that they are representative of standards that have
been used time and time again successfully by W -- WCI, Inc.,
Community. I rest my case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions of staff?
The petitioner, Hiss Watts, do you have anything you
need to add?
MS. WATTS: Not really. If there are questions --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, are there speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: There are none.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Watts, again, in a similar
vein, we have RSF-4 to the north and to the west. Has the PUD taken
into account bordering on those areas and what assurances do we have
of compatibility on the project boundaries?
MS. WATTS: On the west side of the property, there is,
as you can see, all reserves or lakes. And, in addition, there's a
60-foot-wide FDOT drainage easement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is always a beauty to look
at when you have those '-MS. WATTS: We're hoping to make it look a little
better, but from a -- from a distance standpoint, that is in place.
On the northern boundary, there is over 50 percent of the property
which is left in its natural preserve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And my -- my only concern
is that those that border immediately on the boundary of the property
that will be adjacent to single-family mimic those development
standards within, you know, 50 or 100 feet of the property line. And,
again, just perimeter compatibility is --
MS. WATTS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is -- is a concern.
MS. WATTS: I understand that. Actually, on our more
specific plan that we've been working on, we are showing single-family
in that main PUD that goes to the north, although we have been looking
at a multi-family product adjacent to U.S. 41. If you would like, we
would be happy to include a stipulation into the PUD that says on the
northern property line we would have a setback equal to RSF-4 on the
north.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we -- And let me ask if this
is acceptable, if we just state the developments that border the north
and west project boundary shall mimic standards set forth in the RSF-4
zoning district within "X" number of feet of the property line -- I
mean, whether that's 50 or 100.
MR. NINO: If I might, Commissioner Hancock, what
happens -- which -- which I can guarantee you is inevitable -- the
owner of the RSF-4 land will be in here with a PUD rezoning in which
there will be a mixed use residential project, and there is as great
an opportunity that the north boundary of the Tarpon Cove will be --
will be -- find itself sitting adjacent to proposed to build
muliple-family dwelling units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you find the same
environmental constraints immediately to the north that this parcel
has?
MS. WATTS: Yes. I -- I can comment on that. The
wetlands extend to the north and to the west as well as to the
southeast on the --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We can anticipate cjustering
regardless?
MS. WATTS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I'll -- I'll withdraw
my -- my request then. That -- That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- Let me ask Mr. Nino one
question. Does this action -- Would this action increase the
allowable density at all?
MR. NINO: No, it doesn't.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It does not. Does it actually
reduce it?
MR. NINO: No, it doesn't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, by one-thousandth of a
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 3.9987.
HS. WATTS: It's -- It's the same.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Essentially the same. Any other
questions? Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD-95-11 with the stipulations, I presume.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the included stipulation that
Miss Watts has offered.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, no. Commissioner
Hancock withdrew that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was agreed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I think bordering --
The use of properties are going to find similar situations. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they'll probably have a
similar product regardless.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. If there's no further
discussion, all those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MS. WATTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #1286
ORDINANCE 95-77 RE PETITION PUD-93-10(1), TOH KILLEN REPRESENTING
LEAWOOD LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO
PUD FOR THE PURPOSES OF AMENDING THE LEAWOOD LAKES PUD FOR PROPERTY ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD EAST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 12(B)(6), petition
PUD-93-10, first amendment. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current
planning staff, presenting petition PUD-93-10-1. Tom Killen
representing Leawood Lakes, requesting to amend the PUD document to
reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and to allow for
attached townhouses as a permitted dwelling type.
As you can see, the subject site is located on the south
side of Radio Road, and it's in between a mobile home park and Foxfire
PUD to the west. The petitioner's also requesting to amend the PUD
master plan to move tracts F and H to the south end of the lot -- of
the project.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The result of that would be
what?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, they wanted to put their
recreational tract in front. Originally it was approved in the center
of the master plan. It didn't work out that way, so they want it up
front at the entrance, and there wasn't enough room with those tracts
there. The environmental staff recommended to move the tracts F and H
to the back and preserve the land there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The front yard setback reduction is
required to allow for an increased size of the garage to meet the
minimum FHA requirements. The 15-foot setback is also the same as
provided in the Moon Lake PUD to the south.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition on November 16, and they recommended approval by an
eight-to-zero vote. No letters have been received for or against this
petition. Staff is also recommending approval of this petition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does this affect -- and if
so, how -- the affordable housing portion --
MR. BELLOWS: It has no effect on --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: -- the affordable housing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: They're still subject to their original
agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, what's the name of
the project immediately to the east, to the right on that? MR. BELLOWS: The mobile home park?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Do you know the name of
that project?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall offhand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to remember if --
I -- I drove on some -- into some of those areas after the floods, and
they were inundated pretty heavily, and I just -- just, again, more a
curiosity if this was a problem area or not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's Naples Mobile
Estates, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I don't remember them
being -- Okay. Just a point of information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petitioner have anything to add?
