BCC Minutes 09/24/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996
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 9:13 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J.
Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to
order
on this 24th of September, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, invocation and
pledge,
please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, this morning we thank you, as -
- as
we always do, for the wonderful quality of life that we enjoy in
Collier County. We thank you for its people, each and every one,
whether they are raising a family or starting a business or
enjoying
their retirement years.
Father, this morning we are especially thankful to lift
up to you and recognize our law enforcement professionals and
support
staff that keep this community the type of safe and enjoyable
community that we want it to be. Father, as always, it is our
prayer
that you guide the business deliberations of this commission today,
that they would work together in an effort to make the important
decisions that affect our community, and that this would be a
fruitful
and beneficial time for all of its people. And we pray these
things
in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I notice there may be a change
or
two to the agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. We have
several change items. A number of these are all similar, had been
withdrawn for a specific reason in order to provide and protect
Some
legal defenses that we have. And it's the items related to
grandfather
certificates, Item 16(E)(3) down through (6) all being withdrawn
for a
specific reason to be reworked, but other than that we have very
few
changes this morning.
I do have two add-on items. The first one is Item 6(B),
which will be under the clerk's constitutional report this morning.
It is a report of a recent audit and some delinquent sales tax fees
associated with sales taxes, and that will be 6(B). There is an
executive summary on that, and your finance director, Mr. Mitchell,
is
here and will present that.
The next add-on item is Item 8(B)(4) under public works
for the office of capital projects, which is to approve and waive
some
normal procurement practices for Change Order No. 2 in order to
accelerate some fill and excavation work in advance of the
international fireworks show at Lake Avalon. That's 8(B)(4).
Item ll(B) under other constitutional officers under the
sheriff's report is withdrawn.
Item 13(A)(4) under advertised public hearings, which
was Petition A-96-2, is withdrawn, as are Items 16(A)(3), which is
a
routine water and sewer facilities acceptance agreement. And then
the
balance of the items, Item 16(E (3) through (6), all pertain to
certificates for utility rate regulation purposes. They are
withdrawn
and will be rescheduled after they have been amended by the county
attorney's office. And that's all that I have this morning, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Weigel, do you
have anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
remove Item 16(A)(7). I believe that will probably fall under the
county attorney's report, 9(B).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE BCC REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1996, AND BUDGET
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We need a motion for the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of the September
3, 1996, regular meeting minutes and the September 4, 1996, budget
meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
The minutes are approved.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 27, 1996, AS LAW ENFORCEMENT
APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED
We have a proclamation here for Law Enforcement
Appreciation Day. Is Sheriff Hunter in?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The proclamation reads:
Whereas, the problems of crime touch all segments of our
society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic
strengths
of our communities; and
Whereas, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers
from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and
order
and the public's safety; and
Whereas, we recognize that the men and women in law
enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our
citizens
and maintain social order; and
Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause and
recognize our law enforcement officers so that we may not take
their
work for granted.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 27th day of
September 1996 be designated as Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
Done and ordered this 24th day of September 1996 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And, board members, I would like to make a motion that
we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Sheriff Hunter.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff, before you -- before you
go anywhere, would you like to make comments on that, because I
believe I had you also accepting a second proclamation today.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll wait on the other then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure, I'll make it quick. I would just
like to thank the commissioners for voting this proclamation in
recognizing the members of the agency. Ordinary people who every
day
do extraordinary things, who put on a uniform and are likely to
save
the lives of people that they do not know and would give their
lives
for people that they've never met. The level of professionalism in
the agency I'm very proud of, and I'm very happy to serve with
them,
and I appreciate the support of the board throughout all the
various
processes of government that makes this possible. So I thank you
again, and we proudly and gladly accept this proclamation.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1996, AS CRIME
PREVENTION MONTH - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm pleased -- and it dovetails
very nicely from the appreciation this board is -- is attempting to
show for our law enforcement officers and to the next proclamation
also to be accepted by Sheriff Hunter. It reads as follows:
Whereas, the vitality of Collier County depends on how
safe we keep our homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and communities;
and
Whereas, crime and fear can diminish the trust that
citizens of Collier County have in our institutions, threatening
the
health and vitality of our community; and
Whereas, people of all ages, if properly informed, can
help prevent themselves, their families, neighbors, and co-workers
from being the victims of acts of criminal violence; and
Whereas, crime -- crime causes intolerable personal
injury, financial loss, and community deterioration requiring
action
by the entire Collier County community; and
Whereas, effective crime prevention programs in Collier
County excel because of partnerships that have been created among
community organizations, Collier County Government, Collier County
Crime Prevention Awareness Council, schools, businesses, and
citizens
as they help to rebuild a sense of communal responsibility and
pride;
and
Whereas, we must move forward to create visionary
partnerships for change, collaborations that prevent crime and
attack
its root causes, reach out to young people as resources, not
threats,
and rebuild trust in fellow citizens and community institutions;
and
Whereas, the Collier County Crime Prevention Awareness
Council was established to promote crime prevention awareness in
our
community and is comprised of civic groups, community leaders,
government agencies, law enforcement, chamber of commerce,
neighborhood watch groups, hotel and motel associations, and local
media, and
Whereas, the goal of the Collier County Crime Prevention
Awareness Council for Crime Prevention Month 1996 is to light the
fire
of motivation in our community to commit to donating time, talents,
contacts, and resources to help build safer communities and
brighter
futures; and
Whereas, the members of the Collier County Sheriff's
Office, as caretakers of Collier County, will hold their kickoff
for
Crime Prevention Month 1996 at the American Heart Walk on October
1996, at Cambier Park, Collier County, Florida, showing the
agency's
dedication to staying healthy for the sake of their community's
health
and well-being.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of October
1996 be designated as Crime Prevention Month in Collier County and
urge all citizens, government agencies, public and private
institutions and businesses to increase their participation in
Collier
County's crime prevention efforts and thereby build more productive
communities and an improved quality of life for all.
Done and ordered this 24th day of September, Board of
Commissioners, John C. Norris, chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move
acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
SHERIFF HUNTER: We have HcGruff with us this morning,
national -- national mascot.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. HcGruff.
MR. DORRILL: Sheriff, that dog doesn't have a tag on
it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: He's just visiting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Has he had rabies shots?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Animal control.
SHERIFF HUNTER: You should have been in law enforcement
now.
CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: He's offered to run your
department a few times.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'd like to thank the board again for
this proclamation this morning recognizing the month of October as
Crime Prevention Month. We have our crime prevention practitioners
here in the audience, Dennis Perry and Sergeant Rosa White. We're
missing a couple who are out on leave, but I'd like you to know
that
we are very earnestly involved in trying to prevent crime so that
we
can reduce the need for very expensive law enforcement resources
throughout this county.
And we have seen some very significant -- we believe,
very significant downturns in not only the crime rate and in the
violence rate, but in our burglaries. And that is one of the areas
that we believe we will have our most dramatic impact, in those
property crimes. And we need the help from our citizens and
neighborhoods in order to do that. We've seen more and more of
that
over the last couple of years, and that has occasioned this
downturn.
We would like to promote that further, and we appreciate the
board's
recognition of the need for that.
And as it was stated in the proclamation, we do have an
opportunity coming up. I believe it's the 5th of October,
Saturday,
Cambier Park, about 7:30 in the morning. And if you don't already
have a team to walk with, we have these handsome shirts that we
would
like to provide you. Come out and join members of the law
enforcement
community. Our jail deputies, our bailiffs will be walking for
better
health and to help promote our Crime Prevention Month in
partnership
with the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. If I
may.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. And hands off to
them.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't know who gets what size, so
you'll have to sort these out later.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's no statement being made on
these sizes; is that what you're saying?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: While you hand that out, I have
to -- for people that may be watching and may be interested, the
Neighborhood Watch program -- and I've attended Deputy White's
classes
with Naples Park; they are fantastic. And Neighborhood Watch isn't
what people think it used to be. It doesn't mean patrolling every
night and spending -- two o'clock in the morning in your streets.
And
I'd encourage neighborhood and community associations to contact
the
sheriff's office, Deputy White or others, and get involved in
Neighborhood Watch, because it's a great program and a great class
she
teaches.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And this is Sergeant White over here,
and we have Corporal Huff in the back there, Sergeant Mansburger
also
back there.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies for demoting you,
Sergeant White.
SERGEANT WHITE: Thank you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you again.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, you have
some service awards this morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I do. We have two
service awards. We have two employees, one serving five years,
celebrating five years with us, and that's Carl Gibson with water
pollution. Carl.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And celebrating 15 years with
road and bridge -- and I suspect we've seen just a couple of
changes
in our road and bridge system in 15 years -- Enrique Blanco.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As Commissioner Norris always
says, 15 years is a good start.
Item #6B
RESULTS OF RECENT SALES AND USAGE TAX AUDIT PERFORMED BY THE STATE
OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND CONSIDERATION OF WHAT ACTION TO
BE
TAKEN AS TO DELINQUENT TAXES, INTEREST AND PENALTIES - CLERK'S
OFFICE
TO PROCEED WITH PAYING TAX AND INTEREST AND ABATEMENT OF PENALTY,
IF
POSSIBLE AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO BE REVIEWED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is under the clerk's
report, Item 6(B), concerning the sales tax audit. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr.
Mitchell, can you perhaps help us understand why it's necessary to
do
this on an add-on basis rather than advertising?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. That's exactly how I was going
to start off. First of all, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. I wanted to apologize to you for doing it on the add-on
basis, but we did not get the final assessment until September
19th.
It is a time-sensitive issue. Basically we have ten days to come
up
with what we're going to do with this assessment. Due to that --
that
time parameter and the lateness of receiving the assessment, I
wanted
to do it as an add-on just to get it on as quickly as we could.
What I come before you today to inform you of, the
results of a sales and use tax audit that was recently performed by
the State of Florida Department of Revenue. The audit covered a
five-year period beginning February 1, 1991, and extending through
January 31st of 1996. The results of the audit indicate that the
county has not collected sales tax on 13 different revenue sources
which are outlined in the executive summary to this item. This in
turn creates a liability to the state in the amount of $62,728 as
of
September 19, 1996. The assessment consists of three parts; the
actual tax of $34,951.36, interest of $15,728.15 -- 50 cents, and
penalties in the amount of $12,048.36.
The major revenue sources that were not collecting the
tax include the beach parking fees and the library copier revenue.
The beach parking fees account for approximately 44 percent of the
unpaid taxes and the copier revenue approximately 17 percent. As
for
the beach parking fees, the tax is being collected today; and the
unpaid portion is strictly for the period February of 1991 through
September of 1992.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You said the library copier is 17
percent. What percentage was the beach fees?
MR. MITCHELL: Forty-four percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty-four.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The library copier fees is now the
responsibility of the Friends of the Library, so that passes on to
them; but we're responsible for the revenues that we collected.
I have met, along with people from my department, with
the State DOR to discuss the assessment and what our options are.
We
basically have three options. The first one is to agree to the tax
and the interest, make that payment, and ask the local office of
the
State DOR to either reduce or abate the penalty. Number 2 is we
can
agree to a portion of the assessment, make that payment, and
protest
the remainder; or, number 3, not agree to any of the assessment and
protest the entire assessment.
Our recommendation to you today is twofold. First,
agree and approve payment of the tax and interest and seek to have
the
penalty abated. The local office has jurisdiction of this audit
until
Monday, October 30th. At that time it will be transferred to
Tallahassee, and it will become more difficult for us to have any
type
of penalty abated.
If the board approves the payment of the tax and
interest today, the amount of the check would be $50,679.86 plus
accrued interest at the rate of $11.49 per day from September 19th
until the date we actually deliver the check to the state.
The second recommendation is that the county attorney's
office, in conjunction with the collecting department and the
finance
department, review each of the current revenue streams to ensure we
are in compliance with the tax laws and that all future revenues be
directed to the county attorney for determination of taxability
prior
to coming on line. You have in front of you a copy of the actual
assessment, and I would entertain any questions that you may have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have questions about what some
of these -- what some of them are. Beach parking fees are
understandable, but twenty-four -- well, with interest, twenty-four
thousand dollars. The Golden Gate Aquatic Center is a little bitty
tax of 113 bucks. What should we have been collecting --
MR. MITCHELL: That's actually locker fees where you can
go out there and you can rent a locker.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The state wants us to charge tax
on the rental of a locker at a pool?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, that is part of the tax law.
MR. DORRILL: But it gets worse than that. In fact, my
favorite one was where at Snowfest we allowed some churches to come
in
and sell sloppy joes, and they remitted a concession fee back to
the
county, and the state is alleging that if the church sold sloppy
joes
and the county parks department received 10 percent of the
proceeds,
that we owe the state tax on the portion --
MR. MITCHELL: Neil, I did meet with the DOR on that
one, and I had those taxes --
MR. DORRILL: You beat them up over the sloppy joes?
MR. MITCHELL: I took care of --
MR. DORRILL: That a boy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No sloppy joe tax. But can you
tell us what? Like, pro shop sales?
MR. MITCHELL: Pro shop sales is out at the Marco Island
Tennis Club where we have sales there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they weren't charging sales
tax?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They weren't charging sales tax?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That seems like one we shouldn't
have missed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an error obviously. What
are -- what is the state statute -- if I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all right.
MR. MITCHELL: If you take a look in the actual report
itself, for each one of the different revenue sources they have
cited,
either the state statute or the Florida Administrative Code or
whatever their legal grounds are for stating, we owe the tax. So
it
is as a part of the assessment, and I have gone through each one of
them and looked at it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we had a legal review? No
offense intended, but have we had a legal review of whether or not
MR. MITCHELL: At this particular time we have not, but
we have provided Mr. Weigel's office with a copy at the same time
that
we provided you with a copy, which was Friday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the admission and user
fees that we're supposed to be -- that's a large -- one of the
larger
numbers.
MR. MITCHELL: Admissions and user fees is --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And your pool admission fees.
MR. MITCHELL: Pool admission fees, any type of a --
anyplace you had an admission fee.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like -- but then I mean, like
when the little league gets charged $6 to play in the little
league,
do we have to -- that's a user fee?
MR. MITCHELL: That's a user fee.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good Lord. Okay.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Welcome to the world of taxes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, we don't have an income
tax in Florida, but if it walks or talks, we tax it.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Most of these you'll see were corrected
beginning -- do they have the Exhibit 1, Revision 17
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. They have the entire assessment,
yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: You'll find that most of these corrected
or we became aware of our requirement to collect taxes at the end
of
1994, and with the one exception being those special event
receipts.
And I think the -- the library Xerox machine that was made
available
to the public went over into '95, but for example, the pro shop
sales
beginning in -- the end of '94 we began charging sales tax. We
don't
owe any after the fall of '94 for that.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Mitchell, will the sales tax
people -- and sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't. But
in
the future will they allow us to state our fees for these things to
include sales taxes and properly break them down accordingly?
MR. MITCHELL: I think the way that the law is written,
you are required to show tax unless it's impractical. If it's not
practicable, then we can include it in the cost.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Like beach parking meters.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Like we charge a dollar fifty
for people to go to the aquatic center. Can we post out there that
the fee for the aquatic center is a dollar and forty-two cents plus
eight cents tax, whatever it works out?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the fee itself will not go
up, and we're not going to have to mess around with pennies and
coins.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the revenue income obviously
is going down. And I'm curious; particularly beach fees didn't
come
in the way we wanted them to already. The net now on beach fees is
reduced by another $25,000.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh. It's only reduced by 15,000
for future years. It's the interest of $8,000, 50 percent
interest.
I like that accrual rate. And then on top of interest there's a
$12,000 penalty. So we get charged interest, and then there's a
further penalty in addition to interest.
MR. MITCHELL: Five percent penalty.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Five percent per month, yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could be worse; could be the
feds.
MR. MITCHELL: And your interest rate is 12 percent per
annum, and your penalty is 5 percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well --
MR. MITCHELL: I have talked with the local branch of
the State DOR, and we do have a very good potential to have the
penalty abated as long as we can keep it local.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's what I was going to
say, is that, you know, we can sit here and throw darts at the
state
all we want. It doesn't change what we owe. I'd like to move that
we
proceed with approval of paying the tax and interest but in the
process try and abate the interest to the greatest extent possible
and
give that direction to the clerk's office if --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The penalty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you add --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the penalty, excuse me.
But you said also the interest you felt we might get --
MR. MITCHELL: I cannot get anything done with the
interest.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So just the penalty?
MR. MITCHELL: The position that the DOR takes is you
have to agree to both the tax and the interest to have any
consideration of having the penalty reduced or abated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll clarify my motion to
include payment of tax and interest and shoot for abatement on the
penalty of $12,048.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you just add subject to Mr.
Weigel's concurrence with the legal analysis?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So included.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, could I -- one of the most
important factors that we wanted to -- to have discussed today was
a
review by the county attorney's office along with the collecting
departments. The reason for that is the department of revenue did
not
look at one particular department that has a variety of revenue
sources, and that is the airport authority. And I think that we
need
to be proactive --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God.
MR. MITCHELL: -- in going in there and taking a look at
those revenue sources, because they do fall under a completely
different code because of it being an airport facility. And I
would
strongly recommend that we become proactive in that with Mr.
Weigel's
office and look at every single revenue source out there and
identify
any problems prior to DOR coming back.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question
along those lines. And Commissioner Matthews may know the answer
to
this, but I don't know my accounting. If -- if someone or if a
particular account within the county is operating at a loss, they
may
bring in some revenue but, I mean, the airport authority right now
is
not turning a profit. I don't know what the difference is between
__
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know -- I know the answer; a
sale is a sale is a sale, and it is taxed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't care.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They don't care.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will include in my motion
direction to review the airport authority to make sure that it's
charging the appropriate taxing levels per state statute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second agrees, and I assume
if there were other -- any other places we should be looking, you'd
be
recommending them.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. Once again, I apologize for
the lateness of this item.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Mitchell, I would hope when
we do the airport authorities, especially since we have nonprofit
and
other governmental authorities possibly using the airport, that we
are
extra careful with our certificates of exemption.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because it's -- that will catch
you just as badly.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mitchell, just so that I'll know, were
-- were any of the individual years from '91 through '96 ever
mentioned in the management letter by our external auditors or our
internal auditors?
MR. MITCHELL: Not to my knowledge. I have not gone
back and looked at the individual capital reports, but not to my
knowledge.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't remember seeing anything
in the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither do I.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's look at that, because
maybe somebody else gets to write the check.
MR. MITCHELL: I will be more than happy to take a look
at that and report back to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the contract with those
auditors, if they failed to point out something like that, is there
any recourse -- I don't -- other than a black mark on their
performance for next year?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, generally, also -- I would
like to caution that generally --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the real world there is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Generally accounting firms are
not responsible for tax. They might be responsible for penalties
and/or interest. But even interest gets pushy because interest is
merely the time value of money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I say let's get pushy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do too. What's the purpose
of having an audit if they're not held responsible for their own
work?
MR. DORRILL: The only reason I mentioned it is because
beginning in the end of '94 your own staff began to realize the
change
in the state law with respect to sales taxes in parks and rec and
other places in particular. And I just -- I didn't know, and
that's
why I asked the question whether our external auditors had ever
mentioned this over the past five or six years, and apparently not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's find out at least in the
past year. If they did not and should have, let's get a report
back
on that and what recourse is available to us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll be more than happy to provide that
to you.
Item #8A1
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (TD) PROGRAM IN COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Moving right along,
8(A)(1).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've already approved this.
This is really the final nut. Nothing has changed, as I understand
it; is that correct, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your
planning services staff. This is the request to execute the
agreement
between Collier County and TECH for the payment of funds throughout
their --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I missed something
because, again, I thought we weren't going to do this through the
entire year until mid '97. We asked earlier in the year, and then
I
reiterated the last two times this has been brought up we wanted to
bid this out --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we couldn't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think Jeff was going
to look into it and come back, and I don't know that he ever came
back. He's in Syracuse instead.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Perry did not come back.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold, can I interrupt and
help with that?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The local coordinating board of
the Transportation Disadvantaged did take this issue up at their
last
meeting a couple of weeks ago. And what we are aware of and what
we
would like -- we're going to be sending a letter to the HPO that we
had hoped would meet on -- at the end of September this Friday, but
it
won't be. It will meet -- that meeting is canceled, so it won't be
until the end of October now. But what we have taken into
consideration is the fact that the next HOA that is signed with --
between TECH and the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission in
Tallahassee is for three years.
So we want to be very, very careful that we go through
the process before the next HOA is signed. The current one that's
been signed already between TECH and the TD Commission is good for
one
year. And also at the same time the TD Commission has put into
place
some twenty policy statements that unless those policy statements
are
incorporated in the RFP that is issued, we're -- we're not going to
be
asking our vendors to operate from a level playing field, because
we'll be asking them to do an RFP -- an RFP based on today's
policies,
and we know those policies are going to change within --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second,
because my recollection on that -- and a young lady from the
Regional
Planning Council is here. My recollection is she was here last
time
we had this discussion, and the ultimate decision of the board was
to
go ahead and issue and put together the RFP and send that out, not
to
award this for the rest of the year, and -- and if -- if somebody
disagrees with that recollection, I want to continue the item for a
week and pull out the minutes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate your bringing it up,
because I remember us discussing it. I didn't remember a
definitive
solution.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think what we decided
to do -- because what happened is we took it to the HPO. And at
the
HPO it was -- it was motioned and voted on to ask the LCB to take a
look at it as to what the parameters ought to be; and the LCB, the
local coordinating board, has done that. And they are making
recommendations to the HPO as to what the process should be,
because
there's several things that need to be accomplished before we can
issue an RFP that will truly address the problem. And it's going
to
take until December to get those things finished.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We really have two issues here.
One is, was this -- did -- was -- did we proceed in the way the
board
had directed, and the second is the local coordinating board is
made
up of -- of local folks and people who currently are the providers
of
the service. And having them establish the RFP guidelines is -- is
the fox in the hen house. And what you will get is something
tailored
that very few vendors are going to be able to bid on so there --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I ask if you just
indulge me and continue the item for a week and let me dig out the
minutes and go through that because --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got no problem continuing
the item. I'm just trying to -- to tell you that the TD Commission
in
Tallahassee has handed down some new policies that the local
coordinating board needs to address. And we, the members of that
board, feel that before the RFP is written and issued, it should
include those new policies; and those new policies need to be
looked
at and addressed. Some of them we already have in our program;
others
we do not. And we -- we don't think it's appropriate at this point
to
issue an RFP and have your vendors propose on that RFP and then two
or
three months later say, whoops, the policies are different and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we have this lady from the
RPC talk? She's waving around saying these are the new policies.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She's just going to tell you the
same thing I'm telling you, but that's fine.
MR. ARNOLD: And if I might add something about my
recollection of that discussion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Choose --
MR. ARNOLD: -- Service provision and the contract's
already -- and the agreement had already been issued to TECH for
the
coming year. This agreement authorizes us to make our monthly
payments to TECH to continue the services, but during that same
period
of time we are going to be in the process of -- of releasing a
request
for proposal for a new service provider. I think what Julia Davis
could tell you is based on the local coordinating board's
discussion
recently and what will be coming back to the HPO to discuss is that
there may be some complicating factors that may prolong the RFP
process slightly, but nothing that we're going to do probably
impacts
TECH as the provider during this coming year is the way I look at
that.
MS. DAVIS: For the record, Julia Davis from the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Good morning. First
of
all, the local coordinating board is composed of the agencies who
purchase transportation and the citizens who use transportation.
TECH
is not a member of the local coordinating board, and neither is
planning staff. Ms. Matthews is on the local coordinating board.
The local coordinating board at their last meeting was
briefed on the standards. I'm holding a draft package of the
standards which the local board has to turn into policies that
address
these standards in a local flavor. This will take us until
December.
After that time then the RFP can be developed with these standards
in
the RFP, and then the RFP could be released. The local board
estimates that this will -- will then happen in February.
The schedule for the RFP that we brought to the MPO end
of August had a December release date for the RFP. What has
happened
is that we have just moved that up to February, but we will -- the
LCB
will conduct an RFP starting in February, and that is what has
happened.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what we're doing basically is
looking at the completion of an existing contract to provide
service
until the RFP can be --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- developed?
MS. DAVIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not happening on the time
frame that we had anticipated or, I will say, softly directed. But
if
that's the best that can be done at this point, I don't know that
we
want to disrupt service, and we may just have to wait until
February
to find out where we go with this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that satisfy your concerns then?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not entirely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. However, if one of you
wants to make a motion, then feel free to.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The other thing I'd like to
comment, the current -- the current MOA expires in July? MS. DAVIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And what we are doing -- because
the RFP process will be two or three months later than anticipated,
and of course, getting the responses back will be obviously two or
three months late and so forth -- we are going to be asking the TD
Commission and TECH together to extend the existing contract three
months, 90 days?
MS. DAVIS: Up to 90 days.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we're told that that's sort
of automatic, that all we have to do is ask for it. And that --
that
will avoid us entering inadvertently into a three-year contract.
MS. DAVIS: When an RFP is conducted, there's two phases
to the RFP for a coordinator. The first phase finds a coordinator,
and the second phase finds operators. At the best of
circumstances,
we -- we did that in six months up in Lee County a few years ago,
so
you need a couple of months just to get moving, and so that's what
we're hoping for. So if the 90-day extension is needed, we -- the
LCB
would request it. They don't have to use all 90 days of that
extension.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't something that's
within the control of our staff apparently.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
we '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that we approve Item 8(A)(1)
in accordance with recommendation of staff, which is to go ahead
and
fund the TD program through TECH under the current agreement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wonder if there's a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
MS. DAVIS: Thank you all.
Item #8A2
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO POST HURRICAN PASS AS AN IDLE SPEED
ZONE - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(A)(2), natural resources
department concerning an idle speed zone in Hurricane Pass.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dugan, we may be able -- I
don't know if you have been boating down Hurricane Pass recently,
but
there are people swimming and jet skis screaming up and down that
area
and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to listen to my
local coast guard professional.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm going to make a motion
that we adopt the idle speed zone as indicated --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in Hurricane Pass.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are; I presume they're in support.
Sergeant Johnson, do you care to speak in light of the motion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you like to come talk us out of
this?
SERGEANT JOHNSON: No, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lytton?
MR. LYTTON: No, sir. I was here just in case there was
any questions.
MR. DORRILL: They both waive.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We have a motion and a
second then to approve this idle speed zone. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #SB1
WYNDEHERE WATER IMPACT FEE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
_
APPROVED
Next item is 8(B)(1), Wyndemere water impact fee
settlement agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doesn't the word "settlement"
mean no one's entirely happy?
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, public
works. Did you have 16(A)(7) that needed to be moved ahead of this
One?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16(A) (7).
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, Mr. --
MR. CONRECODE: I don't know if you want to take that
one ahead of this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine took it
off of the consent agenda.
MR. CONRECODE: Oh, okay. Never mind.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(A)(7) I think I suggested
would become 9(B).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, dating back to October of
1993 the county ran lines to provide water service to the Wyndemere
subdivision. At that time the county also sent out certified
letters
to the property owners in there which triggered a request for
alternative impact fee calculations in accordance with the
ordinance.
Those -- that alternative fee was submitted in February 1994. And
from that time a number of starts and stops in the discussions and
negotiations have occurred. More recently staff and the Wyndemere
water impact fee committee have reached a recommended resolution to
the alternative impact fee calculations. That is the item that's
being presented to you today. I need to advise you, though, of the
class. Some twenty-plus or minus-twenty folks have not been
reached,
and we have not been able to get them to consent to the settlement
agreement, and as a result we'll consider their options and -- and
remaining options under a companion item, 8(B)(2), to follow this.
Both the committee and county staff desire to settle and
compromise any and all aspects of this. And I think it's important
to
note that this is not to be construed as a precedent or admission
of
any kind. With that said, I would open it up to discussions and
ask
that the board approve the settlement as it's outlined to them
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Your
comment earlier means basically that this is a stand-alone
agreement
with Wyndemere and really is not and cannot be used by other
developments to their advantage per se. Each will be reviewed
individually, and this doesn't really tie our hands in future
considerations?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have no speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the impact fee
settlement agreement as proposed by staff.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the settlement agreement. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #882
WYNDEHERE ALTERNATIVE WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - STAFF
RECOHMENDATION APPROVED WITH CHANGE
Next item -- thank you, Hr. Conrecode -- 8(B)(2). This
is the alternative water system impact fee calculation.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, this item is really to
clean up those -- those property owners who have petitioned or were
have been unable to reach and would ask for some latitude and
flexibility in the administration of the final closeout
documentation
of both of these items as it relates to any standing that the
remaining class has if, for instance, we receive in the mail today
their signed authorization.
We -- in the event that those property owners do not
sign the settlement agreement, what -- we would propose that the
board
reject their petition. And I can go into greater detail on that,
but
basically we've outlined four items in the recommendation: that
the
same settlement terms be extended to them in the event that we make
contact with them and they're agreeable to the terms of that
agreement; and, secondly, if the agreement cannot be reached with
those remaining property owners, that the board find them
ineligible
to pursue this further; finally, that -- next -- again, if an
agreement cannot be reached with 18 property owners from that group
that we find are eligible for the hearing, staff recommendation --
staff recommends that they be rejected because the information and
assumptions utilized by those applicants is not consistent with the
requirements of the ordinance for alternative impact fee
calculations. And then finally, again, if agreement cannot be
reached, that the board will deny any requests for a hearing under
Section 307 because those folks have not complied with the
requirements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, if we don't find
agreement with those 18 properties, the entire calculation for the
entire community will be thrown out?