MR. KILLEN: Yes, please. My name is Tom Killen, and
I'm an architect here in town. I was called in on this project after
the project was completed, infrastructure was nearly finished. At
that time the developer who had never done a subdivision who had hired
an engineer who had never done a subdivision asked me to put an entry
level home on the lot. Well, after I found out that the construction
envelope was the average of 37 and a half feet by 45 feet and wanted a
two-car garage, that equates to about 1,600 -- or less than 1,600
square feet, and we were able to come up with a 1,400-square-foot,
two-story entry level home with a master bedroom down. It was
actually a cute little house, 1,400 square feet.
And then the question was asked, can we make any
revisions to this, can we add here, and I said no. We -- We've got
this thing as snugged in here as tight as we can get it, extremely
snug. And later I found out that 40 -- some 40 of these lots had a
ten-foot sewer easement, and the engineer, rather than split the
property line with the easement, put the easement all on one -- one
tract or another. So I had lots in there -- 45-foot lots with
ten-foot easements. Now, that made the home smaller than that. So
that -- that exceeded the setback of seven and a half feet on one
side.
So to -- actually we're trying to just kind of rework
this thing -- and it might be a blessing in disguise with the -- the
easement situation, and if they were having some problems with the
affordable housing, getting these numbers to work with -- with
restrictions we had, by taking the 40 lots and making these duplex or
attached homes, I think they can successfully do what they've
committed to do on the affordable housing. And by moving the setback
forward some five feet and a little re -- little re -- reprieval on
the back for an enclosed structure and so forth on the rear toward the
lake, I think we can give them a little -- little nicer product and
help them solve other problems out there. If you have any questions,
I will be -- I'll try to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Weigel, are there speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve petition PUD-93-10, amendment one. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition PUD-93-10-1. There's no further discussion. All in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 95-691 RE PETITION SNR-95-4, GARY BUTLER REPRESENTING
REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR
THAT PORTION OF BRIARWOOD BOULEVARD RUNNING EAST-WEST BETWEEN BRIARWOOD
BOULEVARD AND THE EAST BOUNDARY TO BE NAMED VINTAGE LANE IN THE
BRIARWOOD PUD, UNIT THREE - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATION
Next item on the agenda is item 12(C)(2), petition
SNR-95-4. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Again, Ray Bellows, current planning
staff, presenting petition SNR-95-4. Gary Butler, representing
Republic Development Corporation, requesting a street name change for
that portion of Briarwood Boulevard running east to west to the PUD
boundary to be named Vintage Lane.
Basically Briarwood Boulevard was originally planned to
come around and loop around. This portion is continued to be called
Briarwood Boulevard; this portion, Vintage Lane. This amendment will
change this entire segment to Vintage Lane.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for the county
attorney. This isn't administrative? This requires board approval?
This isn't an addressing department concern or something? Why does
this have to come to the board to change a street name?
MR. WEIGEL: It currently does. And, in fact --
Harjorie, correct me, but I think it even requires a simple majority
vote.
MS. STUDENT: Majority.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I suggest that would be
something that we look at perhaps modifying? Because that seems to be
a little absurd.
MS. STUDENT: It's an independent -- It's an independent
ordinance. It's not in the land code -- development code or anything.
I'd want to look at the underlying rationale -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MS. STUDENT: -- before it coming to the board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Believe it or not, we have
actually had a couple that were controversial over -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the last couple of years,
and I think that's probably the only reason why.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
have speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Commissioner Norris.
I was just saying close the public
Close the public hearing? Do we
I'll close the public hearing.
Motion to approve. Second.
We have a motion and a second to
Excuse me.
-- SNR-95-4.
Motion to approve subject to the
applicant bearing all costs associated with the placement of any
required street signage.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
The second accept that?
Certainly.
Okay.
Fine.
We have a motion to approve with
the applicant being responsible for all associated costs of street
signage. Is that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- correct? Okay.
If there's no further discussion, all in favor please
say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's a done deal.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 95-692 AUTHORIZING SUBHISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE DEPT.
OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO
ASSIST WITH WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS IN SHELLABARGER MOBILE HOME PARK AND A PORTION OF BULLARD
SUBDIVISION (IHMOKALEE) - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
12(C)(3). This is an item that we've added back on. It's a request
to approve a resolution on a grant.
MR. COOK: Good afternoon. Ron Cook, senior planner
from the housing department. This item is a public hearing for a CDBG
grant application. I see questions. Do we not have documents in the
agenda?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not in the packet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is an add-on.
MR. COOK: I have some extra copies here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The document looks like this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Here we go.
MR. COOK: It was inadvertently taken off and then added
back on during the interim there. There's about three things we need
to accomplish. We need to get public input on the grant application
and the projects involved. We need to get board direction to go ahead
and complete the application, submit it to Tallahassee. We need to
get board authorization for the county manager to be able to sign the
grant application and any other paper work involved for the
continuation of the grant. This is a $750,000 community development
block grant that requires no matching funds by the Board of County
Commissioners.
There's two projects in the Immokalee area which we've
targeted. One is in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity providing
infrastructure on their new subdivision off Little League Road.
There's water facilities, sewer facilities, drainage, street paving,
sidewalks, and a fire hydrant. Total cost of this is about $140,000.
The other project that is targeted is in conjunction
with the Immokalee water and sewer district. It's another
infrastructure project. It's an unplatted subdivision off Immokalee
Drive. There's sewer facilities, drainage facilities, and paving the
streets. The total cost is 500 and -- Let's see. It's $560,000 which
includes almost $100,000 for engineering, surveying, and permitting.
There's an additional $54,000 that the board will retain from the
grant funds to administer the grant project. If you have any
questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds worthy to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is our annual $750,000
available CDBG grant.
MR. COOK: Actually, it's more like a biannual. By the
time you get it in to do the project and finish it, you've missed one
funding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we're -- we're confident that
this is enough money to do all this work laid out, that we're not
going to run into problems similar to Copeland where we had a million
dollar project and $600,000 to do it?
MR. COOK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. COOK: This has been looked at very closely by Boyle
Engineering and also Habitat. I feel very comfortable that we'll be
able to do the projects with the grant funding, get in, get out, and
reapply.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there speakers, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I won't comment on speakers, but I did have
one question for Mr. Cook in regard to this. The resolution that's
before you had been reviewed and approved by the county attorney
office, and it's fine, but in as much as this project area purports to
be an area in and around Immokalee -- I think you mentioned something
to this effect -- is the Immokalee water and sewer district also
involved in making application or endorsing or somehow coordinating
this -- this application in as much as water and sewer services are
their province as an independent district?
MR. COOK: The Immokalee water and sewer district is not
making application for grant funding. They're involved to ensure that
the sewer lines that are going to be put in meet the specifications,
and they will be the ultimate benefactor, for want of a better word,
for the flows coming from the subdivision.
MR. WEIGEL: Will they become the ultimate owner of the
facilities that are installed?
MR. COOK: Normally a utilities division doesn't like to
accept lines -- internal lines in a subdivision like this. That's
going to be up to Immokalee water and sewer district.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Okay. I just wanted the record to
reflect that we had the inquiry, and apparently it's been answered.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there speakers? There
are no speakers. I'll close the public hearing. Is there--
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the petition as laid out by staff. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 95-693 RE PETITION CU-95-17, RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING JOHN EBERT REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE "17" (GOLF DRIVING RANGE) AND "19" (SPORTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL) OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND
LIVINGSTON ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item on the agenda is 13(A)(1), petition CU-95-17.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. This petition
seeks conditional use approval for a golf instructional -- for a
driving range, golf driving range, and golf instructional school
facilities with some classrooms, offices, and supporting building
infrastructure. The property is currently zoned agricultural. The
future land use plan provides for the granting of conditional uses,
any urban residential designated area; therefore, from a FLUE point of
view, this conditional use is consistent with the FLUE.
Evaluation for other GHP relationships and consistency
advised that the granting of this petition and its infrastructure
relationships to highway capacity conditions, access management, open
space, conservation would all be consistent with those elements of the
Growth Management Plan.