MR. CONRECODE: No. Commissioner, that's just to --
under the ordinance if they apply for an alternative impact fee
calculation, you're required to hold a hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: This is that hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. CONRECODE: We have been not been able to reach
those property owners. If they do come through, we would like some
latitude in offering them the same terms and conditions. However,
you
have fulfilled your obligation to have a hearing; that's the
purpose
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand.
MR. CONRECODE: So if they don't agree to that, then
they would be required to pay the original impact fee that's in
place
as a result of the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the negotiated fee is $500
per residential unit?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. That's the settlement.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the old negotiating fee is
$900?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And this alternative fee
calculation, they're proposing four fifty-four ninety-six. MR. CONRECODE: Right. We rejected that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We want to reject that, you're
saying --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and ask them to either join
in the one we just approved or pay the $900. MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds easy.
MR. CONRECODE: And I'll also ask Ed Finn if I'm not
sure on any loose ends than he has -- because this has been
changing
hour by hour as we've gone through the final stages.
MR. FINN: Thank you. For the record, Edward Finn,
public works. We have been attempting to take attendance here.
This
is a requirement to the ordinance to have a hearing. At this point
in
time we have no one who has shown up for the hearing. For the
record
I would like to request anyone that's here for a hearing under Item
8(B)(2) to please stand up and be recognized.
Failing that, a couple of small corrections. On page 3
of the agenda item under Recommendation No. 3 towards the bottom
there
is a sentence that reads, "The alternate water system impact fee
does
comply." That is incorrect. There needs to be the word "not"
inserted before the word "comply." In addition, it is our intent
to
have this package submitted into the record as -- as staff's
response
to the alternate impact fee hearing and to represent essentially
our
position on that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there any -- are
there any speakers on this?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
MR. FINN: Very good.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a motion
-- I'd like to make a motion that we approve Item 8(B)(2) with the
four items recommended by staff to include the alter --
Recommendation
No. 3 to include the word "not" in front of the word "comply."
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to look at that. Is that
an appropriate typographical change?
MR. FINN: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One more thing on
this issue. Staff simply requests some latitude in dealing with
these
folks in order to try to get this to an expeditious end.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not going to get physical,
are you?
MR. FINN: No. In terms of actual additions and
deletions to the list, it's our intent to obtain the files, the
attachment made to the previous item, have that completed and
formalized prior to submitting it to the chairman for final
signature.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that -- I agree that's
sufficient direction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I have some questions on
this issue, if I could just bring them up, please, Mr. Chairman,
for
-- for the county manager, that this is the second settlement
agreement we've seen on the alternative impact fee analysis, and I
constantly hear from developers about -- that our -- our
calculation
assumptions are wrong and that we're overcharging. It seems that
before Mr. Hargett was leaving we were going to have some kind of
an
analysis of this, and then he left, and then we didn't. I'm -- I'm
concerned, and I don't want to -- you know, I want to make the
record
that I am ignorant of the appropriate amount to -- to charge, so
I'm
not saying that the county's charging incorrectly. But I'm
concerned
about it and want to get some kind of an analysis and report
overall
about these impact fee assessments and the appropriateness of them.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we have just completed an internal
audit with the clerk's internal auditing department for both
alternative impact fee calculations and conformance with the
ordinance
in general. And I will tell you it is not our position that we are
overcharging at all. There was one instance that was highlighted
that
involved the Sports Authority. It is my understanding that that
has
been corrected. That was an instance where they were undercharged
as
a result of a requested alternative impact fee analysis. Mr.
Conrecode and Mr. Cautero are completing some responses to the
audit
that was done, and it has just been done, I'll say, in the last two
weeks, and so that's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I hear more about is a
residential multifamily being overcharged.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's because a new
development coming on line, we have to look at what peak demand is
going to be. And what they want to do is they want to take a 10-
or
20-year established community and base their impact fee on that
with
assumptions of vacancy and so forth, and yet they cannot assure us
that that's the case. And that's the typical argument. We heard
it
on one Charwood or Sharwood (phonetic).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sherwood.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And that's the same
argument I think you're hearing and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's somewhat persuasive
that ten years of actual means more than somebody's guess.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And that's why there's
a settlement for Wyndemere. It's a 10-year or 20-year existing
community that shows a trend, and that can be factored in and an
agreement can be reached. You're -- you're kind of rolling the
dice
on a new development because not all are coming on line in the same
way with the same uses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those are the issues that I would
like to have a discussion --
MR. CONRECODE: If I can add to the discussion, though,
because of some of these challenges to the ordinance, we are
rewriting
that ordinance. We met in -- in about a six-hour session last week
to
work through the specific details of rewriting the water and the
wastewater impact fees. And in the areas, for instance, with
multifamily, we're redefining their impact to the system. A
multifamily unit does not have -- based on our findings in this
county
does not have the same impact that a single family does. And so
what
we're doing is we're breaking that out differently. It's far more
defensible in the ordinances as it exists today, and I think the
county will be better represented with that new law.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When might we see that?
MR. CONRECODE: I think within the next 30 to 60 days
you'll see it. We're all but finalizing that ordinance right now.
It
meets with state standards. It meets with national recognized
standards. It provides us with greater defensibility of an
alternative impact fee challenge. So I think the county will be
far
better prepared to defend these in the future.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #883
RESOLUTION 96-440/CWS-96-10 REGARDING FUNDING SOURCE 341 APPROVAL
FOR
ROYAL COVE SEWER ASSESSMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Next item, 8(B)(3),
funding resolution and funding source approval for Royal Cove sewer
assessment project.
MR. CONRECODE: Again, for the record, Tom Conrecode
from public works. I'd like to lay out what I think is the final
step
in the Royal Cove sewage project. If you remember, in October of
'95
the board declared an emergency to handle a number of problems
related
to a small package treatment plant in the Royal Cove community
serving
approximately 28 properties. As a result of that, staff had -- had
bid and provided for some work to put in the new pack -- a new pump
station and a force main that would serve those areas, and it would
ultimately result in the removal of the package treatment plant
that
was in place up there.
In November '95 the board held the requisite public
hearings, and a tentative assessment was established on a 20-year
repayment schedule. Following in December the board approved the
emergency funding which utilized county water-sewer capital funds.
We'd like to correct that at this point and based on the board's
intent established in May of '96 that they would use an alternative
impact -- I'm sorry, alternative assessment collection methodology
through water and sewer bills through the department of revenue.
We're recommending that the water-sewer capital fund be reimbursed
$160,000 that were used to do this project and that the project be
provided long-term funding through Fund 341 established, in
essence,
to take over and handle long-term financing of assessment-type
projects.
Subject to any questions, staff recommends that you
approve Fund 341 as the funding source for the Royal Cove special
assessment project, approve the resolution that's attached
identifying
that as a long-term funding source, and approve all the necessary
budget amendments to make the -- make all this happen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm prepared to make a motion to
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not on this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I said I'm prepared.
Slow lead-in. Make a motion to approve staff recommendation of the
attached resolution.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8B4
CHANGE ORDER #2 TO SUNSHINE EXCAVATORS, INC. FOR THE EXCAVATION AND
FILL PORTION OF THE PREPARATORY SITE WORK FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
FIREWORKS COMPETITION TO BE HELD AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - APPROVED
Mr. Conrecode, do you have one more change order on the
Sunshine Excavating as an add-on, 8(B)(4)?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a pinch hitter.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Adolfo
Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. You have
two contractors right now at Sugden Regional Park working on the
site
improvements for the fireworks show in November. One is a fencing
contractor who is almost completed with his activities. The other
one
was the contractor that was hired to do the clearing and grubbing.
We're asking you today to approve a change order to that same
contractor to do the earth work operations that we have previously
explained in a previous executive summary to you. The change order
is
-- the amount of the fill -- the unit cost for the fill is
consistent
with other unit prices we've received for the last year for other
county projects.
MR. DORRILL: Through Phase 3 also we will be about 9
percent below the original estimate for this project, and so that's
why we think that we ought to take advantage of what seem to be
very
good unit prices per yard for the excavation and the placement and
the
finish grading for the work -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So even with this change order
we're on schedule and under budget?
MR. DORRILL: With this change order we'll be about 9
percent below the original budget to do the site work in advance of
the fireworks exhibition and protect the area that still has to be
the
ski show area on the weekends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker. Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East
Naples. I'm a taxpayer and voter in Collier County speaking for
myself. Good morning, Commissioners.
I have a few comments to make about this. First of all,
I call this the Canadian foreign -- Canadian aid from Collier
County,
one of our foreign aid amounts of money that we've given from our
tourist tax. And now they're coming up again with another change
order. There's a Change Order No. 2 for more money.
According to this executive summary sheet I have here,
it says the previous change order increased the original purchase
order by $2,200 to the present $92,900. This change order in the
amount of $28,500 represents an increase of 30.7 percent over the
current purchase order. However, the original cost to complete all
three phases had been estimated at $185,000. That was an estimate.
It's -- and now -- and will now be performed as an estimated cost
of
172,000. So, in other words, this statement -- that last statement
tries to impress upon anyone that's reading this that it's being
done
for a lesser amount of money. It's still costing the taxpayer more
money regardless of how much less the estimate is.
I really have to criticize the project manager on this
job. I guess Reginald Boucher, PE; and Adolfo Gonzalez -- reviewed
by
Adolfo and Thomas Conrecode who was the division head. I have to
criticize them because it says that they never knew about it or
they
didn't consider this -- this spending money for this berm. Well, I
mean, how can you estimate and work a -- a -- say, a contract out
with
this international fireworks, which you know the type of work that
has
to be done to accommodate what -- what they want, and then go ahead
and -- and make these add-ons because you haven't done your work
properly in the beginning, which means it's going to cost the
taxpayer
more money. And back in -- in July when this international
fireworks
management group were here, they said this would be at no cost to
the
taxpayer in Collier County. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the change
order.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second, and I'd be happy to
explain that later.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I was going to say
just to clarify on Gil's comments, Mr. Gonzalez, this is
improvements
that were scheduled to take place regardless of whether or not the
fireworks show took place or not; is that correct?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. We are working on the site
improvements for Sugden Regional Park. We were on schedule to do
that
when the fireworks people brought that idea to you. And we've
actually fast-tracked a portion of the site improvements, a
sidewalk
that will be used in the ultimate project, for instance, where the
beach is planned. That is where, I think, the fireworks people are
actually going to use as a seating area or grandstand area for the
shows. So we're putting the dirt where it's ultimately going to go
anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're buying it at a cheaper
price.
VOICE: How much?
MR. GONZALEZ: At two thirty-five a cubic yard excavated
and compacted, which is -- I think we paid two thirty-five a cubic
yard placed, not including excavation, on the south Naples part,
which
we -- we got a change order approval about a half year ago from
you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With -- with that information,
which was also part in the staff report, part in a phone call I
made
last week, what I see this simply is as an opportunity to do work
that
needs to be done anyway at a fast track and a cheaper cost which is
prudent use of tax dollars and not inappropriate at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why you seconded that
motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is exactly right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And Mr. Erlichman's comments
notwithstanding, $172,000 total cost is less than $185,000 total
COSt,
SO '-
MR. ERLICHMAN: Estimate. Estimate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to call the question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, Mr. Erlichman, but it's still
lower an estimate for the cost.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I call the question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Scottish member of the board.
Item #8C1
ACCEPTANCE OF LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN TO QUALIFY FOR FY 1997
LIBRARY
OPERATING GRANT AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN APPLICATION - APPROVED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next Item, 8(C)(1), acceptance of
library long-range plan.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to preface this by
saying I have a whole pile of questions and some serious concerns
with
the report. I don't want you to misread that as not being
supportive
of the library. I want to make sure we have accurate information
included in here if we're going to submit this information and send
it
off, and there are at least a couple inaccuracies in here.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, your public
services administrator.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Feel comfy now?
MR. OLLIFF: I feel bad because originally, in fact, I
still planned to -- to give you a little explanation that there are
__
there are advisory boards, and then there are advisory boards. And
your library is fortunate enough to have a group of people that
really
works hard every single month putting together a lot of work for us
that otherwise would be done by your staff. And trying to give
credit
where credit is due, I had asked Miss Mellinger, the chairman of
your
library advisory board, to come and actually make a presentation of
this long-range plan, because it is significantly different than
years
past. This is simply a document that gets submitted to the state
as
part of their grant requirements for the State Aid to Libraries
Program where you get in excess of about a quarter of a million
dollars a year from the state that we can use for library services.
I will tell you there is -- there is very little binding
in terms of the plan, but it is a plan that the state would like to
see that you have some general concepts of where you're trying to
head
with your library system so they feel like they know what it is
that
they're providing some funding for, but that's generally what we've
done in the past. The plans in the past have simply been on the
consent agenda, but because I think the Library Advisory Board and
your director put a lot of effort into trying to put together a
realistic plan, we wanted to put it on the regular agenda, and I've
asked Miss Mellinger if she'd make that presentation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, let me add an
addendum to my preface. I'm very supportive of this. There are
just
a couple of things we need to correct, and there are a couple
things
-- assumptions that are made that are not accurate. We'll get into
those after you've done your thing. But it's not intended as a
criticism of the library board because I agree completely with Mr.
Olliff. You guys did a great job.
MS. MELLINGER: For the record, Sidney Mellinger,
chairman of the Library Advisory Board. Before I begin I have two
comments. I'm sorry I was not able to be here last week being out
of
town, but I want to thank the commissioners for supporting the
Marco
addition. And the second, this is the day of T-shirts. I had
occasion to meet with the chairman of the county commission, oh,
four,
six months ago, and he had the nerve to show up in a parks and rec
T-shirt, so I decided something had to be done about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-oh.
MS. MELLINGER: So as I say, it's T-shirt day.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Always good to start off a
presentation by giving things to the commissioners.
MS. MELLINGER: So next time --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you have a meeting with Sid
Mellinger, you will wear this shirt.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, these are golf shirts.
They're not T-shirts.
MR. PERKINS: Why black -- or blue?
MS. MELLINGER: Oh, they're navy blue. In October of
1995 when I was here to give you a state of the library report, I
promised you that we would have a long-range plan in place within
18
months. Well, I'm happy to say that we're back here a year later
with
a long-range plan. And I would concur with Commissioner
Constantine.
We know it is not perfect, but that's the joy of a long-range plan.
They are not cut in stone. They are there to be reviewed annually,
to
be revised, to be corrected. When I discovered that you only had a
rough draft of it in your packet, staff worked very hard to put
together a final copy -- thank you -- for you. We did find some
things that needed correction in that. We know there are still
more.
The reason why it needs your approval right now, of course, is to
conform to your contract with the state with regard to State Aid
for
Libraries.
Briefly I'd like to tell you that this long-range plan
is divided into three sections. One section deals with library
services, for example, materials and staffing. It also has
technology, and it has facilities. What's good about this one that
has never been in a long-range plan before, it has measurable
testing
built in. That is critically important in order to determine
whether
the library system is providing the needs that the community want
and
are entitled to. I would point out that when I did the first
measurement of services here, oh, about -- it's about three years
ago,
the results were deplorable. We've come a long way since then. It
also has measurable goals. That, again, is something new for the
library system.
It introduces the concept of regional libraries as the
way to provide a wider range of library services in certain
geographical areas at a minimum of financial impact to the
taxpayer.
That's something that at the county manager's request and also, I
believe, the commissioners are entitled to, we would like to come
back
in two weeks and give you a full explanation of exactly the
direction
that the Library Advisory Board chooses to pursue. Again, it is in
this long-range plan. Your approval of this long-range plan does
not
mean it has to stay in there. If you do not agree to go that way,
it
may be revised. We need your approval because we are on a deadline
to
conform to state mandates. Other than that, I have nothing to say
except to thank you very much for your support which we've had in
the
past and which I know we can count on in the future. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is that deadline?
MS. MELLINGER: September 30th.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of concerns,
and I'll start off with some softballs. Standard exemption.
MS. MELLINGER: Remember, I'm a volunteer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask, are these
questions really more appropriate for Mr. Jones or for Miss
Mellinger?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. For anyone who
can answer them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I prefer to beat up on people we
pay.
MS. MELLINGER: You can try me, and if I can't, I will
defer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The very beginning under
objectives, levels of service and materials, under Standard 3(B),
the
library shall maintain support staff 2.5 per professional in '96,
2.75
in '98, and 3.0 by the year 2000. I don't disagree with that. I'm
just curious; do we know what the cost associated with that
increase
will be?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question.
MS. MELLINGER: I'll defer.
MR. JONES: John Jones, library. There has not been a
call study because that type of program -- these are a standard
that
we submit that we would like to obtain. I have spoken with Mr.
Olliff
several weeks ago. He's requested a staff study for Mr. Dorrill's
approval for that type of thing. Of course, a number of personnel
__
and it says so in the back part of this -- is controlled totally by
this board and by the county manager's office. We only make
recommendations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to be a little
careful having that in here as one of the standard goals we have --
MR. JONES: It's a goal, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- prior to having that study
done.
MR. JONES: It is a goal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because, again, I support
it. We've had this discussion on the books. We've done it
incrementally every year.
MR. JONES: The standard throughout the profession --
and as I said, a standard assumes that somewhere there is a norm
and
that somewhere in the United States there is an efficient library.
And I won't make that argument. But the standard throughout the
country is one professional for each 10,000 citizens and 3 support
for
each professional. And we are considerably below that now, and so
the
idea was to at least as a goal to try to move ourselves up to the
standard. But it's only a goal, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me, if I may,
Commissioner Constantine, on that point --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the idea that it's just a goal
I appreciate. However, goals should be attainable and even if it
makes you stretch just a little bit. And I think what's being
asked
-- and I have to agree with this. I'd like to see possibly a
five-year cost-out of what that goal means to -- for us to be able
to
look at it and determine whether or not we financially can attain
that
as an important part of goal setting. The last thing I want to do
is
agree to something in a document that we know full well we may not
be
able to attain.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kind of reminds me of the
financially feasible plan which is separate from the goals. I
mean,
this is -- I think it's okay to have goals and then to adopt later
a financially feasible imp -- implementing program.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, but I just want to
piggyback on that. And it doesn't have to be here today, but it's
something that we would want to see --
MR. JONES: On page 13 there is a chart that shows how
many people would be required.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the next column would be
possibly a cost projection to provide that staff.
MR. JONES: Yes. But we know right now if we attain
that goal how many people --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. JONES: -- we would apply, so it's a fairly simple
mathematical calculation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That chart -- do all
communities use a, quote, weighted population? I think most --
MR. JONES: I'm -- I'm not in a position to answer that
question, Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we made comparisons
on our other charts in here to other communities --
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and their population. And
-- and I don't know if --
MR. JONES: If it makes you --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if those are
weighted population or not. And I realize we probably need to do
that, because most of the year we have more than 185,000 people
here
__
MR. JONES: If it makes you feel better, we are staffed
at about 65 percent of most of the state libraries that we compare
to
with or without weighted populations. We have one of the smaller
staffs in the state. The weighted population here is a much more
realistic thing. We -- we in the library see it a lot more than
some
people do in the county because we have registered borrowers. In
Florida you have to live here six months plus one year in order to
claim this as your domicile. We have a tremendous number of people
who list dual residencies. We serve -- our circulation this year
is
approaching 1.6 million, and that's using the weighted population,
still 7.8 items per capita, which is right now the second largest
in
the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With what staff? I mean,
wouldn't you say we have the lowest staffs?
MR. JONES: We have one of the lower staffs in the state
right now, but we grow so fast. It's not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's phenomenal.
MR. JONES: It's not anything that you can say that --
the staff right now is comfortably handling it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point was just if -- we
hear this statistic every year at budget time, gosh, we're staffed
far
lower than anyone else. And my question is, are we using weighted
when we compare it to Palm Beach or to Lee County or to anybody
else?
Are they using -- are we using their raw number, or are we using
their
weighted number as well, because it's going to make a difference
whether -- we may still be below, but it may be at 85 percent
instead
of 65 percent. I would be interested to see that.
MR. JONES: I don't know that, sir, but I'll give you an
honest answer. I don't think that would make a significant
difference
particularly. Our staff, county staff, has reduced that weighted
population this year, and so we're talking about weighted
population
of 215,000. And I think every piece of data I have indicated
indicates that we're now willing to admit there are 200,000 plus
here
year around, so I don't think it's a real significant -- but I will
furnish you with that data, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just got a report back
from the University of Florida two weeks ago that shows our current
at
one eighty-six and some change, and we know that can't -- the only
reason I remember that, because our salary is based on that, and
that's why they gave it to us. The -- and my suggestion is that
total
staff of 88 people divided into 186 is going to be significantly
different than total divided into 215. And my whole point -- I
don't
need a return comment on this -- is just in the future when we hear
where we are, I'm sure we're below standard or below average around
the rest of the state, but I just want to make sure we're comparing
apples to apples too. Those are different numbers.
MR. JONES: I will do that for you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, before
you leave page 3, I had one other question on Standard 3-A. What
is
our current professional librarian staff number? How many --
MR. JONES: Nineteen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nineteen.
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we were to take our
existing population of 186,000 and use that, we have one per
10,000.
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand we have a seasonal
influx; no one's negating that. I understand that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And those numbers -- all of those
numbers that we've just been discussing are very interesting, but
really the pertinent point is how is our staff handling our
citizens
and our libraries. I mean, regardless of what some other library
in
Keokuk, Iowa, is doing, if our library staff is handling our
citizens,
that's what we're concerned with.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going up to page -- and I'm
using the old report, because that's the one I had marked up, so I
may
not have the exact page the same -- I think it is -- 14. And it
talks
about population. And it says the permanent segment is estimated
to
be one eighty, or now one eighty-six. In addition to the 12-month
population, there is a segment which declares for tax purposes
Collier
as its home residence. My understanding is when -- when the census
is
done that those who are claiming this as home for tax purposes or
just
because they like the sunshine are counted as part of that. So I'm
not sure when we say one hundred eighty plus sixty thousand more
who
are doing that is an accurate number. I think those people who are
only here part of the year but are claiming this as home are still
counted in that one eighty-six.
I would agree; however, your final comment says, of
course, over and above that there's a pile of people who just come
seasonal. This isn't home, but they're here six months. So we do
have a number of people. And I hope Commissioner Norris's point is
well taken; how's our staff doing taking care of those people,
whether
it's summer or winter.
Population conclusions, and this is on page -- well,
it's our -- doesn't have a page number on it. It's one of the
appendix, I guess, packet page 20. And it says with a full county
buildout producing a population in the mid-400,000 range -- and I'm
__
since you all were putting this together, that's actually been
scaled
back. It's three eighty-nine or three ninety-seven or something
like
that. It's in the high three hundreds now as opposed to the mid
four
hundreds. How -- how big, like our -- the new branch, Golden Gate
Estates branch, how many square feet is that? I was reading this
and
trying --
MR. JONES: Eleven thousand two hundred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I was trying to
compare that to what you were talking about for a regional-type
building.
The -- finally, on page 29 and 30 -- and this is the one
that concerned me the most -- is on page 30 it says a review of
population projections indicate that by the year 2010 -- that's
just a
little over 13 years from now -- the county will have a population
of
403,000 people. And we're talking about buildout in the high three
hundreds, and buildout isn't going to happen in 13 years. We're
talking maybe two thousand twenty-five or thirty so --
MR. JONES: Could I refer you to page 15, sir?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of which?
MR. JONES: Of the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The handout today?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I feel like budgets. Big book or
little book?
MR. JONES: I'm sorry. This was done very quickly
trying to get it all put together. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. JONES: One of the reasons why there may be some --
from my perspective and, you know -- you know, I don't make
excuses.
When I did this work we were working with one set of population
figures. In mid-July after most of this work had been done, the
population figures were changed. On Chart 15 is the population --
is
the chart produced by the county itself where the four oh three one
hundred figure comes from, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this isn't intended to
criticize the effort --
MR. JONES: I understand totally. I don't take it that
way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only concern here is we
are basing -- it says on one of these pages -- I'll paraphrase
because
I can't find it quickly, but it says -- oh, here it is. It's on
the
bottom of page 30 right under the item I just read. It says, "Due
to
the population distribution of Collier," and if -- if that's the
primary reason, it goes on to talk about regionals and the time
frame
we need to build them. And if -- if that assumption was made on a
population of 400,000 by 2010, I understand the concern.
MR. JONES: Now --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like -- let me just finish
my point. I like the idea of the regional concept. The concept's
great. The premise of necessity in that time frame, I think, with
the
numbers you had are correct. With the actual numbers as they are
now
probably not necessary by 2010 to have that -- that many and --
because the time frame is flawed.
I do, however, love the part that follows. You
mentioned two or three reasons building your argument for the
regional
approach; and it says, "Due to the population distribution .... I
pointed out that's flawed, but it says, "and the fiscal
conservatism
of its elected officials." Now that part couldn't be more
accurate.
I think the regional approach is -- has many attractive features,
and
it goes on. I think that's true, but I just -- our time frame on
the
next page says, "Advisory board proposes that two regional
structures,
approximately 25,000 square foot each, be constructed over the next
eight years." And I think considering the fact that we won't see
380,000 till I'm collecting social security, I'm not sure we need
that
-- both of those in the next eight-year time frame.
MR. JONES: Let me put your mind at ease, though. We
build at the rate of .33 square feet of population, thus time frame
and how this board would approve construction is based upon the
population. We don't -- we don't -- as an independent entity
decide
to build a library like some counties do. They just decide a
neighborhood wants a library, we build it. In Collier County the
building of a library is determined by the actual population --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
MR. JONES: -- at point 33. So the time frame -- in
doing projections the time frame and all is tied to actually what
the
population grows. If the population does not grow by that point in
time, then of course, the time frame means nothing, because growth
management causes how it's going to be built.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would like to suggest
is that we approve the report and transmit it, however, with a
couple
of minor corrections. I hate to send off something that's
factually
incorrect to the state; and on these final couple of pages of
Appendix
2 it does say, "The present GHP calls for library facilities to be
constructed of a rate of .33 square feet." But that next line does
say a review of population projections indicate by the year 2010,
four
hundred and three. I'd like to either delete or review or alter
that
sentence so we don't send that off and also delete or alter the
sentence that says the proposal that those two 25,000 square feets
be
built in the next eight years, because I don't want to mislead the
state if those numbers aren't accurate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, on the surface that
sounds like a very logical approach, but here's where it fails. If
we
go to a regional concept where we're building 25,000-square-foot
libraries but fewer of them, more economical to build them, and
they
serve with a greater collection and reference section a greater
population, what happens is in the meantime when we have outgrown
what
we existing have -- already have as branches, when our need is
10,000
square feet, if we wait until the need at 33 -- .33, you know,
square
feet per person, if we wait until that reaches 25,000, there's
going
to be a fair amount of time in which the public is not being served
by
sufficient library space. So it's not an exact corollary that we
have
to wait until the population dictates 25,000 to build a regional
but
that the population dictates additional space and the economical
position is to build a regional. And I want to make sure that we
don't draw that -- such a direct corollary because it will mean a
great reduction in service to a larger population.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my suggestion isn't that
we put a particular time period in, because I think you're right.
My
suggestion is to delete -- this has a particular time frame. The
next
eight years is not going to require 50,000 more feet using even --
even close to that. It may require one regional facility. But I
donwt think in the next eight years wewre going to have 350,000
people. And I donwt want to give any ind -- Iwd just be
comfortable
leaving the square footage some vague time frame, but I hate to
have
50,000 more square feet in the next eight years appear in here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I donwt mind leaving it a
little more open, but I donwt want to disallow the fact that in
eight
years it may be required, because wewve already decided to proceed
with the Marco Island regional approach down there more or less.
We
talked about the construction. Didnwt we approve the architectural
plans to go to the larger building down there; is that right?
MR. DORRILL: A larger building, yes, but to -- defined
as a regional building, no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I donlt think it qualifies.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. But itls -- at least the
size is more similar in concept than just a neighborhood branch.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I donlt know if thatls true,
and not that itls that important but -- MS. MELLINGER: I donlt think that the Library Advisory
Board has any problem with what youlre saying. As I prefaced this
by
saying, a long-range plan is not cut in stone. It will be reviewed
and revised. We happen to be having a meeting tomorrow. We will
take
your concerns. We will remedy them before it is sent to the state
so
that we have a clear document. However, I -- I donlt want to move
away from the idea that -- that we are going to need regional
planning.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I can put your
mind at ease a little bit, Commissioner Hancock. And my suggestion
isnlt to limit us in any way. Iim just saying letls not transmit
information thatls not true, that being 403,000 people in the next
13
years. And also letls not transmit a goal that isnlt realistically
achievable or isnlt realistically necessary, and thatls the two of
those in eight years. So we can have some vague thing in there and
not tie ourselves down, but letls not put in something that all
five
of us know isnlt going to happen.