This petition was reviewed by the EAB, and they
recommended approval subject to the conditions, many of -- all of
which appear within the resolution of adoption. There are conditions
A through H. So there are a substantial number of conditions. A
substantial number of them address the applicant's responsibility with
respect to Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road, and those are all as
recommended by your transportation director. And, as I indicated, the
environmental concerns are always recommended by the Environmental
Advisory Board.
The Planning Commission heard this petition and
unanimously eight to nothing recommended approval. The -- There were
no -- There was -- I'm sorry. There was a letter of objection which
you have in your -- in your executive package. I trust you've all read
that letter. We also had a person at the meeting who indicated that
they would like their cows fenced in. The cows reside to the
southeast portion of the property, and as you'll note on the master
plan, the southeast portion of the master plan is a preserve area, an
area that has to be preserved. So there is, in fact, a natural
vegetation separation between the contiguous property and the actual
landing spot of errant golfers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You called?
MR. NINO: Errant golfers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you answer?
MR. NINO: The petition -- The petition is as
recommended, and -- and we're ready to answer any questions you might
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
MR. NINO: Let me -- Let me for the record point out,
however, that there is a wording change on page 21 of your agenda page
in that the wording of item F in the last sentence where it reads,
"portion of the right turn lane that will provide access to the
property," we'd like to change that to,"portion of the right turn lane
constructed for the sole purpose of providing access to the property."
So we ask you to allow us to add the words, "constructed for the
sole purpose of providing" to that last sentence.
Additionally, I would have you appreciate that while the
master plan iljustrates a building of 3,000 square feet, it is the
intent of the developer to build a larger building on the property
than 3,000 square feet. I believe it's 3,500 square feet, and we
don't have a problem -- staff doesn't have a problem with that, but
that was not a matter that was before the Planning Commission. I
don't know that it has any tremendous significance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
answered it, and then --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
of operation and shielding.
Any other questions? Commissioner
I think --
Oh, did you have more? I'm
I never got mine.
I thought you asked it, and he
Nope.
-- started on another one.
Mr. Nino, talk to me about hours
HR. NINO: The property will be shielded from any
possible ball striking --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
MR. NINO: -- Livingston Road --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I'm talking about
light shielding.
MR. NINO: Oh, light shielding. I believe we have a
provision here that light shielding will be directed immediately
downward, special kind of lights standards that have to -- that don't
glare on adjacent property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Did we address hours of
operation yet?
MR. NINO: I don't believe we addressed the hours of
operation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We will today and -- Can I assume
Mr. Ebert will be sending his --
MR. NINO: Mr. Yovanovich is here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- his televised syndicated show
all over the world from this location?
MR. NINO: Mr. Yovanovich may want to -- may want to
comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hours of operation?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- Just -- Yeah, we're
looking for hours of operation. We typically on these driving ranges
have been putting hours of operation on them so that, you know, the --
the future neighbors have some level of comfort.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the record, Rich Yovanovich,
representing John Ebert. I want to clarify one thing. The lighting,
to address that issue, will be ground lighting so there's very little
chance that it can spill onto the adjacent properties. So it will be
focusing up instead of out. On the hours of operation, we -- we --
we've requested 7 a.m. To 11 p.m., recognizing that this is going to
cater to the -- the more serious golfer and also to the family so that
people have a place to go after dinner to get lessons from John and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The family's out golfing at 10:45
at night?
MR. YOVANOVICH: 10:45, right, actually but -- Late
lessons for those people who work to address that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, maybe
your memory is better than mine. It seems to me we did 10 p.m. on
Radio Road.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. 10 p.m. Has kind of been
the standard. Does the petitioner have a difficulty with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can live with that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to be consistent.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This requires some expertise, Mr.
Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten o'clock to 11 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, are you paying for both
these guys?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't do it.
MR. VARNADOE: Not at all. But I think we have a little
different situation than the one that's on Radio Road or the one
that's on 951. The one along 951 is right on the road parallel. I
can see it being a problem. This one is 18 acres, and you can see we
have extensive buffers. We've tried to set everything back into the
project where we'd allow Mr. Ebert -- I have a hard time with that.
Excuse me. It's John -- to have a little longer hours of operation
for the schooling that he's going to be carry -- carrying on there.
So I would ask your indulgence on that -- on that point, but I do
recognize that you have been in your -- in the last two at least,
you've been cutting them off at 10 p.m.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When Commissioner Hancock
asked the question if 10 p.m. Was fine, Mr. Ebert said --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Said yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Yes, no problem. So I'm
assuming that that's no problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to be -- I want to be
consistent. I understand the configuration and quality differences.
I -- I just would like to be consistent with this type of use because
we really don't know what development is going to occur around it in
five years and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I -- I'm going to request that
we maintain it at ten o'clock.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a different question.
Mr. Nino, I assume that we've taken into consideration all of the
construction activity that would be taking place on Livingston and
that this won't impact it at all or that we won't find ourselves
buying property?
MR. NINO: No. A specific provision was made in the
conditions to make sure that we don't incur any -- any business
disruption cost.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how are we protecting those
cows again?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're already fenced in.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A natural fence.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keeping me off the range.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Putting helmets on them?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually, we'll -- we'll -- we'll
build a wire cage around them.
Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve conditional use 95-17 with one stipulation about hours of
operation of 7 a.m. To 10 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino had also asked for
change within the development order.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There was a change within the
wording there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Change within the wording.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, allow me to amend my
motion to include that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will second that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve CU-95-17 with the change stipulated by Mr. Nino and the
stipulated hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll represent you when you file
the complaint.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And I'll help you do your
tax work when you win it. Mr. Varnadoe just offered to defend you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How appropriate.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 95-694 RE PETITION CU-94-20 REQUESTING A FIRST EXTENSION OF
CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BAILEY LANE WEST OF AIRPORT
ROAD, MIDWAY BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. Item -- Next item
is 13(B)(1) relating to petition CU-94-20, the first extension of
conditional use.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, is this a simple
extension?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing else involved?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
MR. NINO: Nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. Third.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve an extension of CU-94-20. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #14
BCC COMHUNICATIONS
I believe that concludes our agenda for the day. We are
at communications. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Just one quick item, Madam
Chairman. I had circulated this letter that I received following a
conversation I had with Mr. VanBuskirk of the Big Cypress Basin Board.
He suggested that we get all parties related together and have a
serious discussion on improving the Lely drainage area with funding
from multiple sources. I think it's a great idea. What I ask to do
is just simply to direct staff to take a look at this letter and try
to organize a meeting where we could all get together with these
parties that are listed here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just -- A little irony. I
mean, that's exactly -- Part -- It's a very large part of what I had
asked us to do at a January workshop. So I don't care if we do it at
a workshop. I -- I would ask, though, if you would be willing to
expand the discussion to a countywide discussion instead of just the
Lely area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, no, you don't. Here comes
the utility again. I hear it sneaking back into the discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on. We just can have a full
discussion about the Collier countywide needs.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The difference is this is not
anticipated to be a workshop. This is anticipated to be an action
meeting to try to decide how we're going to do this -- how we're going
to approach this project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you seen the -- Valetie Boyd
was kind enough to provide a draft of an agenda of a meeting that she
was hoping that we could have.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't we have this
discussion once before?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I don't think you've seen
the agenda, Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just asked if we had seen
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't heard your answer to
the question. Have you seen it?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't think so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it substantively different
than what you explained to us two weeks ago?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Back to Commissioner Norris'
request --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: hazing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea, John.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's a good idea,
Commissioner Norris. I'd like to ask Mr. Dotrill, though, one
question. We had a meeting with Mr. VanBuskirk and John Boldt on the
plan, basin plan. Have you and Mr. VanBuskirk been able to get
together to try to find a way to accelerate that?
MR. DORRILL: I have not heard back from him, but I'll
-- I'll call him this week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Hancock, anything else?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I feel a need for a quick
comment. Something in today's paper mentioned millions to fix the
mangrove system.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I read that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to remind or just express
to this board that I don't have any recollection of the task force
talking about the millions it would take -- It may be millions. It
may be thousands. We don't know yet. So I just take a little
exception with that headline today and wanted to express to you that
we're not -- I haven't seen anything that's talking about millions at
this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're asking --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than the paper.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- us to keep an open mind.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I would assume you would
anyway, but I -- I just felt that -- I read that, and I thought, this
is going to cause a stir. So -- So far we're not talking about
millions. We're -- We're still talking about remedies and associated
costs, and we really don't know where it's going at this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for Mr. Weigel,
if he had any success in his discussion on the St. Matthews House
grant application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You were out. Yes, he -- Yes, he
did, and they're awarding the grant today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there's not much else to do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Sorry. I missed that.