MS. MELLINGER: At least one. Thatls a way of saying
it, just at least one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I think thatls very
realistic.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: At least one would be acceptable
to me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thatls fine. That leaves it
open-ended and doesnlt shut the door.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Then do we have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Iill make a motion we
approve the transmittal of this report with those corrections and
o~e
other just being the next paragraph after that references 425,000
population figure. We probably need to scale that back. But
transmit
this report to the state with those three corrections.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a speaker?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, we do have a speaker.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade Groups, citizens for constitutional property rights. I
have not used all of the facilities of all of the libraries, but I
can
highly recommend the Golden Gate -- Golden Gate Estates libraries.
They have went -- they've done all kinds of miracles for me; they
have. All I had to do was ask, and they performed. It might have
taken them a little bit of time to do it, but they performed. And
that's a unique thing as far as I'm concerned.
As we grow out, the estates is naturally going to be one
of the -- the largest areas with children, and that's where the
knowledge needs to be kept available right for the kids is the way
I
see it, the information that's readily available at the school --
at
the libraries for all kinds of things. And I would say to the
people
listening at home, ask. Just call up and ask. You'd be surprised
what these people can do for you.
One other thing. The use of the fax machine in the
libraries by the public for a fee. Other than that, I think that's
__
covers everything else, but I cannot say enough about how the
people
and the library system has performed for this community. Thank
you.
MS. HELLINGER: Boy, that sounds good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one -- the one element we
didn't discuss I wanted to just mention as a last item, for me
anyway,
is the advent of new technologies that may reduce the on-site
reference collection needs in the future is something that parlays
into a reduction in square footage and so forth. And I'd just like
to
see that addressed a little more in the future, because it's
something
that is becoming very, very real, both with CD-ROH and on-line
technology that you don't have to have the hard books there in many
of
our new libraries. You can have it all available at your
fingertips
without having the collection and space needed for it, so just
something I'd like to see a little more detail on in the coming
years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There is none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just along with that, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Dotrill, you'll bring back the study as far as our --
our discussion at the beginning what staff requirements would be at
3.0 and so on, five-year buildout? The very first thing we
discussed
Was '-
MR. DORRILL: Yes. I have that note.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take a short little break and be
right back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 96-441 TRANSFERRING COHMON STOCK OF TIME WARNER, INC.,
THE
ENTITY WHICH CONTROLS FLORIDA CABLEVISION MANAGEMENT CORP., TO
STOCK
HOLDERS OF TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, INC. - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Our next item is 8(E)(1), a recommendation to approve the
transfer of common stock of Time Warner to Turner Broadcasting
Systems. Have we had gotten into the stock underwriting business
here, Mr. Dotrill?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The good news is we've got --
collecting $10,000 fees every time they sell stock.
MS. HERRITT: For the record, Jean Herritt, your
coordinator of the office of franchise administration. As you
know,
Florida Cablevision, CVI, is franchised by Collier County. Time
Warner, Incorporated, controls CVI, now known as Time Warner Cable.
Time Warner, Incorporated, has entered into an agreement to acquire
Turner Broadcasting System. TBS is a major distributor of news and
entertainment and owns several cable networks including CNN, Turner
Network, TB, the Cartoon Network, and Super Station WTBS.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse just a moment. I'm
going to make a motion we approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've get a question before you
call the vote, because I subscribe to CVI on Time Warner. And, you
know, I opened the bills yesterday, and all of a sudden you know
what
I see on my bill, a franchise fee. It was never there before.
MS. MERRITT: Fran -- I believe the franchise fee is
always shown on all of the cable bills.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. We've
been subscribing to this now since 1989. Time Warner took it over,
and for the first time the franchise fee is a pass-through. I just
want to know that the board --
MS. MERRITT: I do know that the Time Warner bill is
different than the bill that was issued by CVI.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is because of the tax?
MS. MERRITT: The general manager of Time Warner Cable
is present and could probably answer to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I don't know that it's
necessary. I mean, it -- it would -- it's only to be assumed that
the
company is going to pass that franchise fee on to the customer. I
mean, is that the nature of your question?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I just want to make the --
make the board aware that this franchise fee has been in existence
for
awhile, and it has only been since Time Warner took it over that it
was passed through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it an additional fee, or was
it previously included?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEW: No. Previously included in our
base fee, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to protest the
stock transfer on this basis?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I just wanted to make the
board aware that there is a change in -- in billing practices that
__
MR. BENVENUTO: For the record, Gene Benvenuto. I'm
general manager of Time Warner in Collier. Good morning,
Commissioners. Commissioner, what you're looking at is Collier
County
conducted an audit of our franchise fees last year. During that
time
they noticed a failure of our collection and franchise and payment
of
those fees on Quail West. Is that -- that possibly where you live
or
__
MR. DORRILL: Longshore.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Longshore.
MR. BENVENUTO: Quail Creek, I meant. At that time we
did pay substantial penalties and interest and made up the
franchise
fees and then started to pass those fees through to that area; so
previously they should have been taking them and were not. That's
correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So previous they should.
MR. BENVENUTO: We did not back-bill anyone there. We
just paid the fees.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sign Mr. Mitchell up to
Commissioner Matthews' house.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not commenting that I've
been back-billed. My comment is that all of a sudden this fee is
showing up. I just wanted to make the board aware that previous to
the current ownership I would assume the franchise fee was part of
my
fee where now it is -- now it is separated out but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #9A
REPORT PRESENTED REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 86-41,
GOVERNING
APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARDS AND CANDIDACY FOR ELECTIVE
POLITICAL
OFFICE. COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO MODIFY EXISTING ORDINANCE
Next item, 9(A), report to the board concerning Collier
County Ordinance 86-41.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney. This
matter
is here for some clarification regarding the provision of our
advisory
board ordinance. Specifically the provision that requires that
when a
person serves on an advisory board seeks elective office, that
person
is deemed to have tendered their resignation from the advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did this come up, Mr.
Manalich?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I can answer that. What
happened is there was a challenge from someone who was running for
Marco Island Fire Commission on whether or not state statute
required
them to get off a board. So the question of who rules what came
into
play. At the same time I recognize that when people are running
for
things such as fire commission but sat on a advisory board to the
county commission, by making them resign, we were losing them
because
we would then reappoint someone. And if they were not successful
or
even were successful in their election, we'd already reappointed
someone and lost that person to the committee.
So Mr. Manalich has two answers. One is to the
complaint from -- from someone, you know, regarding does the county
have the ability to do what we're doing, and a second is the result
of
very lengthy discussions we've had regarding can we improve the
ordinance so that that doesn't happen.
MR. MANALICH: Essentially, yeah, there's two aspects,
as Commissioner Hancock has mentioned. On the legal aspect the
question was whether our provisions conflicted with federal or
state
election law. And, quite frankly, this is not a settled point of
law,
the reason being that the attorney general has given an opinion
that
casts doubt on the validity of our current ordinance provision.
The
division of elections has issued some opinions which also raised
Some
questions.
However, we have analyzed this from the perspective of
Florida home rule powers for noncharted counties. And we believe -
_
and this is backed up by consultation with -- Bob Neighbors
(phonetic)
is probably the most preeminent home rule attorney in Florida --
that
we believe our ordinance provisions as they exist can be
successfully
defended and are valid contrary to the attorney general. I don't
say
that lightly, but we do believe that in this case.
The second aspect of it then becomes for you, if you
care to visit this matter, whether as a matter of policy this
particular item needs to be changed or not. I looked up the
legislative history of this provision, and I also spoke to Mr.
Cuyler,
the former county attorney who drafted this ordinance. It's my
understanding that this provision was intended to prevent the use
of
advisory boards as platforms for political campaigns. The League
of
Women Voters supported this back in its enactment in '86. The
question today is from a policy perspective do you want to keep
this
provision, do you want to change and remove it, or modify it in
Some
manner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like it. Commissioner, I
don't know about everybody else. I know Commissioner Hancock and
myself have been both been through this. When we were running we
were
on -- I think we were both on productivity at the time, but I was
on
code enforcement or something as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was. It was something I was
willing to do to run for office. I don't really have a problem
with
it. Your point on fire commissioners and some of the others may be
valid, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me place a suggestion on the
table, and if there's -- no one else on the board cares to pursue
it
or a majority doesn't, then I'll just -- we'll just leave it as is.
The concern I have is we don't exactly have an infinite number of
people willing to serve on a lot of these advisory boards, and
since
the cycles are two to four years, when you lose -- when you lose
one
person, you can lose him for a significant period of time. My hope
is
that we can draw a distinction between quasi-judicial boards such
as
Code Enforcement, Planning Commission, and Contractor --
MR. MANALICH: Contractor board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Licensing Board and so that
those are required resignations because the function of those
boards
are critical to the operation of the county. The nonquasi-judicial
boards, I believe, I would like to see that if -- someone, rather
than
tendering resignation, must take a mandatory leave of absence with
no
participation during the time of their candidacy. Then they
reassume
positions on those boards at the termination of their candidacy
whether elected or not elected. It takes them out of the -- out of
the forum. They can't use it as a political platform, which was
the
focus initially. But we may not -- we can avoid losing those
skills
in the long term, which is what's happening now.
That's the only modification that -- that I would
propose. If that sounds reasonable we may be able to ask the
county
attorney's office to pursue it. There may be some public comment
on
that; or if it's not reasonable, then I'll just shut up and we'll
move
on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's one other consideration here.
This -- one of the complaints was -- had arisen, like you said,
from a
candidacy for fire commission. We may want to recognize in this
ordinance that there is a distinction between serving on the
county's
advisory boards and running for some separate division of
government
such as a fire commission. Mosquito control, for example, would be
another. Those are not the same division of government; and,
therefore, you know, maybe that -- that's a consideration that
should
be taken into account.
But, Mr. Manalich, I'd like for you on the record to
tell us whether or not this was -- this whole discussion arose from
a
nefarious plot to somehow block a Democrat from gaining an
advantage
in an election attempt as -- as has been mentioned in the past. Is
is that a correct --
MR. MANALICH: I mean, that's regrettable, if that's
been mentioned, because that's the case. I mean, my involvement
here
is that I received direct contact from affected persons that when
the
primary rolled around and asked about how this ordinance applies
and
whether state election law overroad our ordinance, and that was the
nature of that. And also Commissioner Hancock was sensitive to the
issue, and because of both of those contacts the matter was brought
to
you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could you tell us what nefarious
means? Is -- is --
MR. MANALICH: As a matter of fact, I'll even be
somewhat of the full advocate here and just give you -- you already
partially heard the argument. The argument's been presented to me
when I've had these contacts is, look, even though there may be a
valid policy goal of preventing certain high-profile boards from
being
used as political platforms, on the other hand, there are people
that
serve on certain committees that are not as high profile as others
and
perhaps are on other unrelated county boards. And, you know, we're
honorable people; we won't misuse that privilege of being on the
advisory board.
And that may be the case, but apparently the board in
'86 and '92 thought that this safeguard was necessary. There's
competing considerations obviously for you to weigh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: There are none. I'm sorry. There are.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We were hoping.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Huttinger.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, while he's coming up,
we -- we saw this same thing happen a couple years ago when one of
our
airport advisory board members was running for city council for the
City of Everglades, which has very little to do with the activity
of
the county as a whole. And -- and I -- I kind of would like to
entertain the idea of -- of either asking people to temporarily
step
down and be inactive during their candidacy or what have you,
because
with these elections that do not affect the running of county
government --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my suggestion, leave of
absence versus resignation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the question, though,
is what if you had someone who ran for Naples City Council. Is it
appropriate they be on a county board if they then become a city
councilman? It's one thing when you say Everglades City because
the
interaction isn't as great. But when we have immediate and regular
interaction with the city, I don't know if that's the appropriate
place.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What would prevent the
commissioner representing the City of Naples from appointing the
city
councilperson to a county board if that person chose to?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That can happen now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We just take them off.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does.
MR. HUTTINGER: Charlie Huttinger. I am presently a
fire commissioner on Marco Island. I also serve on the Beach
Renourishment Committee. And I've got to tell you, this is bad
law,
and you're not going to be able to patch it. What you're doing is
you're disenfranchising me of the rights that any citizen has, and
one
of them is the right to run for public office. Now, I see no
reason
that I should be any different than anybody else. Now, if you're
saying that, oh, yes, you can run for public office, then you're
disenfranchising a whole group of people that might want to do
public
service for you; and they're not going to do it because after they
put
three years' worth of work in on a project, they're not going to
want
to give it up.
Now, I appreciate Commissioner Hancock's idea of maybe a
leave of absence, but I'm going to tell you one thing that's wrong
with that. It took me three years to hammer out a new beach vendor
monitoring or beach vendor ordinance. And tomorrow I'm going to
have
to present to it parks and recs, and I'm hoping they'll go along
with
me. And a week and a half or two weeks from now I've got to bring
it
up here and present it to you people. Now, if I take a leave of
absence, what happens to that? What happens to my three or four or
five years' worth of work on the beach on Marco Island?
It's just bad law. And you're discriminating against
people that want to work for you, and it's hard to find people to
work
for you, and it's wrong, and I'll be glad to answer some questions.
I
thank you for listening to me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just say for clarification,
the state policy is as this gentleman is proposing. It's the state
elections office and that A.G.'s office says do what he says.
MR. HANALICH: Essentially from the legal perspective
what you have is Chapter 99 of the Florida Statutes -- MR. HUTTINGER: There is an exemption.
MR. HANALICH: -- and it says that if you're going to
run for one public office, you have to resign from the one you're
in.
But there's an exemption for members of appointed boards. The
question then became was there a conflict between that exemption
and
our provision which says you must, in fact -- you are deemed to
have
resigned if you elect to choose public office. Our analysis of it
is
contrary to attorney general. The attorney general would say if
state
law permits it, we can't prohibit it. We disagree with the
attorney
general. We believe that state law has chosen not to regulate --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that.
MR. HANALICH: -- voluntary boards. Consequently, the
county under home rule can impose these requirements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the state policy is not like
Collier County's policy. It doesn't have an automatic --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The state does --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The state does with their own
committees, not on the county level. But I'll give you an example.
A
couple of years ago I wanted to get on the state Athletic
Commission
which oversees boxing in the State of Florida. Paid position only
in
the way it's 75 bucks a quarter or something to pay your expense to
go
somewhere, wherever the meeting. But it's considered a public
official. And as a commissioner the only way I could be on the
Athletic Commission would be to resign from Board of County
Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what's your decision going to
be?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm weighing it out now.
MR. HANALICH: It would depend on the nature of the
office involved. But the way, the Chapter 99 appears to read --
it's
basically saying that to resign to run -- law on the state level is
not imposed on members of appointed state boards.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's an appointed state
board. And I got from my own attorney and from the state's
attorney
and from the attorney general's office opinions that said you can't
do
both.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, again, we do have a home
rule opinion from a very respectable entity, and I think the
question
before us today is do we want to alter the existing ordinance. I
know
Kathleen Slebodnik is here, and the League of Women Voters was very
instrumental in the initial adoption. And whatever we do here, I
think we need to hear from them.
MR. DORRILL: She is your next speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Huttinger.
MS. SLEBODNIK: Good morning, Commissioners, Kathleen
Slebodnik representing the League of Women Voters as president.
Yes,
we were very instrumental in working for the passage of this
ordinance
in 1986, and we very much appreciate the county attorney's office
informing us when this matter was coming before them for, not
review,
but at least discussion and consideration.
Prior to the passage of this ordinance in 1986, from my
understanding, there were several individuals using their advisory
board positions as platforms for their political campaigns. And
this
provision of the ordinance is just one small part of the entire
ordinance which sets standards for admission or service on advisory
boards. So it's not -- this is not the whole ordinance. It's just
one provision of it. And while we certainly do not want to
discourage
people from entering public office -- in fact, we applaud the
rigors
and understand the rigors involved in seeking public office -- we
can
see where there might be a conflict, somebody sitting on a zoning
board or a planning board and running for, let's say, county
commission. I think the -- the conflict can be quite obvious.
Also, there is an implication, if you serve on an
advisory board, that you are being endorsed by that advisory board
as
a candidate for the position that you are seeking. So after we had
spoken to those members who were very involved ten years ago in the
passage of this ordinance and the reasons for it, we still feel
that
being required to resign from your advisory board when you are
seeking
political office, paid political office, is still a practice of
good
government.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I clarify? If we had the
leave of absence provision, it would still meet the intent of the
League of Women Voters was seeking back in 1986 of not using that
during a campaign as a sounding board in a position that furthers
political -- or are you saying that resignation is the only
acceptable
option for the League of Women Voters?
MS. SLEBODNIK: In the current ordinance it's
resignation, and I -- we haven't discussed whether or not a leave
of
absence would be acceptable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions from the -- Mr. Weigel,
you wanted to jump in here?
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. Just a couple extra comments here.
And that is if the board were to consider altering or reducing the
requirements for leaving appointed boards, what we wanted to show
you
from our research is that our research, very comprehensive, is that
the ordinance is defensible as it currently exists. If you open
the
window of opportunity for further service -- continued service on
the
board during a candidacy for public office, in essence, arguably
you
have not made the ordinance any less defensible but probably more
defensible from that standpoint.
The attorney general opinion that Mr. Hanalich refers to
is a 1982 attorney general opinion. This ordinance was, in fact,
precleared with the Department of Justice at Washington D. C. when
it
was adopted, so -- so we felt that we're in pretty good standing
from
a federal standpoint, because the very provisions that are in
discussion today were part of the provisions that were reviewed by
the
Department of Justice for preclearance. I just wanted to make
those
comments for the record. Oh, one other thing is that if you should
determine to list some specific -- or look toward some specific
appointed boards for exclusion from the resignation requirement,
you
may also want to consider the new utility regulation authority and
the
airport authority.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are those both quasi-judicial
boards?
MR. WEIGEL: I would -- I would say yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my preference is to ask the
county attorney's office to modify the existing ordinance to
require
resignation from quasi-judicial boards and a leave of absence for
nonquasi-judicial advisory boards.
MR. MANALICH: And then within that quasi-judicial
there's always been some question as to whether Planning Commission
is
truly quasi-judicial or not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would include that by name.
MR. MANALICH: Let's treat it for the purpose of this
item as quasi-judicial and fall within your request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe instead of quasi-judicial
is the catch basin that we'll come up with a list of boards that
clearly -- that -- and then also including any future boards that
are
quasi-judicial in nature.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be -- that would be
acceptable also to me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds like I may be in
the minority, but I tend to agree with the League of Women Voters.
I
prefer to leave it the way it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We have --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: ANy other comments?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought I made it clear; I'm
willing to look at it because I -- I really think that our -- our
advisory board members who run for offices outside of the county
purview, I -- I think we're losing the advantage of their volunteer
work.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- yeah. The point I raised earlier
about a candidacy for a separate arm of government should not
preclude
someone from serving on a county advisory board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think that -- that
should be included in the direction, too, rather than just an
absolute
of -- of leave of absence regardless of office. If they're running
__
I think if you're running for county commission, you ought to get
off
whatever advisory board you're on or if you run for clerk of
courts,
because that is a county-wide office but a separate arm of
government;
that would then subject you to the leave-of-absence provision I
think
is an acceptable approach. That covers -- those folks could then
just
take a leave of absence and return upon the end of their candidacy.
That combined with what Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned, I think, is
a
good approach.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think I would prefer to
see a person running for an elective office in Collier County,
county
commission, clerk of courts, tax collector, what have you, would be
required to resign. But if they're running for the city or for the
mosquito control or for --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I could live with.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- fire commissioner, I don't
think -- I think they should just step down. School board's
countywide. That would be under county government, I would think,
what I would consider full countywide elective office.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, why doesn't someone make a
motion, and let's see if we can get this off track here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll move we give
direction to the county attorney's office to revise the existing
ordinance to include the following; an individual running for a --
a
-- how do you phrase that to include school board? A -- not
countywide. It's --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Part of the coun -- just say
county government and/or school board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: County government and/or school
board be required to resign their position. Any other entities or
running for any other entities be required to take a leave of
absence
during their candidacy, the exception being quasi-judicial boards.
You're required to resign from those and list them appropriately in
the ordinance. That cover the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. I can live
with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Doesn't seem to be any. Thank you, Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll see that back -- when do
we want to see that back?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this isn't --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sometime before the next
election cycle.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometime in the next 24 months.
I don't think we should make it a priority in their office. Let it
fall where it may.
Item #9B
CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S
LICENSING
BOARD AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - APPROVED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This next item I removed from
the consent agenda, 16(A)(7). Hr. Weigel, I just need a little
help
here. It seems to me when I served on Code Enforcement Board --
and
maybe there has been legal things that have happened in the last
four
years. But when I served on Code Enforcement Board, several people
brought up this question, but we still managed 90 or 95 percent of
the
time to do fine without outside counsel. And I hate to expend the
money if we don't have to, and I'm sure you have a full and
rational
explanation why you're suggesting this.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Yeah, I'd like to make a few
remarks, probably turn it over to Mr. Pettit to respond in some
more
detail, but in the -- in the years now -- the few years that the
Code
Enforcement Board has been an operating board and the staff and
county
attorney office working with it, we found more and more a
sophistication of the -- of the types of issues and problems that
were
coming before the Code Enforcement Board. The Code Enforcement
Board
itself needed legal advice, and the county attorney found itself in
a~
unenviable position and statutory conflicting position of advising
the
-- the county -- the Code Enforcement Board and being prescribed
from
assisting staff. The relationship that the county attorney has
with
staff generally is that we -- we help staff, including the code
enforcement staff, on a day-to-day basis. And particularly with
the
infusion of more and more attorney representation, again, both with
Code Enforcement Board and Contractor Licensing Board, we find that
it
is very -- very similar to a civil court action in many, many
respects. And, therefore, to assist the staff with a successful
prosecution -- and that's -- that's what these things are, the
prosecution of the matters -- before either the Code Enforcement
Board
or the Contractors' Licensing Board, the staff has received -- is
currently receiving assistance from the county attorney office
almost
from the initiation of the complaint process. Beyond that we have
found, particularly with more recent hearings, that we've had to
develop relationships with experts as well as just lay witnesses
that
are involved in the individual complaints before the board which
the
staff itself could not draw up and do in the first place.
With the recent Traditional Indian Nation Seminole
matter before the Code Enforcement Board, I can assure you that the
board itself needed significant legal assistance, and the staff
obviously needed significant legal assistance too. So we've
reached a
point where the sophistication and really demands that are made
upon
the system, we had to recommend a choice as to which group the
county
attorney could -- could serve and serve most economically to the
county. And that's where we found that the choice was for us to
work
with the staff and that under a contract with caps and kind of a --
a
ceiling on it, a fiscal ceiling, that the Code Enforcement and
Contractor's Licensing Boards would have, in fact, their own
recognized counsel. And we wouldn't suffer the slings and arrows
of
having an attorney spend two hours of a meeting of a Code
Enforcement
Board hearing representing staff and then trying to advise the --
the
board at the very same instance or very next case. It was very
problematic that way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds like a conflict to me.
MR. WEIGEL: It is plus it's a statutory conflict.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Makes sense to me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without further discussion,
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-442 APPOINTING PAUL HINCHCLIFF, MICHEL SAADEH AND
HARK
LAMOUREUX TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - TABLED
Next item is 10(A), appointment of members to the
Environmental Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Looks like the recommendation is
to reappoint Mr. Hinchcliff; Mr. Saadeh; and one person from
environmental category, which there are two choices, Marco Espinar
and
Clay Carithers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask a question?
Are we required to -- Miss Filson's not here for this, but are we
required to have the environmental, or is that just a
recommendation?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I think that's part of the
ordinance establishing this board that we have people from specific
categories.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can someone answer that
question definitively for me?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Filson may be the person to
do that. Do you want to table this until she returns?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could, yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion to table.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a motion and a second to
table. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #10B
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA - STAFF TO PROPERLY ADVERTISE POSITIONS
Our next one then is discussion concerning appointment
of members to the Health Planning Council of Southwest Florida.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This doesn't look any different
than what we got --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it doesn't. I was going
to say -- I scratched a bunch of notes in here. I say did they
advertise for this post; did they post it; when, where, and so on.
This looks like the same packet I had a week ago.
MS. SCHULTHESS: Good morning. I am Mary Schulthess.
I'm the executive director of the Health Planning Council of
Southwest
Florida, and the staff brought some questions that you had to my
attention. Our board of directors includes 12 people from the
seven
counties of southwest Florida, two of whom are appointed to
represent
Collier County. Membership is divided into three categories, and I
think you have a definition of those categories there.
We have a provider member from Collier County, and the
other appointee can be a purchaser or consumer. As the Collier
County
Board of County Commissioners, you have that authority to appoint
each
of those people to a two-year term of office. To facilitate that
process, our board has traditionally provided you with the names of
two individuals for your consideration. Since 1982 when local
health
councils were first authorized, Michael Jernigan was appointed
consecutively to represent the provider community for Naples
Community
Hospital. Since Mr. Jernigan no longer maintains a Collier County
residence, the NCH Health Care System has submitted the name of
William R. Snapp as his replacement in 1996.
For many years, also beginning in 1982, former
commissioner Red Holland served as the other county appointee on
our
board. Following Commissioner Holland's death in 1991, the Collier
County Commission appointed his son, Craig, to fill that vacancy on
our board. Craig served faithfully as a consumer member until his
relocation outside of the United States in 1994.
Two years ago the commission appointed Fred Thomas as a
purchaser representative. Due to Mr. Thomas's heavy schedule,
however, he has been unable to attend our meetings on a regular
basis. Therefore, an informal effort was undertaken last summer to
assess nonprovider interest in the work of our council. At the
request of the council, Ed Oates submitted an application as a
consumer member after which his name was approved by our current
board
for your consideration.
We would like very much to remain responsive to your
needs or concerns and hope you are comfortable with the manner in
which this has been arranged in the past. Since 1982 there has
obviously been a lot of continuity in Collier County, but we
recognize
the gift of change and welcome your further guidance in this
process.
I just did a little brief analysis that -- to look at
how other counties handle this matter, and they each do it
differently. In Sarasota County six or eight weeks before our
current
appointments end, the Board of County Commissioners advertises
openings and solicits applications through the local media for
about
two weeks. Their county staff also sends letters to each Sarasota
County board member of our board asking them to respond in writing
about their desire to continue service on our board. This year the
county staff also asked us to do an analysis of the attendance
records
of the three county -- Sarasota County appointees. Once the
application deadline closed, they sent -- then sent our office a
file
of all applications that they had received and asked us to respond
with recommendations for new or recurring appointments which their
commissioners could then endorse. Most county commissions,
however,
merely endorsed the initial recommendation of our board. I'd be
happy
to assist your staff or you in any way that I can in resolving any
questions that you have and address any -- anything directly now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess Mr. Snapp and Mr.
Oates may end up being the best people for the job. However,
unless
we advertise and do something more than a, quote, informal effort,
we
don't know who else out there might be interested in this. And I -
- I
would just feel more comfortable if we did like Sarasota,
advertised,
get them all in, gave them to you, and let you make some
recommendations to us. And unless we advertise, we'll never know
who
else is out there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's fine. But I believe our
ordinance requires us to do that or sets forth. Miss Filson shared
with us last week that portion of our ordinance that says that it's
the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to
advertise
and appoint, and apparently we haven't been doing that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On this particular item I guess
I'll just ask that the item be advertised, properly advertised, and
all applicants then have an opportunity. I'm uncomfortable
appointing
someone from an informal effort. It's not a lack of trust. Just -
_
simply, if we're going to make the appointment, it needs to be an
open
process.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, yes, I'll make a motion that
we advertise -- being guided -- make a motion that we advertise for
provider and consumer positions on the Health Planning Council and
that after that advertisement and receipt, we will hope for a
recommendation from the council. But we'd like to know the names
of
all applicants and what that recommendation is, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Thank you, Ms. Schulthess, for coming.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-442 APPOINTING PAUL HINCHCLIFF, MICHEL SAADEH AND
MARK
LAMOUREUX TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
We need a motion to untable.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to untable Item 10(A),
appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had a question for you. The
question is, does the ordinance require -- it says here the
appointment of one person representing the environmental category.
And a question has arisen. Are those requirements -- are they
dedicated seats or what?
MS. FILSON: No, they arenwt requirements. Theywre --
theywre not mandatory, but thatws the recommendation from the board
that an applicant be appointed from the environmental.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- letws see, how many other
people do we have? We have an environmental specialist, an
environmental engineer, eagle protection -- eagle protection? Oh,
okay. So we have a seven-member board with three folks already in
the
environmental category.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whichever -- whichever we end
up doing, wewre not going to throw it out of balance here is the
point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hinchcliff, Saadeh, and Lamoureux.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thatls a motion. Iill make
that motion; Hinchcliff, Saadeh, and Lamoureux.
MS. FILSON: Iim sorry. I didnlt hear the names.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hinchcliff, Saadeh, and
Lamoureux.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10C
DISCUSSION OF PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE PRIORITIES PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next item is a discussion of
productivity committee priorities.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I asked that this be on the
agenda today. As you know, the board made an amendment to the
ordinance for the productivity to place the vice chairman on it.
And
what I hope to do is facilitate the use of the skills of the people
this committee to a greater degree than has in the past. What's
before you on this item -- if everyone doesn't have a copy, I have
extras. Okay. Commissioner Matthews, do you have --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I had one here and then --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to what the committee
is currently working on, of which you just currently received a
report
from Mr. Craig -- and I'll be asking for your feedback on that in
the
near future. What I asked here is to -- for us to review the six
areas that have been suggested, both by the Board of County
Commissioners at previous workshops and by the committee to try to
prioritize them. And the committee felt they can handle three new
projects. And whichever three of the six are ranked the highest by
this board seems to me to be a fair process in deciding what should
be
pursued.
The items are to: One, investigate the cost and merit
of a countywide grant coordinator. Other counties do this. The
question is: Is it worth the dollar to do it; can you get more
than
you pay out; and does it pay for itself, so to speak?
Second is investigate the rationale and structure of the
impact fees relative to the sheriff's office and independent fire -
_
dependent, it should be --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- fire districts. That came up
during budget discussions. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I know, was the
o~e
that raised that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can expect me to rank that
one pretty high.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Third is review fleet management
privatization efforts to ensure that existing county-run operations
are providing a cost effective service. That's an example where we
privatized. It wasn't cost effective. We took it back, but every
-- and I think every so often you may want to review that again to
make sure it is efficient.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on -- for
what-it's-worth category, I spent a day out there with them. And
in
my opinion, they are amazingly efficient. And they also went
through
some of the comparison of apples for apples of what they're doing
now
versus when it was privatized. They showed were -- if we want to
look
at privatizing, I don't mind if we look at that. I think there may
be
other areas that will be time better spent. These guys are great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They are. But the one theory
that's out there -- and I think Steven Goldsmith, mayor of
Indianapolis -- the departments they privatized they rebid every
three
years to ensure that the county-run operations maintain a high
level
of efficiency. And by rebidding them every three years, you get a
private comparison, private market comparison. And I guess that's
kind of the initiation of that type of a process, particularly
where
fleet management's concern. So I'll leave that there.
Fourth is investigate prioritization of maintenance for
traffic signals and traffic operations, you know, what -- can we
privatize the maintenance, to what extent can we do it, and so
forth.
Full study countywide traffic management techniques including
signal
warrants, applicable ordinances, and neighborhood traffic
management
plans. I believe that came from the county manager's office as a
request of the committee.
And last, study future long-term needs for parks and
libraries relating to the long-term impact of technology and
patterns
of use and how they may affect our long-term capital budget in
those
areas. Again, how are parks and libraries going to change in the
next
10, 15, or 20 years; and how should that affect our capital
planning.
Those are the six items that the committee has asked for
us to rank. And if I could ask each one of you to rank those
during
this meeting on your own and pass them to me, I'll tally them up
and
__
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Numbers will be checked by
Coopers and Lybrand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the lowest numbers will be
__
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we do one, two, and three?
You know, the grant coordinator --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I would ask you to do
one through six, and the lowest number will the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One is best; six is worst.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One is priority; six is lowest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for the what-it's-worth
category, you got to like traffic management techniques. It seems
like that those issues are the ones that come back to the board
more
often than any other. We have -- whether it be Pine Ridge -- Pine
Ridge or -- or individual neighborhoods or different areas wanting
traffic signals or what have you, it seems like that is a never-
ending
struggle; so that might be one of the best.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you just put your initials in
the upper right in case anyone wants to audit these selections,
we'll
make them a part of the record today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question of the grant
coordinator. There's been a lot of discussion. You may be able to
solve that one fairly quickly because there are grant writers that
write grants for a percentage of the grant. If you don't get the
grant, they don't get any money. So it encourages them, number
one,
to write a good grant; and, number two, only write grant
applications
for feasible projects.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, and I think that's the
idea, is ask the committee to look at how it's done, what are the
options, and what would best serve Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't have priorities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anything else on that item?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing else on that. Thank
you. Thank you for your -- your participation.
Item #11A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE $604,600 FROM THE GENERAL FUND
"RESERVE
FOR SHERIFF'S ATTRITION" TO THE SHERIFF'S OFICE GENERAL FUND -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move right along then to ll(A),
a recommendation that the county commissioners approve a budget
amendment to appropriate 604,600 from the general fund for
sheriff's
attrition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wasn't this already discussed
Wednesday night?
MR. DORRILL: This one is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there needs to be
discussion, I'll just move approval.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about it Wednesday
night enough.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's saying, please, no
discussion, please, no discussions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on. We're dragging this
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I already did that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. Never mind.
I'll withdraw my motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #11C
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER SHERIFF'S FUNDS FROM THE CORRECTIONS
PORTION TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL PORTIONS OF THE BUDGET
APPROVED
Don't leave yet. Item ll(C) is a budget amendment to
transfer sheriff's funds from the corrections portion to the law
enforcement and judicial portions of the budget.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wednesday night?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just get an
explanation on that? I got confused.
MR. BENVENUTO: Certainly. Jean Myers, budget analyst
for the sheriff's office. The budget amendment is transferring
money
be -- within the sheriff's fund, the 040 fund. Since you just
approved the budget amendment before this, that still does not
bring
our funds out of a deficit. And instead of drawing down that whole
amount, the whole nine oh four six, we took the six oh four six,
and
then within our own funds we're just shifting money around to make
a
positive so we don't have a negative variance within our three
funds
within the 040 fund.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MS. MYERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS RE LANDFILL SITING COHMITTEE MEETING
UPDATE
We're to the public comment section.
MR. DORRILL: Yes. We have A1 Perkins.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ladies and gentlemen, A1
Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. Second time,
A1 Perkins, Belle Heade group, citizens for constitutional property
rights. A couple little reminders to the people at home and to
everybody in here. This Thursday at six o'clock the landfill
siting
committee will be meeting here from six to eight. You need to show
up
and pay attention.
Southern Golden Gate Estates, the Picayune State Park,
signs are up stating that it is a state park even though the state
does not own it. Other signs are up stating that you're not
allowed
to pick the palmetto berries for medicine. Consequently, you'll
find
that a lot of the people out in that area have been deprived of
extra
monies picking the berries. You might have read about it in the
paper.
The sales of the property to the DEP or anybody else out
in there, from the DEP the offers have been made to different
property
owners out there that intimidate the people, scare the people.
Also
the contracts are nonsense because there's nobody that can comply
with
them, even if they sign them. The amount of monies is ridiculous
for
what they offer. My advice to the people in southern Golden Gate
Estates and the Belle Meade is do not sell. Make them condemn you.
You stand a better chance.
Southern Golden Gate Estates. The Picayune park has
been designated for campers, hikers, picnickers, horseback riding,
and
also green space. But there's one problem out there with the
southern
Golden Gate Estates and the Belle Meade and the Fakahatchee. No
mention has been made by the Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Fish
and Game, Division of Forestry, and especially the Wildlife
Federation
who let the bobcat get murdered. They knew it was there. And they
also did nothing to stop the panthers from being shipped to Texas
for
a canned hunt. Why haven't they came forward to stop the hunting
south of the Alley from 951 to 29 and down to 417 If they want to
preserve these animals, then stop the hunting.
These people are talking out of both sides of their
mouth. One way they say one thing; the other side, they don't say
a
thing. It's time that you people paid attention to who's saying
what
and for what purpose. There's a lot of money being made out there
by
these people.
In case you people don't know it, the Belle Meade is
getting a new car track for racing. Quiet Waters Park, which is a
development -- or Quiet Waters is also in the Belle Meade. So is
the
sports park. So are the farms. So are numerous groves, cattle
ranches. Even Krehling's cement factory is down there. The Belle
Meade is not way out there. It's right in your backyard. Pay
attention, please. Stop the hunting, because I don't want to see
any
of the children or anybody out there or -- or horses or anybody
else
or anything else get shot up from somebody that came over from the
other coast just to blast this place apart. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before proceeding with public
hearings, just to let you know the result of our election -- no --
tally, highest ranking was to investigate the cost and merit of a
county-wide grant coordinator. Second-highest ranking was to
investigate the rationale and structure for impact fees relative to
the sheriff's office and independent fire districts. Commissioner
Matthews pointed out that the BCC did discuss in '93, and a review
of
those minutes would be helpful.
And third is to study county-wide traffic management
techniques including signal warrants, ordinances, and neighborhood
traffic management plans. That had quite a split. It was either
one
or two or six.
So those are the three priorities. I'll be passing this
on to the productivity committee, and thank you each for your help
on
that. The individual tally sheets are a part of the record, and
they're over here for the court reporter to take.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That concludes the morning part of our
agenda.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-84-18(2) JOE LACOURSIERE OF GATGO CO., REPRESENTING
ROBERT
VOCISANO, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUTHERLAND CENTER
PUD
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM
THREE
STORIES OVER PARKING TO FOUR STORIES OVER PARKING FOR TRACTS 2.1
AND
2.2 IN THE SUTHERLAND CENTER PUD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
PINE RIDGE ROAD AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 75- CONTINUED TO 10/8/96
MR. DORRILL: I just want to let you know that you do
have a number of people scheduled to speak on Item 12(B)(3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I suspect we do. 12(B)(3)?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's get to them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- let's take a --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You want to take the first two
and then break for lunch or break for lunch now? Obviously
12(B)(3)
is going to have us here for awhile.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. We're going to be here for
awhile. Let's see if we can take a petition before our lunch
break.
We'll start with 12(B)(1), PUD 84-18.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you saying we'll do
12(B)(3) after lunch?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, I think so. I think that one's
going to take some time, I suspect. So we'll hear that one --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At one o'clock for those people
that are here for it. Is that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No earlier than one o'clock.
MR. NINO: For the record -- ready, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, sir, we're ready.
MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, your planning
services department. PUD 84-18(2) is a proposed amendment to the
Sutherland PUD covering two specific tracts, undeveloped tracts,
within the Sutherland PUD. Let me describe where it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, Mr. Nino, is my packet the
only one that doesn't have a site plan or any location information,
or
is that consistent with all the board members?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's consistent, troubling.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have nothing, no site plan,
zip.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your site plan look
like?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It looks like that (indicating).
MR. NINO: I apologize for that. It's not usual.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it isn't.
MR. NINO: The Sutherland PUD Sutherland Center is
located at the southwest quadrant of 1-75 and Pine Ridge. As you
know, there's a Waffle House there and a gas station and -- two gas
stations, a motel. And the property we're dealing with is Tracts
2.1
and 2.2, which are in the area that's tucked up against the
freeway.
The property to the north is zoned rural.
The property to the south is occupied. First of all,
the property to the south is zoned agricultural. However, the
Seagate
Baptist Church occupies a portion of a relatively large tract,
which
is adjacent to Sutherland Center; and in particular this site for a
distance of about 400 feet on the south side is the site of the
Seagate Baptist Church. The balance of the land on the south side
is
zoned agricultural. However, I would have you appreciate that --
that
the major part of that land is an ST area suggesting that it's
unlikely there will be any development on the south property line.
To the west we have an agricultural zoning
classification, which is undeveloped; and further west we have two
PUDs that are undeveloped. This land is all located within an
activity center.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you, Mr. Nino, what is the
-- what is the reason for the increased height request?
MR. NINO: The -- the applicant proposes to build a
motel on Tract 2.1, the larger tract indicated by that site
development plan, and feels that he needs a four-story building as
opposed to the maximum that is now authorized in the Sutherland PUD
of
three stories over parking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would the height restriction
be generally in that area without the PUD?
MR. NINO: Without the PUD?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodded head)
MR. NINO: The rural area would be 35 feet.
Agricultural area would be about 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is generally estate zoning,
though, in this area. What's the height?
MR. NINO: To the north it's thirty -- thirty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know, but I'm looking at the
whole area. Generally in estate zoning what's the height
restriction?
MR. NINO: Thirty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NINO: I think it's important to appreciate that the
Sutherland PUD is unique in the sense that there are only a very
limited number of uses that could be built on the vacant -- the two
vacant tracts. The Sutherland PUD is limited to motels, hotels,
restaurants, offices, and automobile gas stations, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another question about the
process here. When I -- in my former life when I used to bring
these
kinds of -- I'll wait until you --
MR. DORRILL: We're endeavoring to get you your own site
plan because of some of the issues here. We're endeavoring to get
those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. When I used to bring
PUD amendments in front of the county commission, the danger of
bringing one and asking for a simple change was that it opened your
whole document to revision. And it appears in this case that --
well,
it says in your staff report that since it was only related to
height,
the only thing -- you know, we didn't look at anything else. And -
and I would try to tactfully say this isn't the prettiest corner in
Collier County. And if there's something we could do about
landscaping, architectural controls -- I mean, it seems like this
is
an opportunity to try to improve the development of that parcel of
property if we're going to be adding height.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now's the time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please tell me you reviewed the
balance of the PUD because --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It didn't say that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. One at a time please.
Please, no interrupting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the days that I -- in a
similar fashion -- would bring things forward for these -- a small
list of incremental changes, the entire PUD was subject to review.
Setbacks, buffers, everything was reviewed so if that wasn't done
here, then I think we have some more work to do.
MR. NINO: Well, let me remind you, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, members, the three -- the proposed increase in height to
four stories does not apply to the developed portion of the
Sutherland
PUD the way the amendment is worded. It only will apply to Tracts
2.1
and 2.2, which are the remaining two vacant tracts. Any subsequent
SDP that is submitted for this property needs to comply with the
Land
Development Code, needs to comply with the buffer requirements and
the
landscaping requirements and all of the current requirements of the
Land Development Code. So it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is --
MR. NINO: -- not really necessary to go back and
suggest that the Sutherland Center specifically provide for
compliance
with the landscape section of the code.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, do we ever -- in
PUDs do we ever require anything over and above the existing Land
Development Code?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Weekly.
MR. NINO: Yes. We do, if we think the circumstances
justify it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess before we get too far
off on it, I'd like to hear the petitioner's reason for wanting to
increase, because my initial response -- and as I read through the
packet -- was, gee, I don't know. I don't see a valid argument;
however, there may be one, and I want to hear that. And if then we
all decide there isn't, we don't need to go through the whole
exercise. But if there is, maybe we need to go back and review and
some of those other details.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I do want to point out to
you, just to tell you the basis for my statement on page 4 of our
staff report under evaluation for environmental transportation
infrastructure, it says given the nature of the amendment, namely,
its
application to the height of buildings, staff review was limited to
planning relationships. Land Development Code regulations relative
to
engineering, environmental landscaping have no application to the
matter of height of buildings. So it sounds to me like we haven't
looked at everything that we could look at. So I wanted to make
that
clear.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one -- one more question,
Mr. Nino, regarding the height. This is looking for -- the
amendment
is four stories over parking?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we to assume it's one story
of parking?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: ANd what would be the total
height of the building if this were approved?
MR. NINO: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 feet, I
would think.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Forty-five feet for four stories
over parking?
MR. NINO: Four times nine is thirty-six plus about
seven or eight feet for the parking.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the roof line and what have
you.
MR. NINO: Well, we -- we measure height to the top of
the ceiling of the highest floor.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, not to the peak of the
roof?
MR. NINO: We don't know what the peak of the roof's
going to be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ahh. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Joe Lacoursiere for the petitioner.
The PUD, as I understand the way it is written, says that it's
presently three stories over parking. It does not limit the number
of
stories of parking. I could put there three, four, five stories of
parking and then put my three floors of building over top of it.
We
are not asking for that. We are asking in effect to replace a
ground-level parking that we do not want with another floor and the
three floors for a total of four stories. The overall height of
your
building would be somewhere between probably 45 and 50 feet to the
peak of the roof.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Would you repeat
your first comment as to what you believe the current PUD allows
you
to do?
MR. LACOURSIERE: It is my understanding, the way I read
the PUD -- I don't have it here in front of me -- is that it does
not
say how many floors of parking you could have. It says you could
have
1, 2, 3, 4, whatever you interpreted, maybe 15. But you can only
have
three floors of living units over top of that parking, and we don't
want that. We are just asking, in effect, to replace the ground-
floor
parking with living units and the three stories for a total of four
stories of living units.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you -- previously you had
parking. One would assume one floor of parking.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We would assume that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then three more floors.
MR. LACOURSIERE: It could have been one, two, three, or
four, Mr. Constantine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten floors of parking, one floor
of --
MR. LACOURSIERE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're now asking for four
floors -- that would have been four floors total under my
assumption,
say a floor of parking and three floors?
MR. LACOURSIERE: Yes. Basically, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're now asking for a total
of four floors still?
MR. LACOURSIERE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're just asking us all
hotels? It's not over parking anymore?
MR. LACOURSIERE: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, that's not what this says.
MR. LACOURSIERE: But that's the way the PUD is written,
all right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we can change that. I mean
MR. LACOURSIERE: We only want a total of four floors.
I don't want to have any ground-floor parking, second-floor
parking,
third-floor parking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're not asking for an
increase in height.
MR. LACOURSIERE: We are not asking for an increase of
height; that's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not asking for an
increase in height. You're simply asking for a change in the
bottom-story use.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Basically that's right, sir, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's -- would that even require
an amendment?
MR. NINO: Yes, it would, because we're talking about
three living floors or three -- three floors that are occupied by
motel purposes. And the way the ordinance is worded, it's three
floors over parking. Their application was four floors over
parking.
We certainly wouldn't have any objection to somebody saying four
floors above grade.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. That's not what it says in
our executive summary.
MR. NINO: I agree. That's not -- we'd have to change
it if your -- your proposition is to not make it possible to have
any
under-story parking.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It says that the application -- the
petition seeks to increase allowable height to four stories over
parking. That's five stories total.
MR. NINO: That was the -- yes. I said that was the
substance of the petition.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So he's changing it right now?
MR. NINO: He's changing it right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that correct, Joe?
MR. LACOURSIERE: Basically, yes. I think we would --
it was improperly worded when we submitted the application. We
only
want a total of four stories, not five stories.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- I don't have a problem with
that because the net result is the same. My concern remains that -
and I'm sorry. I don't like to make a habit of this; but the
package
that is in our book fails to give me a feel, a picture,
information.
I mean, I've got more pages of -- of your contract to purchase than
I
do of staff report.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting we
continue the item for two weeks?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I would like to have a
better feel than I have now; so, yes, I'm going to suggest a
continuance of two weeks until I can be provided sufficient
information to give me a greater feel for what this project's
impacts
are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because this is an old PUD and
not one that I -- that would be acceptable as -- you know, if it
were
submitted today as drafted, I wish that we would use this as an
opportunity to improve this PUD. So I'd like to use the two weeks
for
that purpose as well.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was just going to suggest, why
don't we have the two weeks and ask staff to review everything
about
this PUD for buffering and what have you so that we update whatever
is
left to be developed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, anything over
the Land Development Code requirements is up to the board more than
it
is staff. So if you have particular thoughts -- I agree with you.
If
we have a chance to upgrade it, we should. But some of that
responsibility will fall on us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understand for the applicant that
the issue is no longer so much a four-story hotel with no parking
underneath it. It's the balance of the PUD that we don't have a
picture in front of us that lets us look at that fairly, and that's
what we're asking.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Do I assume that I'm being used as the
whipping boy here for something?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. You're being treated
just like every other petitioner is.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Oh. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which may or may not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may be a whipping boy, but so
is everyone else.
MR. LACOURSIERE: It's our intention to comply with all
the setback requirements. We're not doing any of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, we just don't have a feel
for that from what's presented today, and we're asking for that
from
our staff over the next two weeks.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Well, what information is it that you
would require so I can help provide that to --
MR. DORRILL: I think we can do that in a context
outside of this room. But, no, you're not at all the whipping boy
here today. The whipping boy here today --
MR. LACOURSIERE: Well, that wasn't the right choice of
words.
MR. DORRILL: -- is in the back of the room with a red
tie on.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one other question, Mr.
Nino, before we take a motion to continue this two weeks. What
does
this extra story of living space do to the density on this project,
especially on this particular tract?
MR. NINO: It doesn't do anything.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't increase the
density?
MR. NINO: It doesn't do anything. It's either spread
it out or build it higher. There are no density limitations.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the point.
MR. NINO: It's still 26 units per acre. It doesn't do
anything any different.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's nothing in this PUD that
says the density for hotels units is so much per acre?
MR. NINO: It refers to the Land Development Code
limitations of 26 units per acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The exist -- the existing PUD
allows 26 units per acre. Who knows what the board might require
in a
couple of weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So under the existing PUD how
many -- how many -- they could build up to 26 units per acre --
MR. NINO: Twenty-six per acre.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and we haven't at this point
done anything to restrict that.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It might be to your advantage,
Mr. Lacoursiere, to have an idea of the number of rooms that this
four-story hotel will incorporate and how it lays out on the site
if
you have that information at all.
MR. LACOURSIERE: I have a preliminary drawing. We
didn't want to do anything until we knew what we were going to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me a
second. Since it looks like we're going to continue this for two
weeks, why don't we hold off our discussion until two weeks for
now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just asking the applicant
to get prepared for that information.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
continue this item for two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That motion's already been made.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then I second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
continue for two weeks.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll see that back in two weeks, and
we'll take a lunch break and be back -- let's try to start at --
right
at one o'clock.
(A lunch break was held between 12:00 and 1:09 p.m.)
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 96-55 RE PETITION PUD-86-09(3) BRUCE J. SICILIANO, AICP,
OF
AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., AND DONALD A PICKWORTH, P.A.,
REPRESENTING RONTO DEVELOPMENT NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM
PUD TO PUD NOW TO BE KNOWN AS HERITAGE GREEN (FORMERLY DOVE POINTE)
FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND OTHERWISE HAKE MODIFICATIONS TO UPDATE
THE
PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD
(C.R.846)
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Our next hearing is PUD-86-09(3). Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting Petition PUD-96-3.
This is the third advertised public hearing. In your packet I
submitted a revised PUD document with strikeouts and underlines.
There are two new exhibits to this PUD document, exhibits which
iljustrate renderings of the proposed wall at the northern edge of
the
property, which is Exhibit E. It's a sketch of the 8-foot masonry
wall and a landscape buffer. And Exhibit F, which is a exhibit for
the Racetrac gasoline service station.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. We're not on the same one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not on this -- we're not --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're not on that one yet.
That's next.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is 12(B)(2
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: PUD-86-09(3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the one I called.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was wondering what the wall
__
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was wondering why it --
it had a wall.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding.
(Commissioner HAc'Kie entered the boardroom.)
MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino from your planning
services department. PUD-86-09(3), if approved, would have you
repeating the Dove -- what is now the Dove Pointe PUD, which --
which
name will be changed to Heritage Green. That PUD is located on the
south side of Immokalee Road west of 951. The changes to that PUD
would have the effect of -- of increasing the number of dwelling
units
allowed from 450 dwelling units to 550 dwelling units with a
density
of 2.1 as opposed to the current 1.8 dwelling units per acre.
Let me give you some history on the Dove Pointe PUD,
however. You may be interested to know that the Dove Pointe PUD
was
first enacted on 9-16-86 by Ordinance 86-62 and at that time was a
PUD
that authorized 790 dwelling units and 8 acres of commercial
development. That was subsequently amended by Ordinance 91-64 on
July
the 23, '91, and that number was reduced to 700 dwelling units and
no
commercial. And the last PUD, the one before this, had the effect
of
lowering it to 450 dwelling units.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you just repeat that
one more time. Originally it was how many?
MR. NINO: 790 dwelling units and 8 acres of
commercial. We're now -- you're now being asked to go back and
consider restoring some of that lost density. The PUD amendment
also
does another important -- it varies in an important way from the
original PUDs in that at that time we thought we needed a north-
south
road on the east side of Dove Pointe; and at that time, I believe,
that was going to be the extension of relined 951, which would come
over and straight up and all the way to Bonita Beach Road. That
whole
concept has fallen apart, and now 951 will continue north and
eventually veer to the west at the south end of the Parklands and
subsequently connect with Bonita Beach Road. So that's the major
deviation. This amendment would delete that north-south road
reservation.
As I said, the PUD would affect density, a change of
name, and would change some development standards. I believe our
report points out that those development standards -- the changes
to
those development standards, nonetheless, are consistent with
development standards that characterize many PUDs throughout
Collier
County; and there are some revisions to the development commitments
that emanate from the time lapse of the last five or six years that
are inappropriately handled for today's context. Those -- those
changes are all iljustrated in the strikethrough, underlined
document,
which I believe you have.
All of the changes have been reviewed for consistency
with the Growth Management Plan. There is no level of service
that's
abridged or other inconsistency as a result of the proposed change
or
the replacement of the PUD. The Planning Commission heard this
petition on September the 5th, 1996, and 9 to nothing recommended
approval to this board of commissioners. No person spoke or
otherwise
communicated any level of objection to this petition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask the petitioner what -- what
is planned along your -- don't you have a common border there with
the
-- the school?
MR. SICILIANO: Yes, we do. For the record my name is
Bruce Siciliano with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. Right now there's
just literally a common boundary line. When -- when the projects
get
built, we will -- we have a -- a buffer planned along that. There
will be much more traffic than what they have now. I mean,
essentially, our -- our entrance road comes down and runs adjacent
to
their property line.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And tell us -- what else do
they plan to do that -- that was not previously planned in this
PUD?
MR. SICILIA_NO: The -- the only thing that's happening
in the -- in the PUD -- and the PUD is somewhat constrained or --
or
unique, because you -- what you have is a project that's, more or
less, half constructed. You have the infrastructure and entrance
roads and utilities and the ground out there, and additionally, you
have full construction plans, which are costly, which were prepared
for this. So basically, what we're trying to do or the developer
is
trying to do is simply take this project and adapt today's market
to
it, basically, you know, changing the product type to a degree and
the
lot sizes. So we're literally taking the exact same development,
come
in and basically just, you know, telaid out lot lines and presented
different -- different standards.
They -- I mean, we are working -- Dan was just saying to
me that one of the other things that's occurring is that the
county's
doing some drainage studies out here, and we're trying to work with
our drainage to try to help -- help out the areas as this project
gets
finalized. But other than that, the only thing that's really
happening is the interior lots in -- in one section, one -- one
roadway that goes through -- and I have a graphic if you need to
see
it. We're basically taking what was a single-family section and
putting in some -- some duplex and carriage units, so he has a -- a
mix in product type.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- the PUD carries with it
a public golf course, public -- open-to-the-public golf course.
MR. SICILIA_NO: Yes. And that's the developers' plans.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So tell me -- it was originally
permitted for 790 units, and it had a commercial element of -- how
many acres was it?
MR. SICILIANO: Fairly large, 8 acres.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Eight acres, and that -- under this
request that commercial element is deleted?
MR. SICILIANO: That's deleted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a water management
permit for this site right now?
MR. SICILIANO: There are existing permits, because this
-- this project was permitted --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may be a question for Mr.
Brundage. What's the control elevation that your water
management's
designed at?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Twelve -- twelve point zero HGPD.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twelve point zero immediately
adjacent to a control structure being planned at thirteen point
zero.
MR. BRUNDAGE: On that too -- according to Rick was that
that -- that control structure is being reconsidered, whether
they're
going to build it. Nevertheless, we do know that John Boldt and
his
efforts with the water management department have implemented a
study
in the area called the Harvey Basin study, and we recognize that
it's
the desire for him to -- to take all the properties within that
basin
and basically drain them to the south, and we're -- you know, we're
prepared to -- to work with them to our fullest extent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. I just wanted to get it
on the record that there is a permit issued at 12.0 while there's -
- a
structure is being planned at 13.0. I don't think we've had that
opportunity today, so I wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We try to do that every day. Your
name for the record is?
MR. BRUNDAGE: My name for the record is Dan Brundage.
I'm a principal of ABB.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, can I just add I -- on this
same exact issue, I'd asked Mr. Conrecode and Mr. Boldt for some
suggestions about being sure that we incorporated that Harvey Basin
Master Plan, and they gave me some suggested language that I don't
know if you've seen, but I hope you have. And if you haven't,
please
look at this, because I'm going to ask for it to be a stipulation
or
-- you know, assuming that this is a successful application, that
that be stipulated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd rather just see the control
elevation of the new structure dropped.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I mean, that's the
recommendation of both Conrecode and Boldt, what's on that piece of
paper. It just basically says the work of the Harvey Basin master
plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions for the
petitioner?
MR. DORRILL: No registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some questions for
Mr. Nino. You said the original PUD was in '86?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it had 790 units with 8
acres of commercial?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And then in '91 that was changed
to 700?
MR. NINO: And no commercial.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And no commercial --
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. -- beginning in '91. And
was it in '94 that we made some other changes that brought it to
450?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that still had no --
MR. NINO: No commercial.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- comm -- commercial. Now,
when did -- when did the golf course get -- get into this?
MR. NINO: The golf course came in in '94.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: In '94. Okay. No commercial in
'94 with the golf course.
MR. NINO: Well, I'm not sure -- the golf course may
have always been in there. I'm not sure.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was the golf course in there from
the beginning? I thought it was. Can somebody from the petitioner
tell us that?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes, the golf course has always been in
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd have to look at that old Dove
Pointe PUD.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just trying to sort
through this. At 790 with a golf course, it must have been
multi-story buildings.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just commenting.
MR. NINO: I -- I didn't look at the detailing for those
development standards that were characteristic of that early PUD
other
than the raw numbers of 790 and 8 acres.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's 10 years ago so, I
mean, it's -- it's changed now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- I've got a question for the
petitioner if no one else --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I was just going to make a
motion. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- my question is this: I
know that -- that you're going to upgrade a piece of property
that's
been distressed for some sort of period of time, and therefore,
we'll
get some benefit out of that. Beyond that you're asking to raise
the
density by a hundred units, and we don't -- as this board we've
been a
little reluctant to raise units for no obvious reason. We'd like
to
have a little bit of an explanation of why that's necessary and
then
maybe, perhaps, a commitment of, say, fewer units. Could you
respond
to that, please, or have someone respond to that.
MR. SICILIANO: What -- what we've done is -- is -- if I
can speak for -- for the developer, and he may want to add to that
is that we've taken -- you know, he's -- he's developed a -- I
think,
a product mix to -- to try to distribute -- you know, to be able to
get the absorptions he wants for the project. We kind of were
constrained, obviously, dealing with an existing set of
construction
plans; so that, in part, came about simply by laying the lots out,
and
here's what you end up with. So, you know, in -- in that vein, I
think, what he -- what he's doing is -- is when you put in duplex
units, for example, you're going to end up with a few more units.
I
think clearly -- I would suspect this is -- this is his game plan
to
be able to have the necessary cash flow to do a good job on the
project and make it go through.
MR. REINDERS: Let me answer that if you don't mind.
For the record, Jim Reinders -- I reside on Marco Island -- on
behalf
of the developer. To answer your question, Commissioner Norris,
part
of the reason that we find ourselves looking to readdress the
density
to a fairly minor degree out there, is that we are trying to
approach
this project on the basis that we can basically hold in place
various
fundamental development areas as they've been defined out there.
We've approached it on the basis that we -- we're trying to do this
in
such a way that everyone who's been involved in this project didn't
get seriously harmed, if you will, based on their prior
involvement.
I know that economic rationale is not always all that persuasive to
this commission; but as opposed to the prior problems that the
earlier
developer had on -- on this project, we've got about $2 million
worth
of leinors out there with business people in this community, things
of
that nature. And rather than simply trying to foreclose the
mortgage
and hold everybody up, we're trying to do it on the basis that
everybody gets addressed and addressed in a proper fashion and so
forth and so on.
One of the other considerations all along in this
project was the fact that it would bring a public golf course to --
a
true public golf course to the county, and we wanted to still try
and
preserve that concept and move that forward. So these types of
pressures, in part, left us looking for some rebalancing, if you
will,
of the approach and -- and the project.
We also were trying to come up with, relatively
speaking, a more affordable project that would -- that would
address
some of what we perceive to be the need in the market in the county
in
that regard. At the same time, we're very cognizant of the fact
that
we want to do a proper job and propose something you were
mentioning
earlier in terms of our boundary treatments against the school
system,
Laurel Oak and the new high school out there; and we've committed
very
significant funds to a very elaborate fencing system and landscape
buffering that will address the perimeters of the property versus
the
school site. So those were some of the considerations that are
involved.
Again, because it is a partially developed product site
already, we started the PUD amendment process, because it has a
certain lead time. Subsequent to that time, we -- we got into the
finer planning trying to live within the existing development
areas.
What we have found is that we're going to, in fact, be processing a
plat that looks at approximately 530 units, and if it is a --
recognizing that it is a matter of some sensitivity to the
commission,
again, we're happy to step back and -- and amend what we're looking
for here to a figure of 530 versus where we currently sit as well.
Again, it -- it was just part of the processing versus the
subsequent
planning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Any further
questions?
If not, I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve
PUD-86-09(3) with the change that the total number of units be a
maximum of 530. I think that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's enough.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, excuse me. Does that include
that stipulation I mentioned?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. Has the petitioner
agreed to the language that Commissioner Mac'Kie has provided from
our
staff?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yeah. We basically don't have a
problem. I mean, what it addresses is perimeter ditching and
diking
along the perimeters, and I would say for the record that along our
easterly boundary line where the roadway we -- is mentioned being
eliminated, we have complete flexibility there to incorporate this
type of revision. And Harvey Basin -- the preliminary plan they
had
for that, that was the primary system, one of the primary ditches
there; so we can accommodate that. Along our other property lines,
it
may be a little difficult in that we already have the community
planned and designed, but we will certainly do what we can to work
out
flow through the property if we have to. We've talked to the
school
system about that and are prepared to replumb, if you will, the
project drainage system in order to accommodate for those types of
flows. So basically, we're in agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounds reasonable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 96-56 RE PETITION PUD-96-3, DAVID S. WILKISON OF WILKISON
&
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING SAL ANGILERI, REQUESTING A REZONING
OF
CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "E" ESTATES TO
"PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT
OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER -
ADOPTED
WITH THE GAS STATION REMOVED, BUT GENERAL AND MEDICAL USES TO BE
ALLOWED FOR TRACTS "B" AND "C" AND CHANGES TO THE PUD
Next item is -- Mr. Milk, it's your turn now --
PUD-96-3.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon. For the record my name is
Bryan Milk, and I am presenting Petition PUD-96-3. This is the
third
public hearing for this agenda item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, Mr. Milk, and that's -- that's
something I wanted to chat with you about. This is the third
public
hearing. We've heard the presentation. Is there anything new that
we
have not heard before?
MR. MILK: No, sir. I just wanted to bring to your
attention and make sure that you received a revised PUD document
with
the strikeout and underline version, which would show the two new
exhibits of the architectural rendering of the wall at the northern
property boundary and the rendering of the Racetrac gasoline
station
and other concerns expressed during the two previous hearings that
were also outlined in here as underlines. And that's basically the
comment; I wanted to make sure that everybody had that document so
that we were all at the same level of conversation with the
petitioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you referring to this handout?
MR. MILK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got it.
MR. MILK: If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy
to do so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No board member has any specific
questions at this time. Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Duval Evans. Mr. Evans.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the public speakers -- for the
benefit of those public speakers who may not have been here before,
we
allow five minutes for you to give your presentation and ask that
you
please be concise. You don't necessarily have to use all five
minutes
if you don't want to.
MR. EVANS: Thank you. My name is Duval Evans, and I'm
representing the Pine Ridge Chevron on Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge
Road. As I've stated before in letters and also before the
commission
that I don't feel like the market will stand another gasoline and
convenience store. As you know, when Vanderbilt Beach Road goes
through, that's going to take a awful lot of local traffic off the
Pine Ridge Road, and I just really can't see where -- that the
market
will bear any more convenience stores or gas stations out there.
And
I feel like that there's a lot of people here that feel the same
way,
and I thank you for your time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bonness. Mr. Riley, you'll follow
Mr. Bonness.
MR. BONNESS: Joe Bonness. I don't believe anybody can
logically say that 24-hour commercial won't have a major impact on
the
value of the home sites on Livingston Wood -- in Livingston Wood
Estates;
that's a given. The fact is that only three houses have been built
across from that activity center in fear of what might develop.
To quantitate the loss, look at Mrs. Brown's petition
that was just before you last week. Mrs. Brown was asking for
impact
fees to be dropped as low-income housing. She's in this
neighborhood
at this point. Her lot was purchased for just a mere $18,000. Her
lot is a -- just about square. It's 230 feet by 189 feet, just
under
an acre. That's a pretty good-sized lot to be able to build on.
She's selling -- or she got her lot for less than half the value of
what is generally going out for the per-acre cost of lots in the
area. What sets her aside from everybody else? It's against 1-75.
That's a 24-hour traffic operation. That's the same impact that is
proposed in this PUD. This PUD may have the impact on the
adjoining
properties of lessening their value by close to one half. That
might
be close to a million dollars in property loss -- value loss.
The petitioner will point out this is an activity center
he has a right to develop and threaten lawsuits if -- if he's
denied.
At stake for the neighborhood, maybe a million, two million dollars
in
property value. At stake for the petitioner is a million-dollar
contract or more; and if denied, he could still go out and build
for
-- at some other use. He'd still recuperate his value. But
there's
also a third party to the -- this; that's the rest of Collier
County.
This is the entrance to Collier County. What is built here can
affect
everyone's value. How it affects traffic and causes congestion can
affect everybody's life.
The future -- the Future Land Use Element deals with
these questions. Where activity centers are designated, their
mixed
and various uses shall be determined during the rezoning process.
Rezoning is not a given. There are eight factors to consider
during
the rezoning that will determine what is acceptable use. Among
them
are the location of existing zoned and developed land. This
quadrant
is a low-density residential; while in the area around it, for the
2
mile radius, there's 6 gas stations 20 more -- and more 24-hour
commercial places.
Number two, consider the existing pattern of land use.
Pine Ridge Road has developed as a traffic corridor. It's major
arterial -- it's a major arterial to get to and from work, and it's
a~
exoava -- evacuation route.
Number three, what's the market demand? The market for
this convenience store -- for convenience and gas has not only been
met, but it's also flooded.
Adequacy of infrastructure. Whippoorwill Lane is the
only alternate access to Livingston Wood Estates at this time. If
commercial is put here, the access will be down to one access for
360
home sites and a school with no alternative until Livingston Road
is
developed; and when is that going to be developed? Who knows.
Compatibility and buffering. This use is definitely not
compatible. There are only a handful of places in this county
where
low-density residential and adjoining commercial is up against each
other, and only two of those are -- are 24 hour. The one that is
almost -- the closest in -- in zoning difference like this is the
7-Eleven and Kenny Rogers at 41 and Pine Ridge Road. That's
separated
by a huge lake against the residential land that's adjoining it.
To
accept this PUD would definitely be a precedent.
Other relevant factors. This is the entrance to Naples,
a chance to put our best foot forward.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Bonness, may I interrupt you,
because you and I met this morning and talked about that -- MR. BONNESS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and you mentioned that 41,
Kenny Rogers. You've discovered that there is another one in
Collier
County. Where is it?
MR. BONNESS: The other one would be the -- the Mr. G's
that's out in Golden Gate Estates, and of course, that is there
because of the need for commercial out in the middle of Golden Gate
Estates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not familiar with that one.
MR. BONNESS: Yeah. It's that small convenience
store-gas station, and the need was definitely necessary for some
sort
of commercial in the area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's on Golden Gate Boulevard.
MR. BONNESS: Okay. Well, I thank you for your time on
this. Take a -- a close look at it. This is an evacuation route,
and
it definitely needs consideration.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riley. Then Ms. Hadigan, you'll
follow this gentleman.
MR. RILEY: Hi, Commissioners. For the record, again,
Bob Riley. I'm a resident of Livingston Woods. I live on
Bottlebrush
Lane, two streets in back of the proposed activity center. The
only
thing I wanted to come back and mention was the security issue and
living conditions that both Commissioner Constantine and Mr. Milk
had
alluded to, that living conditions will not be better, in my
opinion,
with a activity center with this much activity and people being on
the
premises. We see a lot of squad cars in our neighborhood right now
with people trying to break into automobiles on 75 then run to our
neighborhood. I can't get information about propose -- on our
streets
specifically, but we still and all -- still see these squad cars.
So
in making the best decision and the right decision, that's what
we're
here appealing to you today to do, and we thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hadigan. And then Mr. and Ms. Yoke.
MS. MADIGAN: I have some handouts. Can you --
MR. DORRILL: Sure. I'll do them.
MS. MADIGAN: Hay I put these up? I'm a little
vertically challenged here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a part of the county
manager's contract; he's got to be at least 6'3"
MS. MADIGAN: I can't apply then, can I? I'm going to
put this down.
Well, we meet again for the third time, and I think a
lot of information has been passed and presented to the group, all
of
us. And I must say I think it's been a very positive experience,
because I, for one, find when the developer is so willing to give
in
to the need or to your requests that you ask -- to architectural
standards without such a zoning, shall I say, or requirement, I
find
that very encouraging. And -- take a deep breath, Ellie. After
the
last meeting, September or -- that was September 10th, I left here
a
little perplexed in that I heard some of the commissioners comment
that they were still concerned about -- not concerned, but they
still
had questions in their minds about the compatibility of having a
24-hour gas station adjacent to a low-density resident (sic) and
also
the idea of how are we going to stop the prolification (sic) of
gasoline, or shall I say fueling stations, along this corridor.
The day after the last meeting, I heard Mr. Hancock on,
I think, it was WINK-TV -- made a comment that said the board --
and I
hope I'm -- I'm going to quote you, Mr. Hancock -- the board needs
to
entertain the concept of limiting the number of fueling stations in
a~
area so not as (sic) to create a gasoline alley.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
MS. MADIGAN: Is that correct? Thank you. So I said to
myself, well, how many gas stations are we looking at here? So I
went
down to the planning development department at Horseshoe -- on
Horseshoe Drive, and I spoke with the planner on duty for the day,
and
I have presented you with some of the information that I collected
that day down there. The green -- just to explain my -- my map and
charts, the green represents five PUDs on record, approved,
undeveloped, all allowing at least one more gas station. The blue
represents the existing gas stations. And I placed the red in
there;
that was a request for a gas station a couple years ago that was
turned down for various reasons by the board. And I colored yellow
to
be the -- the present site.
Now, we have three. I'm looking at five PUDs who have
undeveloped property that each can have a fueling station. I ask
you
-- that's a possible eight. Why do we need to change the rules?
We
have a plan. We're changing the rules to add -- I shouldn't say
change the rules. We're change -- there's a request to change the
zoning to add another gas station. I think the need is certainly
satisfied. I think an activity center is to -- is to serve the
traveling public, one of its uses. When you're traveling down the
road and you want to stop, what do -- what do you think of? Gas
station, food, sleep.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bathrooms.
MS. MADIGAN: Well, that's in the convenience part of
the gas station.
(Laughter)
MS. MADIGAN: And my husband and I have a joke about
it. I -- he said information. I said, "That's only if a woman is
in
the car, because a man will not ask for directions." But anyway,
so
when I look at this -- I'm done. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. and Ms. Yoke.
MS. YOKE: That would be just me.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. And then Ms. Rudnicki.
MS. YOKE: For the record, Kena Yoke. I'm a resident of
Livingston Wood. I have to laugh. My son has been to more of
these
meetings than probably half the people in Collier County, but
that's
how it is. The public meetings are held during the day when it's
very
difficult for a majority of the public to get here. It's hard to
get
baby-sitters and day care during the day if you keep your child at
home, and that's what I do in the neighborhood behind where they're
proposing the gas station.
The map clearly shows that there's plenty of gas
stations going to be available, already approved, for anybody who
wants to put a gas station on there. We're concerned about crime,
transients, public welfare, inundation of gas stations. We'd like
to
see a more mixed use in the area. It's surrounded on three sides
by
estates zoning and itself is estates zoning. Across the street is
heavy commercial. We're asking for your consideration of more of a
transition area than one estate-zoned lot. We need to have some
sort
of low-commercial zoning that would work across Pine Ridge and
maybe
to C-5 on the other side.
There are gas stations on the other side. There's gas
stations on the corner. There's gas stations if they turn around.
Something more along the lines of a nine to five or nine to nine,
something that wouldn't allow people to hang around, enter the
neighborhood, walk around at all hours of the night. It's bad
enough
now with -- with kids in the neighborhood coming in. We've got
dead-end streets. It's a closed-off neighborhood. They come in
and
they drink beer on the end of our streets. The cops have been
really
good about addressing some of those concerns, and we're glad that a
lot is not the kids in our neighborhood. But we have to be very
concerned about the type of transients that will come and get right
off of 75 and have access to 24-hour refreshments and a nice place
to
enjoy a few beers sitting in our neighborhood.
So, you know, if you could consider something that
wouldn't be 24 hours, convenience, something -- banks. We're not
denying them the commercial use of their property at all. We're
asking for your consideration in making sure that it is compatible
in
transitions into the C-5 zoning across the street. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Rudnicki then Mr. Hadigan.
MS. RUDNICKI: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners --
fellow commissioners -- Commissioners. One of the items that was
brought up in the July 16th meeting was whether the proposed change
would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood,
and
Joe Bonness addressed that talking about values of property. I
would
like to address that this morning with a little bit different
flavor.
I would like to present you with crime statistics from January of
1995
through August 31st of 1995 as compared to crime statistics from
January 1996 through August 31st of 1996. I chose those dates so
that
we would compare apples to apples. The area for which the crime
statistics are presented is a 2-mile stretch of Pine Ridge Road
that
goes from Logan Boulevard to Airport Pulling Road. That's all. I
did
not, on this sheet that I'm presenting you, report any statistics
for
which the occurrence of the crime was one. Everything is larger
than
one. The crime statistics are broken into two major sections:
Those
that are truly crimes that have an incident number according to the
sheriff's department, and those that are not considered to be
crimes.
You can see from 1995 to 1996, theft, all types of
theft, up 100 percent; battery, up 200 percent; burglary, up 167
percent; criminal mischief, up 300 percent; traffic accidents did
not
change; and carrying a concealed weapon actually went down 300
percent. For those statistics that I'm showing you, the increase
of
crimes during those two time frames is 57 percent. The "all" in
parentheses is all crimes, including the ones I did not report
because
the incident was one, up 41 percent. Under noncrimes, the ones
that
worry me the most for my neighborhood are suspicious incident, up
67
percent; suspicious vehicle, up 67 percent; and suspicious person,
up
83 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what that -- what
that is? I mean, what's a suspicious person?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Someone running around casing
the place.
MS. RUDNICKI: It's someone who called the police
because there is a person that they are worried about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MS. RUDNICKI: That's what a suspicious person is,
behaving suspiciously, warranting enough of a worry for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody called the sheriff and
said, "I'm worried about this vehicle; check it out."
MS. RUDNICKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. RUDNICKI: And that's why it's an incident and not a
crime.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
MS. RUDNICKI: The noncrime thefts went down by 57
percent, but overall, all of the noncrime statistics -- noncrime
incidents, were up 16 percent. Now, the major change to this
neighborhood across those 2 miles was the addition of two gas
stations. I'm sorry. The Mobil station opened in February of
1995,
and the Chevron gas station opened 12-1-95. I don't want to forget
the addition of the Vineyards Shopping Center and the homes there.
The crimes are a worry. They impact our neighborhood. They impact
me
personally, and I don't want this to happen to my neighborhood.
Bringing in more 24-hour commercial investments, commercial
opportunities, will continue to increase this crime rate. Thank
you
for your time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Did you say the Shell
station opened 12-1-957
MS. RUDNICKI: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a SuperAmerica back in
ninety --
MS. RUDNICKI: Yes. The Chevron gas station opened
12-1-95.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What was the other gas
station?
MS. RUDNICKI: The Mobil gas station over in the
Vineyards opened 2-95.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought
you said Shell.
MS. RUDNICKI: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies.
MS. RUDNICKI: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hadigan. And then it's either
Mr. Barns or Mr. Bartis, Thomas J.
MR. HADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have, as
a matter of record, on July 16th on page -- in Book 00, page 157,
under Item 12(B)(2) -- I'd like to quote from this. It says the
Petition PUD 96-3 -- and it goes on to the petitioners. And it
says
continued to 8-13-96, as long as the petition does not come back
with
a gas station or convenience store as part of that application.
It's
my understanding that the application -- the applicants have
returned
with plans for a gas station and convenience store despite what
this
says here.
The board has heard extensive testimony regarding this
PUD. Part of this testimony included the implication by the
petitioners' legal counsel to pursue legal action against you if
you
deny their petition. Please don't vote to approve this PUD
petition
because of the threat of -- that denial will cause legal action
against you. To do so would be a denial of your responsibility of
oversight for the planning and zoning in Collier County. To vote
in
favor of this PUD because of this implied threat of legal action
will
encourage every petitioner to threaten legal action if denied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just let you know they
already do.
MR. MADIGAN: If that should happen --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They already do and we ignore
them.
MR. MADIGAN: Okay. If that should happen, you have
lost your responsibility of oversight. And I'd like to bring up a
statement that was made by Mr. Anderson in his legal argument. It
says he -- under the principals of the City of Sanibel versus Goode
and the City of Clearwater versus College Properties where zoning
is
so restrictive that it deprives the owner of any marketable use of
his
property -- and the estates zoning deprives him of a marketable
use,
there are -- none of the residents of Livingston Woods are
requesting
or arguing that this should not be zoned commercial property. We
are
arguing, as we have said many times, against a gas station and a
convenience store operated 24 hours.
And I'd like to point out on this map -- one thing that
wasn't covered is -- my understanding --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, sir.
MR. MADIGAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have to be on the microphone.
There's one right behind you.
MR. MADIGAN: Thank you. My understanding is that this
PUD on this -- what would be the southeast corner, is currently
planned for either the Cleveland Clinic or the Columbia Clinic, and
you will notice that adjacent to that on both -- on two boundaries
contiguous are estates zoning. Those are all residential areas.
This
is Livingston Woods (indicating), and we propose that this
development
in this area that has not already been zoned or authorized as a PUD
be
also limited commercial use as this piece of property is currently
limited. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Barns (phonetic) and then Miss Fehr.
MR. BARTIS: Good afternoon. I'm Tom Bartis; I live at
6641 Livingston Woods Lane. Excuse me. I am the neighbor next
door
to the Falls, who seem to have withdrawn their objection to this
PUD.
No one ever approached me about it personally, and I have to tell
you
that I am still vehemently against this PUD, and I would ask all of
you to consider very carefully your thoughts and considerations
having
to do with that. I have to tell you that having just been a
resident
here in Naples and Collier County for two years, if I had known
that
this kind of thing was going to take place, I would never have
purchased in the area; and I find myself now having deep regrets
even
having to put up with this much of a hassle.
I would further ask Mr. Hancock, beseech him, to use the
same sage observations he did on the corner of Airport Road and
Pine
Ridge when he so criticized the buildings that were there and to
consider what this Raceway (sic) gasoline station would do to the
neighborhood up on Pine Ridge. It's not needed; it's not
applicable;
and therefore, I do respectfully ask all of you to consider very
carefully this item which is going to affect the entire county.
Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Fehr.
MS. FEHR: My name is Sandra Fehr. I live at 6911
Livingston Woods Lane. I just live a few doors down from the Falls
and the gentleman that just spoke. My main concern is that with
all
these gas stations being built around my property, that my value of
my
home is going to decrease and also that -- you know, I don't care
what
experts say. I don't think that my val -- the value of my home
will
increase with a gas station just across the street. And also with
__
if you let this one in, I know for a fact there's going to be
another
two that I know of that will come in. And what's stopping
everybody
else from putting another gas station? You say that you have no
authority to tell people what to do on their property, which is
good
in one way, but it is your responsibility. You represent the --
the
people, the majority of the people, and if -- and the majority say
that then they don't want a gas station, I feel that you should,
you
know, at least say no to this gas station because of the effect
that
it probably will -- another two that I know of will come in. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Milk.
Mr. Milk, is there -- other than Livingston Road, is there any
connection between any of that strip of commercial properties and
Livingston Woods Lane?
MR. MILK: At this point, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is it contemplated in this application
that there would be?
MR. MILK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So if someone comes into this
property -- if it would be approved -- they still can't drive into
the
neighborhood --
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- from that property?
MR. MILK: That's correct. It would prohibit -- this
PUD would prohibit access to Livingston Woods Lane.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have that in the other
properties that have some approval, or do you know or -- not part
of
your review?
MR. MILK: As far as the Naples Gateway PUD, I'm not
sure on that. As far as the master plan was unveiled, it does not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The master plan does not.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago I
mentioned my concern and my unhappiness with the fact that we seem
to
have changed direction between July and -- and that public hearing.
But I want to just quickly review the primary objections I had at
that
July meeting, since it's been a couple of months.
First, is suitability, and that would be under 2.7.3.2.5
of our Land Development Code. And there are three very specific
questions, and I think Mr. Bonness covered them fairly well; but
one
of those, is it possible to find other adequate sites for the
service,
and quite obviously it is in this case.
One is, does this fulfill the need of the county and/or
of the neighborhood. And I think maybe Mr. Evans was the best
example
that it's not fulfilling a need. And, again, I know we can't get
into
the economic development side of that, but I think, since that
appears
in our own Land Development Code, that's a -- an appropriate
application, that the need is not there.
And finally, the consistency, and I think it was
Mrs. Yoke said that no one is denying the idea of -- of developing
this as a commercial tract. The suggestion is that it be some sort
of
transitional between the heavy intense use on the south side of
Pine
Ridge and what's on the north side.
And that takes us to 2.7.2.5, which deals specifically
with the use and the intensity and all. If -- if you look on that
map, there is nothing to the east and nothing to the west, and on
the
north you have one home per 2.25 acres. The only place you have
any
intensity is on the south side, on the south of Pine Ridge.
I think there is a very valid point that if we go ahead
and approve -- approve this use, we'd have a hard time not
approving
the same use in any one of those parcels that is not fulfilled
there
or when that Gateway comes back under our sunset provision. And I
think it's a valid argument that you need a transitional use in
between; and the fact is, if we do not create a transitional use as
part of this public hearing and this public petition, we're not
going
to be able to on the others. And while I understand that some of
the
agreements that Mr. Anderson has made will rise -- will bring the
level of future petitions up, what they're required to do, it still
allows that intense use. And I just -- I think it's in concert
with
what we've done elsewhere in the county, and that is retain some
transition between heavy and light uses, and I'd like to see us do
the
same here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If anybody needs -- has any more
questions for either the petitioner or the staff --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some questions for staff,
if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Otherwise I'll close -- when you're
through, I'll close the public hearing, although I see Mr. Anderson
has something he wants to add.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Milk, these maps that were
handed out and have all this green on them -- I'm -- I'm more than
a
little bit concerned. Is this accurate that there is another gas
station allowable at the Crossroads?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And there's another gas station
allowable at the PUD --
MR. MILK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- across the street from Napa
MR. MILK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Napa Road?
MR. MILK: That's an accurate map, Pine Ridge Center
West, Pine Ridge Center, and Naples Gateway. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That -- that --
MR. MILK: That's based on the permitted principal uses
within those PUDs itself. That's why that's explained like that.
That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, of course, that doesn't
mean that a gas station will be built, but it does indicate there's
a
permitted use for it.
MR. MILK: That's correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May I ask a question that -- that
folds into that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was left with two predominant
concerns that need to be answered before a vote can be taken today,
and the second of that is the proliferation of gas stations along
this
corridor. My first reaction is that when you deal with a certain
type
of use and a certain intensity of use, we, as a board -- my
understanding of -- of land-use law, limited albeit, is that you
can
limit certain types of uses. You can limit the extent to which
those
uses are allowed within the confines of -- of overlays or -- or
certain areas. My question, Mr. Weigel -- and this is a little on
the
spot. But if we were to look at interchange activity centers as a
whole in our Growth Management Plan and determine that there is a
reasonable number of fueling stations due to their unique operating
characteristics that should be allowed and no more than a certain
number, do you feel that that type of an amendment would have a
good
chance of withstanding a legal land-use challenge?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll defer to my spot-question answerer,
Miss Student.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially in consideration of
the legislation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll tell you -- I'll tell
you my -- my feeling is that when we -- when we said interchange
activity centers, I think our planning staff was anticipating that
__
that a spreading of uses -- of varied uses throughout, not 16 fuel
__
gas stations. Something such as one in each quadrant or four
total, I
think, was part of that rationale; and what the folks in Livingston
Woods are dealing with is not just this one, but is this the domino
effect. By opening the gate are there going to be three more right
next to it? That's a reasonable concern. We need to find a way to
limit that, not just for them, but other interchange activity
centers
and can we do so successfully --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It may -- if I could just add to
the question -- and -- and your question, because of the existence
of
these green PUDs has to be, could we take away from these green
PUDs
their current right to build a gas station by imposing this overlay
on
the interchange.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I understand
-- understood your question to be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm asking can we make
amendments to the Growth Management Plan that says this number is
the
maximum, and if they come in and build and -- before that number is
achieved, so be it; and if they don't, so be it, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Miss Student understands the
question. Let's let her answer it.
MS. STUDENT: I think that as long as we have some data
and analysis, the growth -- and you're talking about an amendment
to
the Growth Management Plan; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. There is broad requirements under
the Growth Management Act and Rule 9J-5 which flushes it out and
implements it a little more. If you would -- and I think anytime
that
there's some sort of rational basis -- and again, that's the reason
for the data and analysis requirement -- that we, you know, could
possibly sustain that. Again, it's -- without doing some research
and
so forth in this area, it's hard to give you a concrete answer on
the
spot.
And also to answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, I
feel that where there's already existing zoning, we will have a
more
difficult problem taking away a land use, if you will. The case
law
used to be prior to the Private Property Rights Act, which was
enacted
a couple years ago by the Florida legislature, that zoning without
it was sort of a vested-rights-type of question. Zoning without
more
gave you nothing. So it was sort of, if you will, crapshoot at
that
point; however, with the enactment of the Private Property Rights
Act,
where there is a reasonable investment-backed expectation -- and,
again, this is being flushed out. There's no real cases under this
yet, but a property owner may be able to sustain a challenge under
that, in which case the local government has to get out the
checkbook
and pay the property owner for the value of the right that he lost,
a
difference between the value of the land prior to and after --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is my question: So in
translation, if we imposed a -- an overlay district that said three
is
the magic number or five is the magic number for gas stations in
this
area and there are three already and this guy builds one and this
guy
builds one, you know, the other four or five property owners that
currently are zoned for a gas station can make us buy their
property
if we take away their gas station use?
MS. STUDENT: If I might -- that's -- that's arguable
because this law is new. There's no reported cases that I know of
yet
under it, because it's a long drawn-out process in the court if it
ca~
ever get to a court of appeals, but there's an argument there. But
there's also an argument where you have PUD zoning. There's a case
called the Porpoise Point case. Because it's somewhat contractual
or
consensual in nature that -- the local government can have some
difficulty if there's a land use that was already put in the PUD,
perhaps, in taking it out. Again, that's arguable because that
case
dealt with a local government's imposition of a PUD zoning on a
property owner's property who did not want it. But under that
general
heading -- these are all arguable -- there's no cases yet on that,
but
there are arguments that could be made.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the difficulty
in arbitrarily removing a use from someone's property; however, at
least a couple are due back to us starting next month under sunset
provisions, so we're going to have an opportunity to look at some
of
these existing PUDs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there was action on the
part of this board with justification that a certain type of use
should be limited in geographic areas for the benefit of the
community
initiated prior to that look, I think we have a nexus to make that
argument when we -- when we review those individual PUDs. I just -
the idea that there could be a case or, as Commissioner Hac'Kie
said,
they can make us buy their property, I disagree.
MS. STUDENT: It's arguable. It's arguable under that
law. There's a very drawn-out procedure that could go on for
years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Communities have outlawed stores
of certain sizes and -- and -- and defended it successfully, so I
think there is some --
MS. STUDENT: But your question had to do with the
Growth Management Plan amendment and -- and that's somewhat
different. And then, of course, when you deal with that, you have
a
whole scenario that was raised, what, almost nine years ago now
when
you changed the Growth Management Plan. Again, vesting and --
these
questions of vesting and so forth, anytime there's a change, they
Come
up; and you know, we need to see how we would deal with that also,
but
-- so I think there's enough data analysis you could do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let Mr. Anderson say his final
words here.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record
my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. I can't
resist
the temptation to comment on these good questions that you've been
asking. Number one, with existing PUDs, may I suggest that you use
the same approach that you have used so successfully with this
petitioner, and that's called carrot and stick. You don't
necessarily
need to adopt a new set of massive regulations but use a carrot and
stick to get what you want when they come in before you.
Secondly, the question about amending the Comprehensive
Plan to place a limit on the number in each activity center. What
you're talking about, essentially, all stripped away is
first-come-first-served, and that may be a little more defensive.
We've all suffered through three emotional hearings on this
petition,
and it's supposed to be a fact-based application hearing process.
I
do not wish to needlessly prolong this hearing with a summation of
the
facts and remind you of all the stipulations that we've agreed to
and
extra things. However, if any of you, with the exception of
Commissioner Constantine, are not ready to vote to approve this
PUD,
please let me know now so I can answer your questions and try to
convince you to vote for approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm having difficulty because of
all of these green parcels and the fact that they're already
gas-station approved. And at this point, at least until they come
back to this board in sunset provisions, we have no control over
them
at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me offer an observation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm concerned about that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me offer an observation and --
we've heard here in these three public hearings a couple of
statements. One of them is that the gas stations that are out
there
are not profitable, and they're not economically viable. If you
put
in another one, it's going to be the same and make everything
worse,
and you'll have another losing proposition on this same area. We
also
hear another statement that if this is approved, there'll be three,
four, five more gas stations go in. But you see, those two
arguments
are mutually exclusive arguments. The marketplace will not allow
that. The free market society -- the marketplace dictates what s
economically feasible and what is not. If -- if somebody builds a
gas
station and they're all going broke, there's not going to be a big
rush of people building gas stations. It's just not going to
happen.
So, you know, that's an observation that sort of goes to your
question.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand, you know, the
theory behind that. Unfortunately, theories don't always work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, not only that, it goes
back to our own code and need within the county, within the
neighborhood; and you know, you have the two arguments. The need
is
one, and as you look at where these greens are with the exception
of
the Gateway, which is due to come back to us soon, none of the
others
are backing up against a neighborhood like this, and so I go back
to
the transitional argument.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, and as to -- as to market
analysis and market being a driving force, I mean, I can't help but
every time I drive out to the eastern end of Immokalee Road out --
out
around Orangetree, that Randall Boulevard Commercial Center still,
after five years, is vacant. I mean, certainly somebody did a
market
analysis that said that that commercial space was -- was needed,
but
obviously it's not. It's still vacant.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's no more questions,
then I'll close the public hearing.
MR. ANDERSON: I -- I'd like to -- to point out that the
market study that we were required by the Comprehensive Plan to
submit
with this application concludes that there is a market demand for a
convenience store-service station at this location, particularly
because of its easy accessibility to the interstate and because
your
Access Management Plan calls for a traffic signal to be installed
at
the corner of this property.
One of the reasons that this site was specifically
chosen by Racetrac was because they felt that this would be the
best
location for safe turning movements for people coming off the
interstate. Because if they're coming off the exit ramp the way
things are today, they have to cut across four lanes of traffic to
get
over to the Sutherland Plaza. Soon it will be six lanes of
traffic.
If the Racetrac station is built in this location, there's not
going
to be any of that traffic cutting over trying to get over there as
you're exiting the interstate. You're simply going to make a
right-hand turn at the traffic signal. So there is a legitimate
public-safety reason for -- for wanting to go at this location as
opposed to some of those others.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion to deny the petition based on 2.7.3.2.5 and on
2.7.2.5
as outlined in my earlier comments.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask some more questions?
I mean, this is -- this is very difficult. Mr. Milk, when -- when
do
these PUDs come back to this board for sunsetting or whatever it is
that we're supposed to do with them?
MR. MILK: Approximately two months.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In approximately two months?
MR. MILK: That would be the Naples Gateway PUD, the
PineRidge Center PUD, and Pine Ridge Center West PUD.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Sutherland is coming back
already in two weeks.
MR. MILK: I believe we --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I think we've already given
notice that we're going to open the whole thing up. And the -- and
the Vineyards PUD will come back when?
MR. MILK: Well, that's a DRI so that's vested.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's vested?
MR. MILK: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's also constructed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No, there's more.
MR. MILK: That particular green there -- there's about
20 acres there that's unconstructed at this point.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. But there's a -- there's
a teeny little green space on Vineyards Boulevard --
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that's also approved; and
that's vested?
MR. MILK: Well, that whole area is about 40-some-odd
acres there at the Vineyards. As it is there's a plaza, there's
some
outparcels for development for office, possibly gasoline stations,
a
mixture of C-3 uses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Realistically, a gas station --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As we -- as we go through the
teevaluation process and the sunset provision -- I guess this is a
Miss Student question. Are there limitations on our ability to say
we're going to remove gas station uses from these four PUDs, for
example --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, either that or we let them
sunset. We don't extend them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what is the process?
MS. STUDENT: I don't have the code here with me.
There's -- there's criteria in the code for the sunset. As I
recall,
a certain percentage of infrastructure --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not like that, Bettye.
MS. STUDENT: -- has to be in. I think one of the
things that you will need to look at is if they are vested. My
memory
fails me right now as to whether or not if it's a DRI that -- along
with the PUD that's a whole 'nother scenario. I think they may be
exempt. And then countervailing this, again, you still have the
Private Property Rights Act considerations that go a little bit
beyond
vesting, you know, if you will, kind of, you know, staring you in
the
face. Again, as I stated earlier, there's no case law on that, so
it's just some arguments that could be made on --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe you're unable to
answer the question right now, but I think --
MS. STUDENT: Well, there's criteria --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me finish my
question. Commissioner Matthews is pretty close, I think, in that
the
whole idea of sunset is to give the board a review after a certain
amount of time and -- rather than just have it speculated out there
for eternity and -- and there's never any chance to look at it
again.
When it comes back to us for a sunset review, it is open, and we
have
an opportunity to deal with that. My understanding is that we
aren't
required to give everything that some board in 1987 or 1991 gave.
So
the answer is, does this board have the latitude? Yes, it does.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. You can -- you can look at it -- as
I stated there's some criteria that -- in the code that deals with
it,
and there's some, you know, state law and common law principles
that
are in that as well, so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what will the process be
assuming that -- that -- that the property in question has not met
the
criteria to avoid sunset review and, therefore, is in front of us
for
review. Can -- can we -- and I think that applies to most of
these.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir?
MR. MULHERE: Bob -- for the record, Bob Mulhere,
current planning manager, and your staff is currently reviewing all
of
those PUDs, including those for DRIs which do not meet the
sunsetting
provisions. We will bring back every single one of those to you
with
the comprehensive review --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can toss them out.
MR. MULHERE: -- and we can have all aspects -- we'll
identify for you every aspect that is inconsistent with either the
Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code, and we will
identify
those. Now, we're able to make a recommendation per the language -
just a clarification of how it's going to work. We're able per the
language in the LDC to make a recommendation to you to either
extend
those PUDs for two years, or you may request that the property
owner
amend the PUD to make it consistent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask one other -- is there one
other option, and that is to not extend it at all?
MR. MULHERE: No. That's not one of the options unless
-- unless the applicant chooses not to amend the PUD per the
direction of the board within six months, then you can fezone. The
code says that you can fezone the property to an appropriate zoning
district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're putting our eggs in
the wrong basket here. We're trying to rely on a process that has
yet
to be ferreted out to do what's in the best interest of this
community
when, in fact, we have already heard -- we have the tools
available,
albeit arguable, to say in interchange activities center, there s
a
certain type of uses to an extent, and beyond that it is not
acceptable by this community's standards to -- to have five or six
or
seven gas stations in an interchange activity center. That's why -
_
that's why I -- I think that's the way to go, because the
difference
is, one, you are controlling your destiny; the other, you're just
letting it be controlled by -- by a state attorney's opinion or an
AGO
opinion. And I just don't think we should operate that way. This
particular petition needs to be decided on its individual merits,
whether they exist or don't exist, and if part of that is the
proliferation of gas stations, that needs to be addressed
proactively
by this board, not sitting on our heels and waiting for these other
ones to come in and see what we can do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree and I think your
point that we don't want to get to the point -- whatever that
number
is, five or six or seven in an activity center, but this is eight
or
nine. And so my hope is we recognize that and that with that
recognition, someone will second the motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm tempted to
second it, because I'm really, really concerned about these PUDs
that
already have gas stations permitted for them. They're coming back
for
sunset analysis within 60 days, 75 days --
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and I -- I would feel a lot
more comfortable about this if I knew what was going to happen with
them before we tell these people -- and they have a nice-looking
project -- to just go ahead and do it. I'm -- I'm just not
comfortable with this. And with that being -- I've said all the
reasons why, so I'm -- I'm going to second it.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of her --
her -- Mrs. Hatthew's comments, I would request that our petition
be
continued until after you have dealt with these other three PUDs
that
-- that you're going to do through the sunset-review process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- failing that, Mr. Weigel,
could they reapply, or would they be out of the process for a year
or
two, or what's the -- I don't want to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we turn them down, they're
out of the process for a period of time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six months.
MR. WEIGEL: If you -- if you act on a motion today
making a determination, yes, they'll -- then they will be out of
the
process for a while. And I -- I just wanted to mention to you as
you
get into your --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long is a while?
MR. WEIGEL: It's minimally six months. I think it's --
it may be as -- as much as a year, but it's at least six months.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the purpose for the second
was to find out the status and condition of the balance, even
though I
think it's wrong to keep stringing the people of Livingston Woods
out --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I don't like it either.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if that's the purpose of the
motion or the purpose for the second -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the -- the answers to your
questions, Commissioner Matthews, have been given to you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't -- steps we feel were
appropriate to amend those PUDs given certain criteria -- and I
believe that criteria can include what is in -- in and around the
area
and what's more appropriate to be expanded and what is not as far
as
uses are concerned. So I think we do have that control. I would
rather be proactive than reactive on it but --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're left to deal with the situation
that we have today. Today this is a reasonable proposal under our
Growth Management Plan and our interstate activity centers
contained
therein, and the petitioner has given numerous concessions to
protect
the neighborhood.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'm aware of that. That's
why I'm so terribly troubled with this. Mr. Milk, what -- what
stops
the sunset process? If any one of these three PUDs were to be put
before our development community process (sic) in the next two
weeks
-- a site plan. Does that stop the sunset process?
MR. MILK: They would normally come in with a site
development plan for infrastructure and development of at least 15
to
20 percent of that project.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that stops the sunset --
MR. MILK: Well, that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- process?
MR. MILK: -- would qualify them for not being exposed
__
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. MILK: -- to the sunsetting procedure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said construction of 15 to 25
percent of the project?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- that's considerable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, they'll never get that done in
60 days.
MR. HULHERE: I believe that's 15 percent of the
infrastructure required in the -- the approved phase of the
project.
So they may have a phase approved if they've developed 15 percent -
_
we have the language here; we can read it to you. But let me put
it
this way: I do not believe that any of those PUDs which are
subject
to sunsetting can qualify between now and then -- between now and
two
months based on the review process. I don't think any of them
would
qualify for --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have a motion and a second on
the floor. I'm going to call that question.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we also have -- the
petitioner has asked to withdraw.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That hasn't been granted.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, just one small point of
information and that is with this particular motion on the floor,
particularly as opposed to a motion to continue, this is a
continued
hearing from before, an advertised hearing, and I would appreciate
it
if the commissioners would just state for the record that their
determinations and decisions today are based upon either the prior
advertised hearings that -- that you've had on this very agenda
item
or today's hearing, or if you have other information, just put it
on
the record what affects you in your decisions today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had conversations with the
neighbors as recently as today, but I am absolutely basing my
decision
on what's in front of us today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I've had
considerable outside contact in this, including a terribly
insulting
telefax today; however, my opinion will be based solely on the
information provided during the three days of public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've had considerable input from all
parties involved on this as well, written and telephone and
personal
contacts, but I am basing my decisions based on -- specifically on
what I've heard in the three public hearings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I've had extensive
contact on this. I will base my decision on the information
presented
in the public hearings.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I, too, have had considerable
contact with both the petitioner and the neighbors, and quite
frankly,
my decision is based on this map that just came in today. Mr.
Weigel,
what's the appropriateness for a motion to table? Since I'm the
second on this motion, would it be appropriate for me to motion to
table?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question.
Rather than continuing, Mr. Anderson, would you consider
withdrawing
the item?
MR. ANDERSON: The entire petition, sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would give you the
leeway to return in three months' time, and it wouldn't have the
board
continuing the item again. That way you wouldn't have --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pay another fee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That way you wouldn't
have a six-month ban if you wanted to do something with the
property.
MR. ANDERSON: That's an interesting option.
(Laughter)
MR. ANDERSON: Could I -- could you take up the next
item and give me -- no?
MR. MILK: Can I make a comment too? During this
teevaluation of the sunsetting, a petitioner like Naples Gateway or
Pine Ridge Center may choose to come in and amend the PUD document
itself, so that way we'd be under a whole new review of the PUD
itself. It may take two or three months, maybe four depending on
scheduling and not the 30 or 60 days.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the idea that we're going to
amend all these things and be done with it in one afternoon is not
realistic.
MR. MILK: And I think -- you know, we're going to let
you know up front which petitions or -- or what PUDs are going to
be
recommended for a two-year extension, what are consistent and
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, and what petitioners
choose to amend their own PUDs to bring that into compliance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's fine. If
someone brings it in to amend it, it still opens it up for review.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Either way. Let me ask you though,
these older PUDs have to bring up to today's standards if they're
going to develop, so does that trigger some sort of a review
process
in your office? It automatically will, won't it? MR. MILK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No matter what they do. So -- so one
way or the other, they are going to have to bring those PUDs before
this board.
MR. MILK: What's going to happen is we're going to
bring each of them back with the recommendations and comments from
staff of that expertise, whether it be water management, roads,
water
and sewer, to comment on that and the upgrades.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner, I have a -- I have a reply
for you. What we would propose is that we have -- we would request
a
vote on the PUD with the service station and a vote on the PUD
without
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want those numbers now?
Because I don't think I could --
MR. ANDERSON: Well -- well, I know -- I know what the
vote is going to be, I think, on -- with the service station. I
don't, however, know what it will be without the service station.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. So you want to --
after the -- after the vote -- after the vote on the current
motion,
you're asking that another motion be made excluding the service
station and have a vote on that one?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And I'd like to have office uses in place
of the service station.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor to deny,
and we have a second for that motion. All those in favor signify
by
saying aye.
Opposed?
That motion fails. Is there a substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That motion fails?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, the motion to deny fails.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the PUD with
the substitution of office use in place of the proposed fueling
station.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that general office and
medical or just general?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General and medical.
MR. ANDERSON: Am I -- am I -- thank you. Am I to
understand that you have officially denied the PUD as submitted
with
the service station?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir, we did not do that. He had
requested that we vote with the service station in tact.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Then I'll withdraw my
motion.
MR. ANDERSON: I still want that one but just --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can -- we can go through
the steps. In other words --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, hang on. Let me -- let me take
-- take care of running the meeting, please, Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead and make your motion if you
want to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of Petition 96-3
as proposed with the addition that we direct staff to prepare an
amendment to the Growth Management Plan limiting the number of
fueling
stations in interchange activity centers to a number -- maximum
number
of four.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a second for that motion. We
have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
That motion fails.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will then move approval of
Petition 96-3 with the change being that the gas station be removed
as
a permitted use in the -- the southern tract. I believe that's
Tract
B.
MR. ANDERSON: C.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: C. Thank you. In its place the
general-medical office will be inserted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand. Mr. Anderson, that was your request?
MR. ANDERSON: Would the -- would the medical office use
be allowed in B and C?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'll amend it to include
medical and office use in both B and C.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's your request to
substitute in place of 96-3 as originally proposed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think you -- I think you need to
clarify your motion a little bit for me. Your intent is to exclude
gas stations, period?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to exclude gas stations.
However, I didn't see medical and general office as a specified use
in
both B and C, and I would like to make those as additions to the
PUD,
that B and C be allowed medical office and general office uses, but
Parcel B not be allowed to have a service station.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No parcels be allowed to have --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No parcels be allowed a service
station.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, can I
assume that the same wall and trees and all those things that you
got
before are still part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they are a part of the PUD,
which I believe they are; but some of the specific requests
regarding
the gas station would go away.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-443 APPROVING A RATE RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE
LANDFILL
TIPPING FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND FRANCHISED
COMMERCIAL
WASTE COLLECTION FEES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're still having a meeting here,
folks. If we could press on now, we'd appreciate it.
The next item is 12(C)(1), recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners approve a rate resolution to increase the
landfill tipping fees, residential and annual assessments, and
franchised commercial waste collection fees. Mr. Russell, this is
merely a CPI adjustment?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions from the board?
Close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Was that 4 to 17
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was 4 to 1.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That was good politics.
Item #12C2
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE BACKFLOW CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL
ORDINANCE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER ~ND GOODL~ND WATER
DISTRICT - STAFF TO ~MEND THE ORDINANCE ~ND COME BACK TO THE BCC
CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: The next item is 12(C)(2),
recommendation to adopt a backflow cross-connection control
ordinance.
MR. NEWM_~_N: Commissioners, bear with us for a second,
please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so you know, it was
because I voted against the original agreement with them as well.
COMMISSIONER M_~TTHEWS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I still don't like the terms
of the agreement.
COMMISSIONER M_~TTHEWS: You know, we first saw a
demonstration on this guy, I think, prior to Commissioners Mac'Kie
and
Hancock coming on this board, so it's been two years coming
forward.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Newman, I need -- I need
you to do one thing for me first, and you and I had this discussion
in
my office. I know a big part of your presentation is who does what
and what the cost impacts would be, but prior to doing that,
explain
to me the necessity of having this in the first place.
COMMISSIONER M_~C'KIE: What are we -- what's -- what are
we at risk for if we don't do this?
MR. NEWM_~_N: First and foremost, it's the law. The
Florida '-
COMMISSIONER M_~C'KIE: We have to do it?
MR. NEWM_~_N: Yes.
COMMISSIONER M_~C'KIE: Okay.
MR. NEWM_~_N: The Florida Administrative Code governing
the operation of both potable and reuse systems requires us to do
this.
COMMISSIONER H~NCOCK: Currently? Not proposed, but
that is current law?
MR. NEWMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the penalty for failure to
comply is?
MR. NEWMAN: We risk potential action, enforcement
action, on the part of DEP. We risk --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That enforcement action would
be --
MR. NEWMAN: It would be up to FDEP.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fines?
MR. NEWMAN: It could be fines. They could prohibit
further installation of your reuse system, because the reuse system
permits also require this because of the potential hazards of the
reuse system connected to the potable water system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So use more reuse. By the way,
it's going to cost you a couple grand more per home. Thank you,
DEP.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whatever that spotlight is there,
it's -- they need to be turned off.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There we go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner
Norris. That's why you're the chairman.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why you're the chairman;
that's right.
I -- I want to say while we're sitting up here, this is
a little frustrating, because I -- I came in here thinking that
this
looked like a major overregulation and not necessary and that we
are
creating a whole set of rules that were not -- not necessary; and
you're now telling me that I got to rubber stamp so, you know, skip
the presentation. If I don't have a choice, what's the point?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's some options.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than talking about the
presentation, why don't we go ahead and see it?
MR. NEWMAN: Well, what -- what we have before you this
morning -- for the record, Hike Newman, your county water director.
What we have before you this morning is the proposed Collier County
Backflow Prevention Ordinance. The intent of that ordinance is to
reduce the potential for contamination to the county's public water
systems and also bring the county into compliance with the Florida
Administrative Codes governing the operation of both the potable
systems and tense systems.
Okay. What is backflow? For the purpose of this
ordinance, backflow shall be considered the undesirable reversal of
flow within a county water service connection or other point of
service resulting from backpressure or backsiphonage and which
could
allow contaminates to enter into the county's public water system
posing a hazard to the public's health, safety, and welfare.
For the purpose of this ordinance, backflow --
cross-connection control shall be considered the elimination of a
contamination hazard from a facility or property receiving county
water service or the installation of an approved backflow-
prevention
assembly to isolate within that facility or property those
contaminants posing the potential hazard to the public's health,
safety, and welfare.
The objective here today is that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the backflow cross-connection control
ordinance,
approve a technical implementation option, approve a funding
option,
and direct staff to prepare the necessary administrative and
operational procedures and budget amendments to implement the
ordinance as adopted in final form.
Considerations the staff will be presenting today
include reasons for a backflow cross-connection control ordinance,
factors considered by staff in the preparation of the proposed
ordinance, proposed funding -- a proposed funding implementation, a
proposed technical implementation, proposed funding options, and
estimated costs.
Reasons for this program, first and foremost the Florida
Administrative Codes 62-555 and 62-610 governing the operation of
the
county's potable and reuse systems require such a program; to
provide
an enhanced level of security and protection for the public's
health,
safety, and welfare; and to reduce the potential for expensive
litigation related to backflow-related injuries and damages.
Area utilities with some level of program include the
City of Naples, Florida Cities, Lee County, the City of Fort Myers,
the City of Cape Coral, Charlotte County, the City of Miami, Dade
County, and North Miami.
Factors considered by staff in the preparation of the
proposed ordinance include --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you go back to that last
one for a minute?
MR. NEWMAN: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry to interrupt
you. You were going along at a good click there, but does that
mean
-- is this just a sampling or -- I mean, who -- who in the state
is
not doing this? Does this mean Palm Beach County is not or --
MR. NEWMAN: We -- we just looked around the lower part
of the state here and who was doing this. We went out and did some
of
these -- a survey.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those that are not doing it,
why are they not doing it?
MR. NEWMAN: They either have not adopted their programs
yet, or they're in the process of developing this. Everybody has
to
do this or -- or risk enforcement action on the part of FDEP as
FDEP
has informed us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand the concept. Every new home that goes up, every --
MR. NEWMAN: No. And I'm going to get to that in the
next slide if you could just wait one second, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. NEWMAN: Factors considered by staff in preparation
of the ordinance include: Provide effective protection for the
customers, residents, and visitors who use the county's public
water
systems; minimize program costs by requiring backflow assemblies
only
on services posing a high potential hazard; and minimize the need
for
additional staff by utilizing, when beneficial and cost-effective,
private-sector resources; and public comment gathered from
advertised
public workshops, meetings, and committee reviews.
Now, the residential implementation philosophy that
we've used here is to minimize program costs. Staff proposes that
only those residential customers with identified potential hazards,
such as auxiliary water supplies or some other nontraditional use,
be
required to install or have installed backflow assemblies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put that in English for us.
MR. NEWMAN: That's roughly -- right now we've
identified approximately 16 percent of the residential service
connections that are single-family service connections in the
county
that are going to require devices. So that's one in -- that's
going
to be somewhere between one in five and one in six homes in the
county
would end up having to have one of these devices. Primarily,
that's
going to be associated with the tense system, dual systems either
using tense water, canal water, lake water, or well water.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it -- the -- the criteria or
the example that you gave there for a high potential hazard was --
I
didn't get to read it fast enough -- alternate system or something
if
you have -- if you irrigate your lawn with a well?
MR. NEWMAN: Those -- those systems are not operated in
-- in compliance with FDEP regulations. They have a high bacteria
count. We have gone out to just confirm our -- our concerns. We
have
tested the tense systems. We have tested some of the lake systems.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but at my house I have a
well that I irrigate my -- my lawn with. I don't let my children
play
in that water or drink it, but I'm a high potential hazard because
I
irrigate my lawn with a well?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes. There is a potential that that system
could be cross-connected with the county's water system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By what idiot?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, how?
MR. NEWMAN: I'll put it to you the way a plumber put it
to me. He said, "The minute Home Depot and Scotty's started
selling
individual plumbing parts that any of us can walk in and buy and go
home and work on our systems, we lost control of the internal
plumbing
systems within our homes."
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean because instead of using
potable water on my lawn, because I have a well to irrigate my
lawn,
the state is going to make me install one of these stupid things
that
my kid will trip over every time they run across the front yard and
cost me a bunch of money?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, that's incentive.
MR. NEWMAN: That's essentially --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- how many incidents
have we had in Collier County --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- with backflow.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of backflow?
MR. NEWMAN: Well, it's very difficult to define because
__
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: HOW many incidents do we know
of?
MR. NEWMAN: Around the country?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, around Collier County.
MR. NEWMAN: Well, we've had cross-connections where
people were -- had effluent water hooked up to their homes, and
they
were drinking and bathing and cooking with it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But that doesn't have
anything to -- that's -- that's not the same situation as what you
described as high hazard. That's -- somebody was not very bright
and
hooked up the -- the two things on the wrong pipes. And, I mean,
that
can still happen even now. That's -- yeah, that's -- that's not
necessarily backflow so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- I know we're jumping
ahead, Mr. Newman, but my irrigation system is stand-alone.
MR. NEWMAN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- it doesn't connect to
anything except sprinkler heads.
MR. NEWMAN: I understand. What the state did is when
they basically developed these regulations, they told us that we
were
to develop our programs using the American Waterworks Association
Manual M-14, which is their backflow cross-connection control
manual.
That manual clearly states that if there is an auxiliary water
supply
on that premise, that that poses a potential hazard for
cross-connection; and that's what you're dealing with is potential
hazards. Obviously, if we could -- if we could identify only those
that were actual hazards, we could deal with that specific
situation.
You know, this is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How can I be a potential hazard?
How can my well to my irrigation system be a potential backflow
hazard?
MR. NEWMAN: What we found in the -- in the county is
there are a lot of people that have individual wells that have dual
systems, lake systems. What they'd like to do is to ensure -- the
first time one of those systems fails -- the county water system is
fairly reliable or very reliable -- they have a tendency to make a
cross-connection and put a valve there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who --
MR. NEWMAN: If their -- if their well motor burns out,
they can just go and open up that valve, and they can start using
county water now to irrigate their yards. What happens is those
valves fail, and those valves fail to be turned back into closed
positions. That constitutes a direct cross-connection, which is a
violation of the law. When the well comes on, depending on where
you
live in the county, your well -- if your well generates a higher
pressure than what the county system does at that point, it starts
pumping your well water back into the county water mains. That
water
has bacteria and other contaminants in it that are not allowed in a
county water -- or a public water system by DEP and EPA
requirements
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Newman --
MR. NEWMAN: -- and as such, that's the reason for the
program. Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Newman, I -- I've just got
to ask this question, because my subdivision where I live, we have
a
master irrigation system with -- with the master pump where we pump
the water out of the lakes. And you're telling me that each and
every
one of these homes, three-hundred-and-some-odd homes and two
hundred
more to be built plus the other neighbors that are adjacent to us,
are
each and every one of us going to have to bear this burden?
MR. NEWMAN: Not -- it's not me that's telling you
that. It's the state --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. Well, you're telling me
that that's your interpretation of -- of the state law.
MR. NEWMAN: It's not -- it's not my interpretation.
I'll give you an example. Within 30 days of the county taking
control
of Pelican Bay, I received a letter from FDEP telling me that
Pelican
Bay was out of compliance with the reuse requirements. We had to -
to hire Wilson Miller to perform an analysis of how many
connections
were out there, perform a full report, and submit that to FDEP.
They
gave us five years to bring that system into compliance or they
would
consider us to be in violation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What happens if we don't pass
this? I know you've said that there's administrative whatevers
hanging out there, but --
MR. NEWMAN: I -- I can't tell you what -- what action
FDEP -- they could -- they could start to turn down -- as projects
come forward with reuse systems, they could start to deny those
permits to build those reuse systems.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could -- I think we can cut to
the chase on this pretty easily. First of all, DEP is the one
telling
us -- mandating increased reuse, so we're trying to provide
increased
reuse. They're now mandating that we charge homeowners that have
either reuse or irrigation. If you drop a well for potable water,
it
is a depth and size different than that for irrigation. If I have
just an irrigation well, first of all, it doesn't go to the deep
water
table like the potable does; second, the size is different. Is
that
correct?
MR. NEWMAN: Well --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And all those -- all those wells
must be permitted; correct?
MR. NEWMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If my home has a deep
potable well and is served by county water, that is high risk. But
if
my home or anyone else's home has county or city water and has an
irrigation well, it's not high risk; and we're not making that
distinction.
MR. NEWMAN: Well, I'm -- I'm just --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. NEWMAN: -- using the regulations as they've been
given to us and they've told us --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. The regula --
MR. NEWMAN: -- you're going to have to use this
criteria to develop --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right; they're wrong.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I understand
Mr. Newman's simply trying to follow state law.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not beating up on you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm -- what I'm going to
suggest --
MR. NEWMAN: That's what I get paid for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm going to suggest is
-- you made an excellent point of an absurd case. Commissioner
Matthews has made an excellent point of -- of the absurd level to
which this can go if 500 homeowners are going to be held
accountable
__
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, there's over a thousand --
over a thousand homeowners just in my neighborhood involved in
this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might suggest a better way
of dealing with this is going to the Florida Association of
Counties
and trying to have some changes put into place on a state level
that
make more sense. I don't have any objection to trying to encourage
tense, but when we're having things happen that don't even make
logical sense -- and all of us have been sitting here for five
minutes. I'm sure if we spent several weeks on it, we could come
up
with things considerably worse. And that might be a more effective
thing than simply passing and saying, "Well, DEP makes us" and
passing
this exorbitant cost on to homeowners. Let's -- let's see if we
ca~
make a change at the state level.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make another suggestion to
you. I have absolutely no objection to requiring this on new
commercial or -- or large multifamily units that come on-line after
this date. I guess it's a simple matter to do then. If we're
going
to talk about retrofitting single-family homeowners because they
have
an irrigation well, I'm out. I'm not going for that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, can we, to show compliance,
do just what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
MR. NEWMAN: Commissioners, you already do from -- as of
1988 when you passed the Utilities Standards Construction
Ordinance,
all meter assemblies larger than 2 inch were required to have
backflow
assemblies. You have had a program for assemblies larger than 2
inch
since 1988. That is already in place and every assembly, every
meter
that's been installed in this county that's greater than 2 inch,
has a
backflow assembly in place now. This is an attempt to go back and
capture those -- those units that were not captured, the
three-quarters to two-inch assemblies that were not captured and
those
larger assemblies that were in existence prior to 1988 that still
pose
a hazard to the public's health, safety, and welfare.
And if I could have a moment of your time. We had
concerns about this when we started this process also. We went out
and we tested some of the fire systems that are in this county.
The
way they are
designed is they are independent fire systems, riser-pipe systems,
which means the water stays -- the pipe stays full of water all the
way to the top. With the exception of one sample that we
collected,
every one of those samples came back TNTC; that means too numerous
to
count for bacteria counts within those. One of those samples had a
chemical in it that would not even allow life to exist within the
sample. So we assume that that would not be something that would
be
-- you know, that we would want to have in the public water system
either. If we look at this, there are actual verified hazards.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, how would that get into the
public water system?
MR. NEWMAN: Those are directly --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the odds of --
MR. NEWMAN: Those systems are directly connected to the
potable water system. If that system loses pressure, all that
water
that's standing up in that four-story pipe rolls right back down
unless there's a backflow check valve to stop that from occurring.
That's -- that's the purpose for these large assemblies. And we
captured those back in '88, but at that time the state had not
mandated a program for small three-quarter through two-inch
assemblies; and as such, at that time we were asked to wait. It
was
in the works, but we were asked it wait until the state actually
made
it a law before we brought this portion of the program forward; and
that's what we've done. We've waited for that to occur, and we've
brought that portion of the program back to you at this time.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, could I interrupt just
for a second? Tom Conrecode from public works. Mike has put a
great
deal of effort into preparing this presentation. He's going to
answer
a lot of the excellent questions you've already -- you've already
asked, but I think there needs to be some perspective.
The perspective from the single-family home users
situation, for instance, and Commissioner Matthew's area, if for
Some
reason their association's irrigation system fails, lawns are going
to
begin to die. I will tell you that homeowners in that community
will
begin to make those cross-connections. They'll ask their plumber,
or
they'll do it themselves on the weekend to make sure their
irrigation
system will continue to run. And it's those sort of cross-
connections
that present a problem for us when they get the pump fixed or
whatever
on their irrigation system and recharge, because that's then going
to
start backflowing into our system, protecting -- or hurting our
system; and our effort is to protect it.
The cost is minimal to the single-family homeowner.
Right now -- and Mike's going to get into those numbers in a little
bit -- it's roughly a hundred and fifty dollars per single-family
home
-- per new home that's built on the system. So the cost is not
like
a new impact fee or a substantial increase in cost that's going to
necessarily make or break the homeowner being able to buy a home.
So
I think if -- if you'll bear with Mike for a few more minutes as he
gets through some of the -- gets into more of the nitty-gritty of
this, you'll have some of those questions answered.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me ask you, is your proposal
contemplating retrofits of existing properties or simply new
construction?
MR. NEWMAN: Both.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think you're hearing at least,
that I can count, four board members say they ain't going for a
retrofit. So you know, you might as well just skip over that part
of
the program, and we'll talk about something else. But I don't
think
-- I don't think there's support on this board to start
retrofitting.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, do you also mean not
retrofitting commercial, which are really the high hazards?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. We're talking about retrofitting
single-family residential.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for that distinction;
commercial, which are really the high hazards.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And, quite frankly, you know,
what -- what I'm hearing -- Mr. Conrecode, you made an -- made an
excellent point, and if -- if somebody's well pump ceases to work
and
so forth, that people will try to cross-connect. But in the
situation
with my -- my neighborhood, we have a master irrigation system
where
it's -- it's just not likely that our resident association isn't
going
to maintain the master irrigation system. If we each had our own
little individual system, I -- I could see the concern, but we
don't.
I mean, it's -- it's just not that way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And at a hundred and fifty bucks
a house for a thousand houses --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a lot of money.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that seems like a lot of money
for a very low risk, so I'm ready to see -- I -- I agree with what
Commissioner Norris said about perhaps commercial but not
retrofitting
single-family; but I'm still interested in seeing what you have.
MR. NEWMAN: Okay. Commissioners, we could finish the
presentation if that's your desire. We could stop the presentation
here. You could direct us to basically change or -- or implement
the
program in a different direction. We could submit that to FDEP and
see if that would be acceptable to them, and then, basically, bring
those comments back to you. How do you want us to proceed at this
point?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My desire is unless -- and I'll
ask this on -- if after making a motion you feel that there's
something in this presentation that -- that, you know, addressess
my
concern directly and answers it, then I'd like to know. But I
think
retrofitting commercial -- I'd like to give direction to staff to
revise the ordinance that the retrofit of commercial plus the
addition
to all new construction be required.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Including single-family?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And before you answer that, I
guess my problem getting into every single-family is, again, it's -
in my opinion, it's overkill. And if we -- you know, right now you
get 6,200 bucks or whatever it is before you ever put a stick in
the
ground and another 150 bucks on top of that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's --
MR. NEWMAN: Hay I offer a compromise on that, perhaps?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let me finish
with what I was going to put out there, and then let's see. My
concern was, hit all commercial and retrofit commercial being it's
the
highest -- one of the highest risks out there. The second element
is
all residential, whether it's -- it's retrofit or new, that has
both
potable water and a potable water well on the property. That,
again,
seems to be a higher risk than someone who has just an irrigation
well
and potable water. Those two things seem to be the -- the greatest
risk potential out there, and those are the two I think the
ordinance
should address. Single-family homes, whether retrofit or new, that
do
not have potable water wells on the property, in my opinion, are so
minimal-risk that they shouldn't be addressed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Large multifamily.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Large multifamily --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Large multifamily, I think,
should be addressed, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We already do. He's already said we
do.
MR. NEWMAN: Reuse -- tense is specifically required.
Wells, individual wells, that's covered under this blanket.
Auxiliary
water supplies -- but the tense issue is a specific issue the DEP
has
contacted your wastewater director, Tim Clemons, and has been
asking
him where is your program. You have a tense system; where is your
__
your program to protect the potable water system? I'm not sure we
have any option there. The issue with the wells and some of the
lake-supplied systems, perhaps we can work with DEP on that; but on
the tense system, I'm not sure we have an option there, at least my
conversations with Tim indicated that we don't. The DEP is already
looking for him to submit and has been calling him and asking him
to
submit that report.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're not God; they're just the
DEP.
MR. NEWMAN: That's -- that's true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My -- my suggestion would,
again, be if -- if we have a problem with that, then we need to
address that with our state legislator across the hall and -- and
take
care of that in Tallahassee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our -- our tense program,
though, is for golf courses. We don't have any tense program at
this
point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, contrare. We do.
MR. NEWMAN: We have -- we have quite -- quite an
extensive residential tense program.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We do?
MR. NEWMAN: We have Pelican Bay, which is receiving
tense.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot.
MR. NEWMAN: Pelican Harsh, which is receiving tense.
We have a number of -- a number of other communities right now that
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Coming on.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Coming on.
MR. NEWMAN: -- currently are -- are using wells and
lakes and canals in anticipation that somewhere in the future they
will connect to that system. And the reason we had -- we had such
a
concern with those systems is -- I'm sure you're all aware of the
Cryptosporidium problem that occurred up in Milwaukee. One just
happened in Las Vegas. They -- that -- those microorganisms are
associated with surface water, and that's the -- that's the source
that these people are using to supplement those systems, and that
was
the concern that staff had and why we added that into the program.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, again, to factor the cost
into new construction isn't as big a concern for me. If we're
talking
about situations where tense systems are going to be installed,
that
can become part of the cost consideration on the front end. I --
the
retrofit is my biggest concern.
MR. NEWMAN: Well, let me add -- let me offer a
compromise here. Perhaps we could -- could work a -- an
arrangement
with FDEP or sell them on the -- on the principle that we would
retrofit existing services when the house changes hands. And now
you
have a new owner applying for a new meter, which at that time
they're
coming in applying for that fee, and so on and so forth. It's not
going back and placing that on the -- on the existing people that
are
-- that's -- that's a potential that we could work with DEP on.
I'm
not sure they --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I'm going to leave my
direction as is --
MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I think we'll -- we will
pursue with our state legislator the -- maybe authorize the
chairman
to issue a letter to State Representative Saunders asking for his
assistance in -- in addressing this matter at the DEP level.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the only single-family
home situation that you have is -- is whatever we define as a high
risk single-family?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. One in which -- where
potable water is provided by a county or city system, and a potable
well is on site.
MR. NEWMAN: With a direct interconnect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we have to assume that a
direct interconnect could happen there or may happen there.
Whereas,
with an irrigation well, I'm not going to pump that garbage into my
house.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can't anyway. You don't have the
pressure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
MR. NEWMAN: And multifamily and commercial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Multifamily and commercial
also.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you talking about -- also
about new single-family?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought I heard you say that
that didn't bother you so much as retrofitting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I said that, but no. I'm going
to leave the direction as is for now, and let's see if that gets
the
DEP off our back; and if they want to pursue it further, then we'll
take action at the state level.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm really sorry. I
think I understand this, but we've got each other -- I -- you got
me
confused. The only single-family situation is new buildings with -
_
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm saying those that exist
who have the -- because this -- to me, this is the greater chance
of
contamination based on the explanation. If they have a potable
well
and a potable system on site --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You lost me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they could mix the two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't support that. I
understand your rationale. I'm not going to support your motion,
though.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not a motion. He's just trying
to give direction to the staff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that's my direction.
MR. NEWMAN: Commissioners, how would you like to
proceed at this point?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me poll the board on the
direction.
MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't support the retrofitting
for single-family even with the two potable systems.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's two.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I agree with that. I mean, I --
you know, retrofitting commercial, retrofitting multifamily, I'd '-
I'd rather start there and see where we go, and then measure the
rest
of the state for what -- whatever problems might or might not be
there
-- there in the future. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would be willing to support
single-family -- new single-family with the dual potable systems,
retrofitting existing multifamily, and retrofitting commercial; but
that's as far as I'm willing to go.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who's going to police that,
though?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me see. We have one
public speaker, I believe.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, Commissioner. It's George Schaaf.
MR. SCHAAF: Good afternoon. I guess the first thing
I'd like to check, I -- I had sent a fax to all --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir?
MR. SCHAAF: George Schaaf, S-c-h-a-a-f.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. SCHAAF: 2519 Longboat Drive. I am formerly a
plumbing contractor for 35 years. The last three years I have been
involved in backflow. I had sent a fax to the commissioners; did
they
receive it?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SCHAAF: There may or may not be questions on it,
but I think the -- the point that we've reached right now --
Director
Newman has presented the case very, very well and properly. I
disagree on implementation, whether the county would do this or
whether the private sector does it. But aside from that, he's told
you exactly the way it is; and I think your alternatives make
sense.
So unless you have a question or something like that, that's all I
would have to say at this time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question's going to
be if -- if we implement that as we just discussed -- and I think I
heard three, but I -- I don't know if we did or not -- as we just
discussed, then we've got to decide -- or do we need to decide
today
who's -- who's going to be doing the installing and under what
situations?
MR. NEWMAN: Okay. I could probably give you some of
that off the top of my head. For the -- all of the assemblies
greater
than 2 inch, it will be done by the private sector through service
contracts with us. In fact, let me just run this --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so you know, without the --
where we have a potable system and a potable well, without that in
there, I'm not going to support it either way; so that leaves four
of
you to consider that. And that just, to me, is a real risk, so I'm
__
I'm not going to support it without that in it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I like that idea, but
only on the new construction. I -- I understand what --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is the older buildings
-- older construction out there that's already done it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. Maybe we --
maybe we shouldn't do it on any single-family.
MR. NEWMAN: Okay. You're going to look at the -- in
this slide, the one -- the inch, the inch and a half, and two inch
are
going to represent the majority of the small businesses, small
commercial, small industrial-type applications. There may be a few
large residential users in here, but that's basically the addition
__
or these three numbers here, eighty, ninety, approximately a
hundred
thousand dollars over five years to retrofit the under 2 inch.
This
is -- this is how that works broken down between what was being
proposed that the county would perform and the private sector. So
you're looking at approximately -- the county would be performing
approximately a hundred and fifty-three thousand dollars' worth of
work over that five-year period, and the private sector would be
providing one point -- almost one point three million dollars'
worth
of work over that same period of time, that five-year
implementation
period. You've -- you've removed the single-family, which was the
large number up here at 1.2 million dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These numbers are based on --
and you and I already had this discussion, I know, but -- MR. NEWMAN: Okay. The numbers from the private sector
are based on -- we -- we called out there. We talked to some of
the
local plumbers, some of the local underground contractors, got
quotes
from them on what it would cost to -- or what they were charging to
install these devices. We also contacted some of our customers
that
we knew had devices installed, asked them what they had paid for
them,
and we took the average price that we were receiving. The price
that
-- for the county service was derived directly from our
anticipated
cost, our exact anticipated cost, as would be included in a budget
that we submitted to the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somebody want to give some
direction?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question I --
MR. NEWMAN: This was the other side of it. This was
the large diameters, 3 inch through 6 inch. This would be the
large
commercial, large industrial five-year total. And during that five
years, the county's anticipated to do little or none of that work,
and
the private sector is anticipated to do $917,000 worth of work over
five years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question is
inspections. Do these things need to be inspected every year or
every
two years or something? MR. NEWMAN: Testing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And who do you contemplate
doing that and -- or have we contemplated who would do that and
what
the cost would be?
MR. NEWMAN: Let me run right up here to that. Okay.
This is an annual testing three-quarter through ten inch. It was
anticipated that staff would perform that -- that testing for a
cost
of $449,000, but that was with all the residential involved. That
will be substantially less now that you've removed the largest
chunk
of that testing. We did some comparison-testing charges, and the
staff was doing it for roughly a third of what it was going to cost
us
if we went out to the private sector and had it performed. So we
decided and elected to hire two additional staff members to perform
that at a cost savings of approximately a million dollars.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cost savings over the private
sector doing it?
MR. NEWMAN: Over five years -- over the five years --
first five years of the implementation of the program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many additional county
staff would be required to implement this?
MR. NEWMAN: Under the full program, it was two. With
the reductions that you just made, it probably is going to drop
down
to one. I would have to go back and calculate, but I think it
would
probably be one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One person?
MR. NEWMAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then there would be equipment
and vehicle and so on.
MR. NEWMAN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea of what
the dollar amount of all that comes out to be?
MR. NEWMAN: It will run approximately -- you'll have
the initial setup cost -- fifteen -- probably about twenty-five
thousand dollars for all of the equipment and the vehicle; and then
the cost of the individual, which is going to run, with benefits,
probably around twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars per year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've included all that
in what it would cost us to charge --
MR. NEWMAN: Oh, absolutely. We came down with a cost
that was going to be somewhere between nine and eleven dollars.
Obviously, the more devices we have in the system, the more
productive
that individual could be, and the cost would come down. We start
out
at around $11 and drop down to 9. For the purposes of this
presentation, the dollar figure that you've used -- for the test we
use is $15 just as a round number to give ourselves a little leeway
there. We've actually talked to some of the other utilities, and
Some
of those have their testing costs down as low as like $3.50 per
test.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just like to ask this
gentleman if -- I'm going to assume the industry may not see the
numbers the same, and I didn't know if you had some thoughts on
that.
MR. SCHAAF: Especially -- I discussed the $11 figure
with Director Newman, and we disagreed on that; and the $3 figure
really is not realistic. You're talking about a procedure that in
a
wet lab is going to take about 12 or 14 minutes. That's without
drying, setting up, and doing it. But I -- I don't think it's
right
to have this discussion tie up the commission at this point. I
really
think -- I had suggested at the end of my fax that we have another
workshop on this. The commissioners would benefit from all the
contractors, independent testers, who will come forward. They will
bring numbers -- I don't have numbers today, but we can bring them;
and we can bring people who work in the field and give a lot of
free
information that you can then decide upon.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I think that's probably
a good idea, because Mr. Newman has expertise I don't have; but I'd
like to hear from the industry itself too. And we don't have that
opportunity today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why didn't that happen at the
earlier workshops? Because you've had several, haven't you?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. SCHAAF: The ordinance changed. We workshopped the
first draft, and it didn't deal in this way at all; so we -- all we
dealt with was that maybe the utility would bid out -- as I recall
that workshop -- would bid out to the private sector, and we would
bid
as subcontractors, which I had no problem with. But then the
ordinance changed, and there has not been a workshop since it's
been
drastically altered as it appears now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Schaaf, I don't think we
have any objection to you holding a workshop and -- and continuing
to
refine this proposal, but for now I think this -- the board is
pretty
clear about the direction that we're headed for the moment. And
we'd
be glad to modify what we're doing in the future, perhaps, if -- if
we
feel better about it, but for today I think -- I think we've heard
enough.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's try to give -- let's
see if this works -- give staff direction --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Try to give staff
direction on which items we want to go after, and then if there's
an
issue as to public and private and who's going to do what, we could
deal with those at -- either following a workshop or at a workshop
or
something. But I'm going to suggest that we deal with the
commercial
and multifamily issues as outlined in Commissioner Hancock's
earlier
suggestion, the difference just being not including the single-
family
portion of that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even new single-family
construction?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be my preference.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I could support that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's two.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're saying to include this in
new single-family?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. Okay. I can support.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That sounds like
direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get ready for at least one
objection.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then, Mr. Newman, you'll
work with the industry in some workshop format and maybe let us
know
when that's going to be, and we can sit down as far as who will do
what on the different size meters.
MR. NEWMAN: Commissioner, we have done extensive
reviews of that, and if you would like to resolve that issue, we'd
be
more than happy to bid those services out and bring that back to
you
as a comparison bid -- this is what staff's price is and a quote --
and bring back the private sector's prices, if that would make you
happy, to show you that we're giving the lowest price to the
customer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you've been through it
a dozen times. It would probably just help the board if -- if we
had
both groups sitting in the same room and --
MR. NEWMAN: So are we -- are we adopting this ordinance
with the changes that the board has directed staff to make to it?
Is
that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not that I'm aware of, no, sir. We
did not do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Direction was given to staff to
amend the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To make changes --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To make changes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and bring it back.
MR. NEWMAN: Make changes and bring it back to this
board? Very good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those poor citizens here for
later petitions, I'm sorry you had to sit through this.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 96-444 RE PETITION SNR-96-7, COHMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR
STONEGATE C.C., INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
WELLINGTON
DRIVE TO STONEGATE DRIVE LOCATED WITHIN SLEEPY HOLLOW PUD - ADOPTED
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Next item is Petition SNR-96-7,
changing a name from Wellington Drive to Stonegate Drive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is anyone here to object to
this?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve this name change. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some things are too easy.
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 96-57 CREATING THE NAPLES HERITAGE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 190 FLORIDA STATUTES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 12(C)(4), public hearing
to consider a petition for the creation of the Naples Heritage
Community Development District pursuant to Chapter 190 Florida
Statutes, whose author is with us today.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Commissioners, Tom
Conrecode from public works. This item is in response to a July
29,
1996, petition to establish the Naples Heritage CDD. This is a CDD
less than a thousand acres, therefore, subject to your
implementation
through the adoption of an ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to
undertake as its first item of business -- a board of supervisors,
the
adoption of an interlocal agreement with the county for water and
sewer services once that CCD has been established. The staff
recommendation is that the board consider an ordinance and
authorize
the chairman to execute the agreement for water and sewer services
with the petitioner at the time that it is presented back to the
board. Subject to any questions --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any reservations
about what's been presented in the staff summary regarding the CDD?
MR. CONRECODE: No, sir. This is consistent with every
other CDD petition that we've seen in terms of what our
expectations
are and the sort of data that we expect to hear from the
petitioners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is -- what is the chance
that the statute could be amended to resolve one continual conflict
of
at least one member of this board regarding the incorporation of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He would know.
MR. CONRECODE: I -- I defer to Mr. vanAssenderp to
answer that.
MR. vanASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Conrecode.
Mr. Chairman and members and Commissioner Hancock, as Commissioner
Constantine will tell you, we've --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. What is your name?
MR. vanASSENDERP: Oh, my name is Ken vanAssenderp.
There's a certain syllable there that I trust will not be
emphasized
here. That's an inside joke for later. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got it.
MR. vanASSENDERP: I'm an attorney from Tallahassee.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to help you.
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, would you close
the public hearing? I'd like to make a motion.
(Laughter)
MR. vanASSENDERP: But I'm trying to help Commissioner
Constantine on his very -- very well-expressed and sincere concern
about the fact that the statute does have the provision to which
Commissioner Con -- Hancock referred to require a referendum, when
certain population requirements and densities are met, by the
people
who live -- on whether to become a municipality or not. And we
even
met with the League of Cities, and I even set the meeting up,
because
they would be the most interested statewide party. And thus far
neither one of us has been able to persuade the -- the league to
change that. I am for taking that out, but I feel bound to my
committment to the League of Cities when it was put in in 1984; and
so
thus, it remains in the statute. And the key will be what the
position of the League of Cities is, and to the degree any one of
you
can -- can assist, I think that would be most -- most welcome.
I work on this to a certain degree every session, and
the policy side of it -- the reason we agreed to this in 1984, to
put
this little amendment in -- and I've shared this with Commissioner
Constantine also, Commissioner Hancock -- is we think people living
in
these districts in the unincorporated area will be so pleased with
the
results and the maintenance close to hand that I -- that I don't
see
any need, any swelling desire to vote to have a city formed. I
think
the exact opposite. I think the districts will be a chilling
effect
on ever having a city, but can I prove that? No, I can't prove
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But hasn't that so far been the
history? I mean, we haven't seen a proliferation of cities as a
result of these districts.
MR. vanASSENDERP: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, how many have met their
threshold so far?
MR. vanASSENDERP: The -- the law was written in 1980,
so it's a 16-year-old statute; and I don't know that answer, but I
recall hearing Mr. Moyer (phonetic) saying that it's been one or
two
only at this stage.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the -- my point is -- is
that's not a good measure, because you haven't had a proliferation
of
opportunities for it. I think -- I think the answer is one. I'm
not
sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a question that would be,
perhaps, pertinent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does -- does this provision in -- in
Chapter 190 in any way relieve them of the requirement in some
other
statute -- and I'm not sure what it is; I'm sure you do -- that --
that describes distances from boundaries of municipalities?
MR. vanASSENDERP: No, sir, Mr. Chairman, it does not in
any way alleviate or replace that requirement. And even if one of
these hypothetical referenda were to pass, there's still no
incorporation. All the statutory requirements in Chapter 165
Florida
Statutes, including a local hearing with a local legislative
delegation, would have to be complied with. This, in effect, is a
mandated straw vote is all it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm satisfied with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let -- let me just -- I got
to do something over here on this map.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Be sure you get that, Katie.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the one thing we
constantly hear is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Your name for the
record?
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we don't want to be like
the east coast. I -- I don't know -- and you know 190 better than
I
do, but I'm not sure that that does alleviate the 2 mile there.
There
-- there is the straw vote. The straw vote you can pretty well
guess
is going to take it to the next step going to the state legislature
and so on. It's not going to just end there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Draw the 2-mile line.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The concern I have -- all
joking aside the concern I have is when you go to Miami or Fort
Lauderdale, you have about 18 different townships and cities that
you
go through between those two cities; and one of the biggest
problems
over there is when you have that many different governments, you
have
18 different sets of rules, and it doesn't follow. And if you have
__
Pelican Bay, of course, keeps trying to be their own city. You've
already got the City of Naples. You got Lely Resort, Golden Gate
talking about it, Marco Island talking about it. You add in a
couple
more; you add in here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's Pelican Marsh too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pelican Marsh, that's right.
Pretty soon you end up with --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dove Pointe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- eight or nine or ten.
Dove Pointe I don't think meets the threshold -- will meet the
threshold popu -- populationwise.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is it, 3,0007
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty-five hundred.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty-five hundred?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The population is only 2,500,
so you can end up with one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or
more
little cities in Collier County. And you're right that -- I think
most people will be happy with the level of service, but we all
know
that most of the time the incorporation drives are ego driven as
opposed to substance driven. You look at many of the communities
that
try to do it. They have excellent services currently, but they
still,
for some reason, have these conversations. And so my worry is long
term if you go ahead and keep passing CDDs that you end up with 7
or 8
or 10 or 12 little cities 15 years from now, and that's not in the
best -- best interest.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you give us a couple of examples
of those incorporation drives that are ego driven?
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keeping in mind that all it does,
though, is require a straw vote. It doesn't require -- I mean, it
it just requires the community to make a choice about whether or
not
to apply for annexation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Incorporation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree it's not -- I'm sorry.
-- for -- for incorporation. I think that we can't throw the baby
out with the bath water. It's not a perfect piece of legislation,
but
it's a useful tool; and I don't want to eliminate them in Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to go ahead and get to
the vote on this issue. But what I'd like to say is the Florida
League of Cities is not so powerful that they rule Tallahassee; and
if
we really want this changed, why don't we use the power of the
Florida
Association of Counties to our advantage and begin lobbying for the
change and -- and be proactive, again, about the change instead of
sitting and whining about it, which is -- is what I feel like I'm
doing, because I haven't done a thing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the -- the one thing --
the one thing I would suggest, though, is, as Commissioner Norris
pointed out, Mr. vanAssenderp wrote, essentially, pretty much all
of
190. And I suspect if suddenly it wasn't working, it was being
turned
down because of one part of it, that he might be more anxious to
change that one part of it. And so -- I mean, we can go through
the
FAC lobbying. I think another way to do it is to start saying no.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's offer you that opportunity
right now. We'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
MR. vanASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're all going to work for
7 cities 10 years from now.
MR. vanASSENDERP: I am motivated.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-445 RE PETITION CU-96-13 JOHN F. STANLEY REPRESENTING
TERRY AND CONSTANCE KRANTZ REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF THE C-
4
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A TRUCK RENTAL BUSINESS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO THE
CCPC'S STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 13(A)(1), Petition
CU-96-13. Jack Stanley.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Stanley, are you going to come
visit us here?
MR. STANLEY: I'd just as soon let staff do all the
work, Commissioner Norris. I may not have to say anything.
Staff's
doing such a good job, I could just sit here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not getting off that light.
You're going to have to say something. You're going to have to
state
your name for the record.
MR. STANLEY: My name is John F. Stanley. I'm here
representing Terry C. Krantz and Constance E. Krantz.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, sir. That's fine. Do we have
any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not other than Mr. Stanley.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anybody have any questions on this?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only when are you going to
close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve that item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Subject to the Planning Commission
stipulations or not?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, of course.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I should have outlined that
in my motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is going to get the trucks
out of the front yard up by Davis and put them in the back where
they
belong, isn't it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The second also amends. I just
assumed that it was according to Planning Commission stipulations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. That was always considered part
of the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great work, Jack.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next time you won't get off so easy.
MR. STANLEY: Well, maybe I'll come back on a duplicate.
Item #13A2
PETITION CU-96-11, MITCHELL B. THOMPSON REPRESENTING HARK BATES,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR CjustER HOUSING PURSUANT TO
SECTION
2.2.5.3.8 OF THE RHF-6 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
EAST
END OF SHADY REST LAND EAST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL AND NORTH OF SOLANA
ROAD -
CONTINUED INDEFINITELY
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 13(A)(2), Petition
CU-96-11.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just, again, in the -- for the
purpose of disclosure, I have had discussions with residents --
residents adjacent to this property regarding it. I have not
spoken
to the petitioner, but I wanted to disclose that. I'll base my
decision on what's presented here today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've had no discussion on this
whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've not had any contact on this one.
I'll base my decision solely on what I hear today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Despite having had some contact,
I will base my decision on what we hear today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As required by law, my
decision will be based solely on the information provided during
the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you tape record that or --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This message --
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Bryan Milk, and I am presenting Petition CU-96-
11.
Petitioner is requesting a conditional use of the RHF-6 zoning
district for cjuster housing. The subject property is 2.7 acres in
size, and it is currently zoned RHF-6. In lieu of creating a
multifamily complex on the subject property, the petitioner is
requesting a site plan for 16 single-family lots on a 40-foot
right-of-way, which would propose a lot size of approximately 4,000
square feet with widths of -- average of 45 feet. Setbacks would
be
10 feet front yards, 10 feet rear yards, 0 to 5 on the sides. The
property is located at the end of Shady Rest Lane. The subject
property is adjacent to a lake. The property to the east and to
the
south is zoned RHF-6. It is currently surrounded by a two-story,
multifamily complex. To the west is more RHF-6 zoning. Typically
there are a -- single-family houses mix; two story, one story, new
versus old. And to the north is an RSH-3 neighborhood with
single-family housing, basically a developed subdivision.
This petition was approved at the Collier County
Planning Commission. There were three residents of the Grove
Subdivision, which is immediately to the west of the project, who
spoke in concern of the project with the -- several concerns based
on
average lot size, the intensity of the development, and the
improvements to the Shady Rest Lane roadway. If I can answer any
questions, I'd be happy to do so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, do you have with you
the subject -- or the section of our Land Development Code that
addresses cjuster housing?
MR. MILK: With me -- do you have the LDC?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I would like is --
there is in that section -- when this board adopted the concept of
cjuster housing, the focus of that and the purpose for that, as you
may remember, is -- and I don't know if the board remembers -- was
that on many sites there are constraints, site constraints, such as
environmental or otherwise. The reduction in setback allows an
increased flexibility so that the petitioner may locate buildings
closer together, cjuster them in such a manner as to avoid other
site
conditions that are unavoidable or -- or advantageous to the
community
to be retained.
What I see on this site is -- and this is my impression
-- is cjuster housing standards being utilized to pack things in
tighter than the existing standards allow with absolutely no -- no
reason other than putting the buildings closer together than they
can
be. Am I correct in that the intent of cjuster housing is
specifically defined in the Land Development Code and is not met by
this application?
MR. MILK: It -- it's met from the standpoint that the
minimum lot size is 3,500 square feet as far as cjuster housing
goes.
Cjuster housing standards are acceptable in the RMF-6 zoning
district
because it's single-family housing versus a multifamily or
multifamily
buildings. The applicant in this particular application has taken
a
infill-type parcel that's basically at the end of a roadway,
surrounded by development, adjacent to a lake, and wishes to use
cjuster-housing standards to develop these 16 units. That's
allowed
as density on that 2.7 acres. In order to do that with a right-of-
way
and to improve the roadways, he had to request the reduction in
standards of the typical RMF-6 zoning district. That's typically
in a
six-units-per-acre development.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would there be a difference in
buffering if this were a multifamily development instead of
single-family?
MR. MILK: The only difference would be -- it would be a
hedge required along with the perimeter trees. Between the
single-family to the north and to the west, there'd have to be a
hedge
of approximately 6 foot in height that would buffer multi- and
single-family housing. Otherwise, the perimeter buffer would be 20
feet with a tree spaced every 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Which it's 20 feet now,
but the 6-foot hedge is not required.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this were multifamily, would
the building setbacks from the property line be different than they
are as currently proposed?
MR. MILK: Thirty-five feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As opposed to --
MR. MILK: Twenty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- twenty feet. Okay. I
personally don't feel if -- and I'd like -- if I could look at the
the section of the LDC on -- on cjuster housing, and then I'll let
the
balance of the board ask their questions or the petitioner make
their
presentation. My recollection of the purpose for adopting cjuster
housing doesn't apply here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It simply doesn't apply.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my thoughts -- well, let me
ask this question. Under the proposal the total number of units is
MR. MILK: Sixteen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And without the change the
multifamily units would be --
MR. MILK: Sixteen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's just a question -- it's
not a density increase. It's just a question of how they are
arranged. But I want to point out to you that -- I guess it was
last
week we had a plat that I asked to be pulled off the consent
agenda,
and this is the neighborhood immediately adjacent. You remember we
talked about Hilltop Drive and Morningside Drive? This is the next
neighborhood over. So what I came in interested in knowing is some
information about the architectural design of this and some
interest
in seeing that a hedge or some significant buffer on the north
boundary --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- abutting the single-family
homes. And it may be that cjuster housing is just inappropriate
altogether.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, maybe my recollection
is incorrect, but cjuster housing was supposed to do this
(indicating), even if it goes up a little bit, not squish it this
way
(indicating) and stick it out --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Spread it out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the perimeter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what my understanding for
the -- for the cjuster housing was. It was to allow the
preservation
of some sort of environmental --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. If they want -- if they
want to increase --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- environmentally impacted area
that would -- would let them --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was another reason, yeah. That
-- that's a different -- Mr. -- Mr. Dotrill, do we have some
public
speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: I have the petitioner or his representative
here.
Mr. Hobbs, is that -- or his representative. Go right ahead.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Mitchell B. Thompson representing
Gulf Sun Development. My understanding of the -- of the
cjuster-housing use is -- just to cut to the -- to the middle of
the
issue here is that it was to eliminate urban sprawl, to -- to give
the
ability to -- for unique and innovative designs. As accompanied
with
the conditional use in the Land Development Code, we have a -- a
section on architectural themes also, which is utilized in this
project. I -- I really -- I didn't read the same interpretation
that
-- that you guys are apparently seeing as -- as an environmental
consideration for the use of -- conditional use.
In this scenario what we're doing is taking a -- a piece
of land that has -- has set vacant for quite a bit of time,
basically,
because you can't fit a -- a decent product into that piece of land
due to the size of the land. You can't really -- the only thing
you
can do is create a multifamily scenario, which it is zoned for, but
it's in an area that is already saturated with multifamily. And
what
we're attempting to do here is -- to take a phrase out of the Land
Development Code -- create a unique and innovative subdivision, a
minisubdivision, for lack of a better term.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But, again, going back to the
purpose for cjuster housing, the unique and innovative design was
intended to provide a benefit to the adjacent properties. MR. THOMPSON: I think it does.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's where we probably
have a difference of opinion, because as a result, the homes are
one-story instead of potentially two; but they're much closer to
the
property line than they would have been in a multifamily situation.
The buffer is less than it would have been in a multifamily
situation
as far as amounts of vegetation and so forth. So the unique and
innovative design is to the advantage of the property owner or
developer and not to the properties adjacent to it from the way I
look
at this plan.
I mean, it's almost like cjuster housing is being used
as a shoehorn to fit in the number of units you need to fit as
opposed
to being used to take advantage of a site condition or to provide a
benefit to the adjacent properties, and you know, that was my
understanding of the purpose of cjuster housing; and -- and it just
doesn't seem to be met. I understand your -- your concerns about,
you
know, in order to be profitable, you have to have a certain number
of
units; but I'm just not sure that reducing the setbacks and the
buffer
from what a multifamily would present is better for the adjacent
properties and that that's enough motivation to provide
cjuster-housing setbacks and reductions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems to me that the benefit
to the neighbors, to the adjacent properties, is to have the
existing
multifamily structure, even though it might not be able to be as
large
as you would want it; you might not be able to maximize the density
all the way to 16 to be able to get, you know, a pretty product
there,
but nobody ever said you were guaranteed the maximum density.
MR. VICKER: For the record my name is Kevin Vicker.
I'm representing the petitioner. I think there's some confusion on
the building setbacks. The setbacks that we are require --
requesting
are from the individual platted lots, which will be in there.
There's
all -- there's going to be a 20 -- there'll be about a 30-foot
setback
from the adjacent property owners, which would be similar in a -- a
multifamily-type role.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm seeing, on Lot 8, the back of
a structure 20 feet from the property line.
MR. VICKER: Yeah. I'd have to find out exactly what
the setbacks are for multifamily but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty-five.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thirty-five.
MR. MILK: That's 35 feet on multifamily.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Multifamily would be 35 feet
away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's a 15-foot variance, which
is real significant.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you were to reduce a couple of
your units on the interior where you have four of them inside the
cul-de-sac, if you reduce a couple of those and draw everything in
on
the perimeter and increase the landscaping, I would be more apt to
look at the reduced setback in between units. But what I'm not
willing to do is to shove these things closer to the property line
with less landscaping and granting a cjuster-housing project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it is -- it's -- the
desire to have those four lots in the center that -- it looks to me
like, just from stuff I've seen before, that if that were just a
little cul-de-sac there in the center instead of, you know, four
lots,
you'd be able to leave the setbacks at 35 feet; and then -- then
I'm
happy with your proposal.
MR. VICKER: Well, the landscaping isn't an issue. We
will increase the landscaping to what would make -- please the
board.
If it would please the board to put the 6-foot opaque hedge up,
that
would be --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But you understand, if --
if you developed without the cjustering, that would be required
anyway.
MR. VICKER: I'm saying we would add that as a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're asking for a reduced
setback and the same hedge they'd get anyway. I don't see the
benefit
external to the project other than paving a road, which you're
doing
for your own market demands anyway.
MR. VICKER: Well, you're only having a one-story
structure instead of two-story structure. The opaque -- the 6-foot
opaque would, you know, be half of -- where as a two-story
structure
is going to stick way up above that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're telling me you can't come
in here and build a two-story structure or a 35-foot height in
this?
MR. VICKER: We would make that stipulation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you also have the line
of sight, though, one story at 20 feet and two stories at 35.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two stories at 35.
MR. VICKER: Yeah. I'm saying that would -- I don't
have -- that would -- MR. THOMPSON: It seems to me that would be less of an
impact than the two-story at 35 feet, a one-story at 20.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm not going to grant the
petition the way it's presented. I -- I can't because it's not
meeting the intent of cjuster housing. It is, in fact, reducing
the
setbacks to the advantage of the property owner and to the
disadvantage of the adjacent properties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you get a response to
your earlier question or -- I don't know if it was a question, but
your comment saying taking a couple of the units out of the
cul-de-sac, moving all that south a little, and -- it kind of
brings
the -- the I think that's the northern border. You could bring
those
homes down to their 35 feet again as opposed to 20. That -- that
sounds like a great idea. I don't know if it's financially
feasible
for you all to take two out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, it's not complicated.
MR. MILK: For the record typically in Naples Park
that's all zoned RMF-6. Typically on a nonconforming lot, we use
the
RSF-6 standards for setbacks, which is 20 feet in the rear, 7 1/2
feet
on the sides, 25 feet in the front. So this is very typical to
those
developments in parameters except for the front yard, which is
going
from 20-feet setbacks to 10.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that these aren't
nonconforming lots right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. MILK: That's correct. That's correct. We're using
cjuster family development standards to -- in lieu of a multifamily
complex. In lieu of the adjacent or existing levels of service for
traffic and water and all impacts, it's a wash.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But three of us now have asked
the question about eliminating a couple of the center lots there so
that you could shift the northerly lots south about 20 feet and
leave
that 35-foot separation between your property and the northerly
boundary.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Obviously that's an area of
concern, the north property line being too close.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've got to be on the
microphone.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm going to hold this for lack of a
podium. Obviously the concern is the setback from the north
property
line. If we did rearrange our site plan so that we had a 35-foot
setback off of the north property line, would that satisfy your
concerns?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you're also adjacent to
other areas on the -- on the jog on the parcel to your right as you
look down. Aren't there -- aren't there homes adjacent to that
also?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Single-family homes --
MR. THOMPSON: Single-family homes, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on the western boundary.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My concern is the entire
perimeter, and I don't -- I don't care how you do it so much, but I
would look for a minimum 30-foot setback with the addition of that
6-foot hedge and -- from all property boundaries bordering
residential.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that you wouldn't have that
problem on your easterly boundary. You've got the lake there. MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you wouldn't have it on
southerly, because it's the road. So we're talking the north and
the
west, and I -- I would concur with that. If you had that 30 feet
even
as a setback and the 6-foot hedge, if you can redesign a site plan
to
work under those constraints, I could support that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So are -- are the board members
suggesting that they go modify this and bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I'd like to see the
plan. Rather than just initiating, you know, some -- some numbers,
I'd like to see how it lays out on paper. The two concerns I have
are
a 30-foot setback on the north and west line, property lines, and
also
increasing the buffering to include the 6-foot hedge, which would
be
typical of the multifamily. Those two things, how they parlay into
changing the site plan, I would like to see, because I -- I'm
having a
tough time visualizing it right now. And it may show that you
can't
do it if you have to remove that many units. So rather than
bringing
something you're not sure of, I'd like to continue this item for
two
weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're suggesting we
continue it for two weeks with the understanding that it won't
return
unless we have those changes.
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. That's -- that's not what
I'm doing. For fear of someone misinterpreting my position, let me
be
clear. I'm --
MR. MILK: Can I -- can I add to this just to clarify a
couple things. You were speaking of a 30-foot setback from the
northerly and westerly property boundaries --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. MILK: -- not 35?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty foot.
MR. MILK: Thirty foot?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty foot with the 6-foot
hedge.
MR. MILK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because -- again, because it's
one story --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I think 30 -- 30 foot is --
MR. MILK: All right. There's another complication to
this. We went to the Planning Commission with this particular
layout,
and they approved it subject to the approval from the board. So I
may
have to go back and present a master plan to the Planning
Commission
depending upon how drastically this changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MILK: And I -- I don't know if I can come back in
two weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me make a statement too. I
mean, conditional use takes four votes of the county commission.
There's no guarantee that you're going to get four votes if you go
modify your plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, be clear on that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's another consideration. I don't
-- what I'm saying is don't take the conversation you heard here
today as -- as passive approval.
MR. THOMPSON: I understand.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's pretty sure that if
you don't make those changes, you won't get four votes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's real for sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I'm confused about why this
one has to go back to the Planning Commission when the infamous gas
station didn't.
MR. MILK: Well, this is a plat for single-family lots
with a right-of-way, so it requires a PSP; plus there's some
exceptions that were asked for the right-of-way width and the
cul-de-sac width, so it was required to go to the Planning
Commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The gas station wasn't? I mean,
the -- it didn't go to Planning Commission at all?
MR. MILK: We're not subdividing that particular entity
yet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever process the county
attorney's office deems necessary, the -- I -- I can't even
entertain
this petition unless those -- those elements are met, the 30-foot
setback and an increased buffering, so --
MR. MILK: I just heard two weeks, and I'm not sure we
can be back in two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. How about as soon as
practically possible. If it requires readvertisement, it will be
done
so at the petitioner's cost.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you may have one other
speaker. Mr. Hobbs, are you here? Do you still wish to speak?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He is not here.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He was here at about noon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's my motion, to continue
this item with the -- the request that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To an indefinite time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To an indefinite time, that it
return with 30-foot setbacks and increased buffering to include the
6-foot hedge.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's 30 foot on the north and
the west side?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: North and west, correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But -- but I'm just
worried about that motion, because what if they come back with 29?
We
can't reconsider this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Then we reconsider it. And
I'll tell you right now, if it isn't 30, I'm not going to vote for
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the motion is just to
continue, and for the petitioners' information, that's what you'd
like
to see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please can we just make it to
continue, and that's informational --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so we don't have the gas
station.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
continue for an indefinite amount of time. All those in favor
signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought we all did this on a
regular basis.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm just a little bit
concerned about the cjuster housing and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that -- you know, we'll get our
chance to vote on it --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- when it comes back.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. I'm just concerned that
we haven't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's why I told him that --
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-446 RE PETITION V-96-15, KRISTON AND CHARLOTTE A.
KENT
REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO AN EARTHEN BERH GRADIENT OF 4:1 TO THE AS
BUILT CONDITION REPRESENTING AN ESTIMATE 1.5 TO 1 SLOPE FOR
PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6371 HUNTERS ROAD - ADOPTED. STAFF DIRECTED TO REPORT
THE
CONTRACTOR TO THE CLB
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'd close
the hearing on 13(A)(3) --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a minute. Let me take a look at
13(A)(3). I need to hear about --
HR. NINO: 13(A)(3). Ron Nino for the record in your
planning services department. It's a request to vary the gradient
the slope gradient of earthen berm by code is required to be 4 to
1.
The berm that's in place -- it was cited by the code enforcement
department; therefore, the necessity of this variance application.
The matter has gone to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission unanimously recommended to you that the as-built
condition,
which we estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 11/2 or 2 to
be approved. No person -- however the Planning Commission asked
that
-- that trees be planted along the base of the berm facing 1-75, so
the -- the recommendation is to approve the berm as built with the
addition of trees along the 1-75 base.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions, Mr. Nino.
One, this is consistent with none of the other berms along 1-757 I
see Mr. Hulhere --
MR. NINO: By my -- by my visual inspection of the
conditions along 1-75, there are other berms that are similar to
this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see Mr. Mulhere nodding in
the background as well. And, secondly, there are some unique
conditions on this property. I understand there is a lake directly
west --
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of the berm.
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was the lake dug prior to the
board amending this slope, which occurred about 2 1/2 years ago?
MR. NINO: The -- the lake goes back to the highway
construction era.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask -- let me make sure I
understand this too. Mr. Nino, it says that the -- during the
construction the contractor was sited for -- for not having the
right
slope on the berm; is that correct? MR. NINO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And he went ahead and did it anyway?
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who's the contractor?
MR. NINO: I -- the petitioner, Dr. Kent, is here. He
can probably tell you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So he knew very well that he was not
in compliance but proceeded anyway?
MR. NINO: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Kent, on the other hand,
was unaware that his contractor was doing that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Kent, could I ask you a
question if I may? If I could ask you to come to the microphone,
what
was the name of the contractor that provide -- that performed this
work?
MR. KENT: Bob McCollum (Phonetic).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob McCollum?
MR. KENT: He had -- he had built the berm at Wilshire
and is -- in fact, is building another berm at Wilshire as we -- as
we
speak.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take note of that one, folks.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This may be something that we
ought to ask Mr. Nino to refer to the contractor licensing board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to ask Dr. Kent, if I
may, were you informed at any time by the contractor or county
staff
during the construction of the berm that it was not being built to
county standards?
MR. KENT: About halfway through I -- I got a call from
Mr. Kirby and so did the contractor, and the contractor let me know
that he had gotten a call and would take care of it. He called me
back and said that everything had been taken care of. A few months
later I got a -- something from the county siting me and -- and
that,
apparently, they had been in touch several times with the
contractor
along the way but had never come back and let me know that there
was
anything else going on.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you were asked to speak to our
contractor licensing board, would you have a problem with that on
this
issue?
MR. KENT: Other than the fact that he's my next-door
neighbor as well -- this might not be pleasant, but certainly I
would
be willing to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you another question too.
You say that you were notified and -- by the county, and then you -
_
you contacted your contractor and he assured you that he had taken
care of it, but did you ever get notice from the county that
everything was corrected?
MR. KENT: At that time, no I did not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But you decided to allow the project
to proceed?
MR. KENT: No. I believed my contractor that, in fact,
he had taken care of it. I had no reason not to believe -- he,
again,
has built the berm on Wilshire. He's continuing to build. He does
a
lot of work there. He told me he knew Mr. Kirby well and that they
had had many talks and that -- that they worked together; and I had
no
reason to believe that he had not, in fact, taken care of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the reason for the
gradiation regulation? I mean, it sounds like that everybody's
happy
this is the way it's built so that it shields more noise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One word, South Hampton.
Remember when they built along Airport Road?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was that and the berm along
Quail West that caused this change in the code. Now, against 1-75
is
not such a big deal --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but when you go slapping it up
right next to an arterial roadway like South Hampton did, where the
erosion was then bleeding down onto sidewalks and into the street,
that was the reason. The gradient is for the purpose of
maintenance,
so you can properly maintain it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Against 1-75 it should be thank
you very much for doing it so that the residences on the other side
of
the berm are protected from that noise.
MR. NINO: May I take the opportunity to -- to advise
you that the Planning Commission took up that issue of what should
be
the appropriate berm grading along Interstate 75 and moved to
recommend to this board the LDC be amended to provide for a
different
berm gradient along 1-75. This -- in their opinion, the conditions
warrant a more effective blockage of views and noise from 1-75.
For
what that's worth, I just wanted to tell you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, do you concur with the
presentation that we've heard here today that -- that the
contractor
was sited or do you have knowledge of this and that -- that the
contractor proceeded anyway even after being sited? Do you know if
that's --
MR. NINO: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's your understanding?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is -- I asked about the lake
on the west side. It's my understanding that might interfere with
trying to build something to a 4-to-1 slope anyway.
MR. NINO: Very definitely. That -- that lake is very
deep, contrary to what I'd expressed earlier. I thought it was a
shallow excavation, but we didn't have the benefit of these plans
at
the time. And the doctor has produced these detailed plans that
shows
the lake specs, which is within, perhaps, 5 feet of the total of
the
berm with the gradient that now characterizes it. So it would be a
considerable expense to reclaim sufficient horizontal distance to
have
changed that condition. So in your first question, yes, I think
there
are pecuniary difficulties here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. KENT: Another thing about that if I may speak just
a moment. Because 1-75 sits 8 to 10 feet above the existing land
unlike on Airport and other -- other places like that. In order to
get enough heighth, this -- this berm itself is still -- you can
see
the tractor trailer trucks go by and can hear them. But to get
high
enough would, in fact, take almost a half, if not more, of a lot, a
2 1/2-acre lot, in that area to make it wide enough -- to make it
high
enough for a 4-to-1 slope. You'd basically take a lot out. And no
one's going to buy a lot and build a -- just to build a berm on, so
it
is a unique situation, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that this is an
appropriate variance to grant and also to -- to thank the Planning
Commission for their recommendation and encourage staff to come up
with some different regulations for property adjacent -- abutting
1-75.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will the motion maker include
direction to staff to -- whether the appropriate avenue be
contractor
licensing board or not, I don't know. But when we have a local
contractor --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that -- okay. I think action
needs to be taken regarding Mr. McCollum's role in this, and the
Contractor Licensing Board should -- should address that.
MR. MULHERE: We'll make sure that gets done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the motion also
contemplates Planning Commission's recommendation on the trees.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
MR. KENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, until we make the changes
in the code, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I realize it's moot at
this point --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It passed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because it passed 4 to 1.
The other reason -- I probably should have stated this -- was the
unique hardship created by the land. You couldn't possibly have a
4-to-1 slope on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I'm just trying to be
consistent with my variance votes.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 96-447 RE PETITION CU-94-7, DAVID S. WILKISON
REPRESENTING
JAMES P. LENNANE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF
THE
"RSF-5" ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR CjustER HOUSING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NEAR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BAYSHORE ROAD AND THOMASSON
DRIVE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13(B)(1), Petition CU-94-7. Now, this
is a -- a different cjuster-housing proposal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is merely an extension
of an existing conditional use?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is an example of, I think, of
more of what Commissioner Hancock was talking about. Because of
the
environmental concerns on the land, you -- you cjuster the houses
some other portion. This is just the opposite of the one we saw
before.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, primarily they did the cjusters to
take advantage of the large reserve area that's to the rear of the
property.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is exactly why we should
encourage it, so if there --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. This is my
understanding of cjuster housing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Commissioner Matthews, anything further?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only three items. I have
nothing else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
Item #15A
COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING OFF-SHORE OIL EXPLORATION - COUNTY
ATTORNEY
DIRECTED TO AUTHOR LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM BCC
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I sent you a memo a week or so ago in
regard to the S.S. Minnow or some boat thereabouts that was going
to
do some magnetometer soundings along the entire --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- gulf coast. And as I mentioned to you,
they were asking if that kind of operation, just magnetometer
soundings well off the coast all along the coast in the gulf, would
be
any problem with our Growth Hanangement Plan; and the answer is no.
We do not have to respond to them if we don't want to as far as
that
kind of an answer. I didn't know if -- if the commission wanted
the
county attorney to file any kind of response or consensus
indication
from you all in regard to those kinds of studies that they do off
the
coast concerning oil exploration.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would rather not make a
response from the county attorney's office, because that may imply
some foregoing of a legal position later. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Passive approval?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's what I meant to
say. So I -- MR. WEIGEL: I was thinking about a negative response,
not a positive response.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's just what I was wondering.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we tell them we think
it's a horrible idea?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is just for the purpose
of oil exploration off the coast?
MR. WEIGEL: It's the study to see if there's -- the
conditions underneath the bottom would show that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I -- I had it
reversed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would as soon they not even do
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. WEIGEL: Those evil oil men.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Negative approval from the
board then. How's that?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll send a transmittal that indicates that
kind of a consensus. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, anything else?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Matthews,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
CASH BOND ACCEPTED AS SURETY FOR WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR
PIPER
BOULEVARD MEDICAL CENTER - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PORTOFINO AT PELICAN
HARSH
- WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3 - Withdrawn
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-437 RE PETITION AV-96-018, AUTHORIZATION FOR
RECORDING
THE FINAL PLAT OF "CROWN POINTE VILLAS" AND VACATING THOSE LANDS
PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AS TRACTS J1, J3 AND J4, WEST CROWN POINTE,
PHASE
ONE
See Pages
Item #16A5
CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT 94-2271 BETWEEN PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS,
INC.
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,000.00 TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AS REQUIRED BY
ORDINANCE
See Pages
Item #16A6
CASH BOND ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR WATER FACILITIES FOR RAVENNA AT
PELICAN HARSH - WITH STIPULATIONS
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A7 - Moved to Item #9B
Item #16B1
AWARD A CONTRACT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC., FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF
A LANDSCAPE HEDGE ALONG PINE RIDGE ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD
DIRECTION OF APRIL 9, 1996 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,565.00
Item #1682
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROVAL FOR SOLID WASTE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - IN
THE
AMOUNT OF $180,000.00
Item #1683
ACCEPTANCE OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF WESTLAKE
GARDEN
VILLAS NO. 2 TO MAINTAIN THE STORHWATER DRAINAGE OUTFALL - WITH
STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #1684 - This item has been deleted
Item #1685
RESOLUTION 96-438 AUTHORIZING THE LELY AREA STORHWATER IMPROVEMENT
FACT
SHEET AND THE EXPENDITURE OF WATER MANAGEMENT CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE
PRINTING OF SAID FACT SHEET TO BE SENT TO ALL THE REGISTERED VOTERS
WITHIN THE LELY BASIN AREA
See Pages
Item #1686
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH WCI COHMUNITIES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP RELATING TO COUNTY'S CONSTRUCTION OF VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD
FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #1687
AUTHORIZATION TO REIMBURSE MEMBERS OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH
RENOURISHHENT ADVISORY COHMITTEE FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,072.00
Item #1688
CHANGE ORDER #1 RELATED TO THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT PROCESSING TANKS REPAIR
See Pages
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES
THAT
ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET
Item #16D2
SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D3
RENEW THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRAM - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16D4
REJECT BID #96-2554 FOR BERH MAINTENANCE AND TO BE RE-BID
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-439 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY
AFFAIRS
AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D6
PAYMENT OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIM
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEE TO TISCHLERAND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT
OF
$46,900.00
Item #16El
APPROVAL OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES EASEMENT FOR EVERGLADES
AIRPARK
See Pages
Item #16E2
APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS
CONTAINED
IN THE AGREEMENT WITH GARY L. HOYER, P.A., TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENT
CONTRACT MANAGER SERVICES FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Item #16E3 - Withdrawn
Item #16E4 - Withdrawn
Item #16E5 - Withdrawn
Item #16E6 - Withdrawn
Item #16E7
EXECUTION OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMIT
APPLICATION TO PROVIDE BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE PELICAN
BAY
SERVICES DIVISION FROM VANDERBILT BEACH SOUTH TO CLAM PASS
See Pages
Item #16E8
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-598 AND 96-609
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 REAL PROPERTY
No. Date
251-95 8/2/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of
County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments
as
indicated:
Item #1611
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIXEL & HAGUIRE AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT THE COUNTY ON ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL
SITES AND IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE NEW
COLLIER
COUNTY LANDFILL
See Pages
Item #1612
SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR WEST CD-ROH LIBRARIES WITH WESTLAW ACCESS
FOR
THE PURCHASE OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ON CD-ROH
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:51 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
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 Barbara Drescher