That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The landfill citizens
advisory committee had their marathon meeting on Saturday, and after
four rounds of the group -- nominal group technique -- sorry -- came
up with a weighted list of priorities that virtually everyone was
happy with, ranging from the environmental representatives to the
residents that live nearby out there and everyone in between so --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise known as the panthers
versus people debate.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It was about an
eight-hour meeting but very, very productive. The intent of the
committee is to -- the -- The paid consultant types will be applying
all the weighted criteria between now and January seeing what sites
fit that, and then they'll come back and review the whole thing with
this board in January before moving on with the next step.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Otherwise known as success as we
move forward.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Going very well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have anything to add
today. Mr. Dorrill, do you have anything?
MR. DORRILL: Just one thing. I had promised the board
by January the proposed action agenda to go in conjunction with your
five adopted goals for 1996, and we've completed that about three
weeks early, and there are almost 250 identified projects that go into
one of either your five or an additional column that I added that
we're calling the effective management of the organization, and I've
sent that to you today, interoffice correspondence about three weeks
early and will actually ask you to adopt that in January, but I wanted
to give you plenty of time to look at it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Just one item, and that is that late last
week we received the opinion of the federal trial court in regard to
the Colony Cablevision versus Collier County MCI case, the Marco cable
case, and they found against Collier County, finding that the county
had not followed its own ordinance in the application approval process
for MCI. I have not had an opportunity to speak with Jennifer Edwards
yet. I'll be talking with David Bryant and probably Mr. Gastin on
behalf of MCI and will come back next week with a recommendation as to
whether I would request the board authorize an appeal or not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you'll let us know further
next week on that?
MR. WEIGEL: By no later than next week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By no later than next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that. Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The net effect of that ruling, as
I have heard about it, is that Marco Island's cable service has to be
changed significantly -- I mean, that it's not authorized? It wasn't
done in -- What was the net effect? Just give us the facts of --
MR. WEIGEL: You're -- You're approaching it with your
last statements. It, therefore, is not authorized; that the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners is a nullity in essence.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Turn off the cable on Marco.
I thought that I'd make that --
So used to winning. Darn.
We're still winning.
Every time we hear a report from
-- from Mr. Weigel in the last few months, it's been, "We won again."
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We've gotten used to
hearing that. Miss Filson, we're finished?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: We're finished.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
LETTER OF CREDIT AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO 59.553
"BRIARWOOD, UNIT THREE", LOCATED IN SECTION 31, T49S, R26E
See Pages
Item #16A2A
RESOLUTION 95-673 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
20220-018; OWNER OF RECORD - NOREEN A. CONNOR
See Pages
Item #16A2B
RESOLUTION 95-674 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50509-075; OWNER OF RECORD - HARIO H. BURNETT
See Pages
Item #16A2C
RESOLUTION 95-675 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50518-065; OWNER OF RECORD - THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.
See Pages
Item #16A2D
RESOLUTION 95-676 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50524-034; OWNER OF RECORD - BRIAN MILLER
See Pages
Item #16A2E
RESOLUTION 95-677 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50615-058; OWNER OF RECORD - JACQUELIN ANNE EICHEN
See Pages
Item #16A2F
RESOLUTION 95-678 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50629-002; OWNER OF RECORD - EDWARD J. & LAVERDA PELC
See Pages
Item #16A2G
RESOLUTION 95-679 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50630-016; OWNER OF RECORD - HINDY A. JORDAN
See Pages
Item #16A2H
RESOLUTION 95-680 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50703-012; OWNER OF RECORD - ADELA HIAZGA
See Pages
Item #16A2I
RESOLUTION 95-681 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO
50711-026; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE, HENDRICK MATTHEW
See Pages
Item #16A2J
RESOLUTION 95-682 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
50711-057; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE, HENDRICK MATTHEW
See Pages
Item #16A3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 95-79; FOR PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 12 - OWNER OF RECORD - DAVID DELP
See Pages
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 94-472; FOR
property DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK 198; - OWNER OF RECORD - GEORGE
FACCONE, TRUSTEE
See Pages
Item #16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 95-80; FOR PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 10, BLOCK 48 - OWNER OF RECORD - BEVERLY D'AQUANNI
See Pages
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 89-71; FOR PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 35, BLOCK B - OWNER OF RECORD - WILLIAM L. HcDANIEL
See Pages
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "REPLAT OF PART OF WIGGINS BAY, PHASE 1"
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF "PROGRESS/COHMERCIAL PARK"
Item #16A9
CASH BOND FOR SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR GREY OAKS, UNIT SIX,
PHASE ONE
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 95-683 RE FINAL PLAT OF "LAKESIDE APARTHENTS SUBDIVISION"
See Pages
Item #16All
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LONGSHORE LAKES, PHASE 5 B-1
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A12
CASH BOND FOR WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PINE AIR LAKES, PHASE
ONE-A
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16B1 - This item moved to Item #887
Item #1682
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ITS AGREEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC.
FOR THE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ON MARCO ISLAND BID NO. 95-2418, AND
AUTHORIZE A NEW TEN PERCENT (10e) CHANGE ORDER LIMIT FOR FURTURE CHANGE
ORDERS
See Pages
Item #1683
YARD WASTE PROCESSING SERVICES AT THE NAPLES AND IHMOKALEE LANDFILLS AS
PROVIDED UNDER THE LANDFILL OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF FLORIDA, INC.
Item #1684
REFUND OF AN OVERPAYMENT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,126.69
FOR ROYAL PALM, BUILDERS FOR THE REMOVAL OF EXCESS FILL MATERIAL FROM
THE BREAKWATER PROJECT IN PELICAN BAY
Item #1685
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WINTER PARK OUTLET/GLADES DRAINAGE
DITCH
Item #1686
AWARD BID #95-2454 TO CALCIQUEST, INC. FOR ORTHOPHOSHATE/POLYPHOSPHATE
Item #1687 - This item has been deleted
Item #1688
AWARD BID #95-2440 TO ASTOR CHEMICAL CO. AS PRIMARY BIDDER FOR CARBON
DIOXIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,630.00
Item #1689
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN THE WATER DEPARTMENT TO
ESTABLISH A NEW COST CENTER
Item #16B10
FY95 FUNDING FOR COMPLETION OF WATER DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
INITIATED IN FY95
Item #16Bll
CORRIDOR PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD (RADIO ROAD TO IHMOKALEE
ROAD), AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND ISSUE OF A
PUBLIC NOTICE
Item #16B12
AWARD BID #95-2446 TO HORVATH ELECTRIC MOTORS FOR PUMPS AND MOTORS,
PARTS AND REPAIRS
Item #16B13
CONTINUE THE USE OF BIOXIDE FOR CONTROL OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE ODOR
Item #16B14 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B15
CONSTRUCTION FOUR LARGE METERS
Item #16C1 - This item moved to #8C3
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 95-684 RE REVISED COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FINES AND
FEES SCHEDULE
See Pages
Item #16D1
CHANGES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
Item #16D2
AWARD BID NO. 95-2453 TO TWO APPRAISAL FIRMS FOR THE APPRAISAL OF
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST PROPERTIES
Item #16D3 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D4
WORK ORDER #BSW-96-4 UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE ADDITION TO THE GENERAL SERVICES
BUILDING (BUILDING W)
See Pages
Item #16D5
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE
DISTRICT AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR UTILIZATION OF A PORTION OF FIRE
STATION NUMBER TEN TO BE USED BY THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
Item #16D6
See Pages
PURCHASE OF A SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR THE BILLING OF AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS,
AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE AND
HARDWARE FOR THE SOLID WASTE MANDATORY COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item #16D8
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN
See Pages
Item #16D9
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 95-695 RE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1991 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS, AND AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16Dll
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1994 AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, AND
AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 95-685 AND RESOLUTION 95-686 APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF
CORRECTION TO THE 1992 AND 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, AND
AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET ~MENDMENTS 96-119, 96-122 ~ND 96-126
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1992 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
No. Date
206 11/01/95
1993 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
229 11/01/95
232 11/20/95
233 11/20/95
234 11/27/95
1994 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
185 11/01/95
187-188 11/20/95
192 11/27/95
1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
26 11/01/95
94-96 11/14/95
97-98 11/17/95
115-116 11/20/95
119 11/27/95
120 11/22/95
123 11/27/95
126 11/21/95
128-129 11/28/95
133 11/28/95
134-136 11/29/95
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
33 11/20/95
34-35 11/22/95
36 11/27/95
Item #1662
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspndence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 95-687 RE TRANSFER AND CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
FROM FLORIDA CABLEVSION HANAGHENT CORPORATION TO TIME WARNER, INC.
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:19 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield