BCC Minutes 08/13/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call to order the Board of County
Commissioners this 13th day of August 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you
lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning for this opportunity for our community to bring its business
before its people. Father, as always it's our prayer this morning
that you would bless our meeting here today, that you would guide the
hand of the county commission as they make these important decisions.
We give thanks for our families today who support us and the hard work
of our staff who support and make our jobs easier as part of Collier
County government. We give thanks especially for the people of
Collier County today, Father, and ask that you bless this time
together, and we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, I see we have some
changes to our agenda and some changes to the changes.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know which is longer, the
agenda or the change list.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, good morning. We have
almost a whole page of changes to the agenda. I'll go through these
as quickly as I can.
We have a number of add-on items this morning. I can
tell you that the preponderance of these are routine and in
recognition of your -- your short recess for water facilities and
subdivision-related reviews and approvals in order to effectuate
closings. These are under community development of which there are
three. Item 8(A)(1) is a water facilities acceptance for the Golden
Gate Estates Community Park. 8(A)(2) is a water and sewer facilities
acceptance for Quail Woods Courtyards. Item 8(A)(3) is the
recommendation to accept and approve the final plat of Quail Wood
Courtyards.
Then under public works I have item 8(B)(5), which is a
report and resolution authorizing the county manager to enter into a
permanent agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for
certain landscape improvements along 951 at the approach to the Marco
River Bridge.
Item 8(C)(1) under public services is a request to
provide certain funding for park improvements and renovations to
Everglades City. Under merchants -- or sports services, 8(E)(4) --
I'm sorry, that will be under the executive office report. 8(E)(4) is
the preliminary report on development service fees associated with the
tentative budget.
8(E)(5) is the preliminary and feasibility report for
the interim service fee.
Item 10(D) is the final add-on item, and that is a
request by Commissioner Mac'Kie for the board to reconsider at a
future date petition A-96-1.
I have several items that are being requested to be --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea what
A-96-1 was?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boat dock variance in Bonita
Shores.
MR. DORRILL: In Bonita Shores, Little Hickory, there
was a -- I have a request to continue. Under public works Item
8(B)(4) will be rescheduled at a future date. There's no specific
time on the recommendation that the board consider a resolution to
repeal a parking prohibition along County Road 29 on the approach to
Chokoloskee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is the -- what's the reason we
want to make these continuances?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I talked with the mayor
yesterday, and he has asked that -- to give him some time to work out
a few details on this and to continue it until the next meeting
really. That's not an indefinite continuance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you're saying the September
the 3rd meeting?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two, three weeks?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you would relay to them that
I'd really like that and get that resolved -- that issue's been
floating out there way too long, so I don't think I'll entertain
another continuance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. There's several different
factions that need to come together on it.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we'd like to continue also
for three weeks under advertised public hearings Item 12(C)(6). This
is the new county ordinance as it pertains to backflow prevention.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the commission boardroom.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also known as the Carl Loveday
ordinance.
MR. DORRILL: And then, Mr. Chairman, on your consent
agenda this morning we're requesting also to continue until September
the 3rd Item 16(C)(5) under public services, which is a recommendation
to approve the limited-use agreement for the Lake Avalon Regional Park
for the fireworks presentation, be continued until your first meeting
in September.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's -- there's another item,
Mr. Dotrill, on the consent agenda dealing with the international
fireworks. Should we continue that along with this one?
MR. DORRILL: I'm looking to Mr. Olliff to see here --
MR. OLLIFF: No.
MR. DORRILL: He's indicating no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No?
MR. DORRILL: That one can stay on.
Mr. Chairman, I have one agenda note today for the
purposes of the reporter. It is requested that Item 10(B) under the
Board of County Commissioners as it pertains to providing some
clarifications and a resolution associated with the jail expansion and
the work detention center be heard as close to 11:30 a.m. this morning
as possible.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, anything further?
MR. WEIGEL: Just one small thing, and that is in regard
to 16(B)(4), consent agenda, is a request to waive the competitive bid
policy and authorize the staff to go forward with the contract. I
would request that the record reflect that the board in making such
authorization reflected and recognizes emergency.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one note, and that's Item
16(A)(13) refers to County Road 846, and then is known as Radio Road.
I'd like to show that Radio Road is not County Road 846. I'm not sure
what the route number is but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably just strike 846.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Something. But anyway just to
let the record know that -- show that Immokalee Road is 846. Radio
Road is something else. We need to know which of these two roads is
the correct one.
MR. ARNOLD: Radio Road.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Radio Road is the correct one?
What's that route number; do you know, Tom? MR. CONRECODE: 856.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And then I had one item
that I would like to move from the consent agenda, and that's
16(E)(6), and that's a discussion of the Clam Bay restoration plan.
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Under 107
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Item -- we're going to make that
8(E) what?
MR. DORRILL: I didn't hear the last thing you said.
Was it Clam Bay?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's 16(E)(6). It's
authorization to procure the services of a company for Clam Bay
restoration.
MR. DORRILL: That will be 8 (E)(5).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 8 (E)(5).
MR. DORRILL: No, 8(E) (6). I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's the only
thing I have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about 16(D)(5)?
COHMISSlONER HANCOCK: 16(E)(6) was moved to 8(E)(6).
Do I have that correct, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The item I would like -- and just
-- just to answer a question -- but we'll have to move it off -- is
Item 16(C)(4) regarding license fee policy for county parks, just a
couple quick questions on that, and then we'll be done with it.
16(C) (4) now becomes --
MR. DORRILL: (C) (2) , 8 (C) (2) .
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all.
MR. DORRILL: I'm waiting for somebody in the audience
to yell bingo.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It does sound like that, doesn't
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have
anything else?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on -- let's see,
it's 16(A)(18). I don't want to move it, but I just wonder if we
might get a report at some point from Mr. Dotrill about those lovely
boxes they're building down there at that intersection and -- and what
has happened about the Toys R Us and Sports Authority.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I took my blood pressure
medication this morning. I'll be all right.
MR. DORRILL: We can do that interoffice. And they are
within 30 days of proposing some architectural review-type standards
for commercial activity centers and that specific type of retail store
in particular.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything good to report
about those two particular buildings?
MR. DORRILL: I think there is on the Toys R Us
building. I have not yet made personal contact with the Sports
Authority, but I will tell you that the Toys R Us people have been
fairly cooperative in going considerably beyond the landscape code in
order to satisfy this county, and I -- I think that we'll continue to
work with them on that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sports Authority, on the other
hand, just failed to respond to a second call of mine. The document
the county manager referred to right now is approximately 30 pages.
It is not an architectural review board. It is commercial design
standards Joe McHarris and Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere have all been
working on. We've had a meeting on the first draft. The second
district association is going to organize a town hall meeting to
present it to the public in September in concert with our staff.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That sounds good.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all for me.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to
have no changes this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a motion then?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve
the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second to approve the
agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, it looks
like you have some service awards.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do, indeed. We have two
service awards this morning. First we have from road and bridge Don
Olson who has been with us for ten years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There he is.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just commenting on the
chairs. We were saying we're going to have a wedding here later.
And for 15 years with us, Harry Huber.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd think after all that time
at the beach, you'd have a deep tan.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's not sunning, though. He's
picking up rocks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly.
Under employee recognitions you may recall you had an employee
severely injured in an accident about two weeks ago and was in
intensive care for a brief period of time and is going to have some
fairly long orthopedic and plastic surgery skin grafting recovery, but
he's okay. A number of us have been to visit him at the hospital.
The -- he's been with the county about 15 years, and it appears that
he's going to be okay, Mr. Hamm with road and bridge. And I just
wanted to report that to you briefly this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: He's still in the hospital, though.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #5C1
NELDA DYSON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next presentation is our employee
of the month. Is Nelda Dyson in here this morning? Nelda? There you
are. Nelda, if you'd come up and stand over here and face the camera
where people can see you at home, we get to embarrass you here a
little bit.
Nelda's been employed by Collier County for almost nine
years with -- with five years at the landfill scalehouse. She handles
customers with diplomacy and professionalism and goes beyond her
normal duties to keep the department running smoothly. She makes
suggestions for cost-saving improvements with safety and security in
mind. Without any reservations she was nominated and selected as
employee of the month for August 1996.
Nelda, I have a little letter here for your file. It
says, It is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as
Collier County's employee of the month for August 1996. This
well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the
county through your work in the support services division of the
department of revenue. This honor includes an exceptional performance
plaque as well as a $50 cash award, which I am proud to present to
you.
On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer
our sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your
dependability and dedication. Nelda.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the $50 check. Thank you.
Item #7A
JOHN PRICE REPRESENTING THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION REGARDING
THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND BOOT DRIVE
Okay. Our first item is a public petition, John Price
representing Muscular Dystrophy Association. Mr. Price, our public
petition policy is to give you 10 minutes to present your case. The
board is unlikely to take any action today.
MR. PRICE: Thank you, Chairman Morris -- Norris. I'm
going to pass these down. Make sure that each member receive a copy
of that.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John
Price, district director with the Muscular Dystrophy Association of
Southwest Florida. I'm here to petition the board regarding the
restrictions on solicitation in Collier County. For years, for over
40 years, firefighters around the country have done boot drives on
behalf of Muscular Dystrophy, and they have done these boot drives, I
should say, as volunteers. They have not been paid by Muscular
Dystrophy to do this. And over the years they have raised millions of
dollars for Muscular Dystrophy making them our number one fund-raising
group.
For members of the commission who are not familiar or
have not had the opportunity to address the particular issue of
solicitation by firefighters in Collier County, I'd like to give just
a brief history, and for time limitations I'll just hit the high
points. In 1992 the commission made an interpretation of Florida
State traffic law, and the interpretation was made by court -- code
enforcement director Dick Clark. In 1992 it was our opinion that it
was wrongly interpreted that the Florida traffic law Chapter 316.130
regarding people soliciting a ride, employment, or business from the
occupant of any vehicle including soliciting for nonprofit groups.
And our main disagreement is with Mr. Clark's opinion written to
Sheriff Don Hunter at the time when he stated, Logic indicates that
soliciting money is certainly business if it is for profit or non --
not for profit. And as I mentioned previously, firefighters do this
all over the country.
We, a few years ago, ran into a similar situation in Lee
County, and that's why I provided you the folder which includes on the
blue copy the code changes. And I'll read: The charitable
organizations desiring to use county road right-of-ways to solicit
charitable contributions from the occupants of vehicles located on
county roads must obtain a permit by following the procedures set out
in the code. And some of those procedures are they must prove that
they are an IRS 501-C-3, and they must also provide a right-of-way
plan, maps and so forth, and that this cannot go on no longer than a
four-day period.
Upon further review of the Florida law regarding
solicitation of funds, we looked at 496.414, Section 11, which
specifically allows firefighters to solicit on behalf of 501-C-3
charities such as HDA. And that is why we contend that, as was
previously decided by the commission, we feel that this should be
changed to allow firefighters to again go out on the streets of
Collier County to solicit for HDA.
And this commission in the past has expressed three
specific areas that they have a problem with the firefighters
soliciting; number one, unidentifiable groups soliciting. Well, by
following the restrictions used in Lee County, an enforceable
guideline could be in place to eliminate road groups or unidentified
groups or individuals from soliciting without permission.
Firefighters have followed the restrictions placed on them in Lee
County to the letter, and we've had no problems whatsoever in Lee
County.
Number two, safety. Of all the groups out there,
firefighters know safety better than anyone. Who's the first on the
scene of an accident, the firefighters. And also I should add in the
40 years that we have been doing firefighter boot drives, there have
never once been an accident with a firefighter being hit by a car or
causing any traffic problems, which leads me to the third point, and
that's liability. In this day and age you all know, especially well
with city, state, and state -- state governments, that liability is a
key issue. And this is where there's been the biggest change from the
last times we've appeared before this commission.
Also in the folder you will find a memo from John
McCormick (phonetic), the ADFO with Muscular Dystrophy, that has
mentioned that the International Association of Firefighters are now
named on our insurance to cover events such as these boot drives,
which answers any questions you might have regarding liability. And
the county can rest a little easier knowing that HDA will cover these
boot drives for these firefighters.
In conclusion, I would like for the committee -- and I
realize that there cannot be a decision made today, and you all are
going to be on vacation for the next two weeks -- to take a deep look
at this issue again. I know you've looked at it before, but the
firefighters are one of our top groups, and today we have with us Pete
DiMaria, who is with the Naples firefighters, and they are this year
going to do a boot drive in the City of Naples. They're going to be
doing it over a three-weekend period. In fact, the city manager will
be participating, and they expect a hundred percent participation with
all the firefighters. They are a hundred percent behind HDA as well
as are all the fire departments and union firefighters in Collier
County. So they would like to see this change as well so they could
help us so in turn we can help the people we serve in Collier County
with our local clinic, with wheelchair assistance, and also looking
towards finding a cure. And without our number-one source of income,
the firefighter boot drives, we can't move forward on those things.
And with that I will turn it over to you for any questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. For those board members
who weren't on the board when this board policy was made, this is a
board policy that we don't have solicitors in county right-of-way. It
was instituted because we had a problem with -- with some unauthorized
solicitation going on and complaints from citizens that there was --
there was too much solicitation going on. In the interest of fairness
and equal application of county policy, it was decided a couple of
years back that we would apply it to all organizations equally and
fairly, and that's where we are today. Any questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just if memory serves me
correctly, the Naples Daily News was one of those who said if we went
so far as to allow the firefighters, then they should be able to have
their vendors hawking in the middle of the road as well. And it
wasn't so much the Naples Daily but where did we go from there. If
you go over to Lauderdale and Hiami, you have people selling flowers
and everything else in the middle of the road. I think the idea was
to stop that. Before we tried then, and I don't know if there's a
mechanism to get around it now, but what we tried then was to find
something specific --
MR. PRICE: Well, and I think Lee County had that same
thought when they put the process in motion that anyone to go out on
the street corners on major thoroughfares have to go through the
permitting process, and it's -- it's a pretty thorough process. You
have to go to the sheriff's department. You have to go to the street,
transportation department. They all have to sign off on this. And
you have to give the flow of traffic charts and forth. It's not just
a harry-carry situation. It's just -- and especially when you deal
with the firefighters, this is a volunteer group. This is not someone
who is trying to make a dollar on the street, and I think a lot of the
situation -- I don't know how often you all are approached about
this. It's pretty obvious, based on Chairman Norris's explaining
this, you probably have not approached this situation in the last
couple of years. So outside the firefighters, I don't know how many
other groups will approach you to go out on the street and solicit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly the problem, Mr.
Price. If this were just about HDA, it would be a very easy
decision. But when the board last discussed this -- and I monitored
it when it was going through -- in essence, there was kind of a veiled
threat that if you allow 501-C-3s out there, you open the floodgates
to a lot of others. Even though Lee County has done this successfully
-- I guess the Fort Myers News-Press hasn't challenged them to hawk
on the medians. But if I remember, it was kind of an all or nothing
-- there was actually threat of litigation from the paper on this
that if you allowed any, you have to allow all and that they were
using a free-speech argument in some strange form and threatened to
spend county tax dollars defending, you know, that position.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I could just say,
nevertheless, I'd like to ask Mr. Cautero to give his interpretation,
since we have a new division administrator, and I'd like to have the
county attorney research whether or not we -- we could --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, before we do that why don't we
find out if we have board support to do that at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you don't mind if I finish --
Mr. Norris, I'm sure you didn't mean to interrupt me, but -- if we
would allow the county attorney to give us some advice on whether or
not the newspaper or others would have -- would have the right to
object to this, because this is such a worthwhile cause that's done,
you know, well in lots of other communities. And we talk a lot in
this -- on this board about letting private -- you know, private
charities take care of the needs in this community, and we're sort of
standing in their way. So I -- I wish we could at least get some
advice from our staff and, frankly, ask them to inquire of the Naples
Daily News if they're going to fuss about this again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The very -- very question
Commissioner Hac'Kie's raising was the one I had in mind. I wanted to
know from Mr. Weigel; is there anything in the last 2, 2 1/2 years in
the case law that we discussed this in the case law or what have you
that you're aware of right now that might alter our decision from 2
1/2 years ago?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so, and Mr. Hanalich has
researched the matter to provide any additional information in
response to today. If I may, I'd like for him to respond further to
you.
MR. HANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners, Ramiro
Hanalich for the county attorney for the record. Commissioner Norris
has correctly described the history of this two years ago. It is
possible that we could look into what Lee County has done as to
whether you can carve out a general for charitable organizations type
of limited window here. However, we based this prohibition, which is
now ordinance which is applicable to all groups of any kind within the
roadways, in a manner that would most insure you from any attack on
equal protection or a content based-type regulation. Now, we can
certainly look at what Lee County has done, see if there is a rational
basis for that distinction, if that's your direction.
It appeared at the time that this was presented to the
board two years ago that a policy choice was made that the interests
of safety were to be paramount, and for that reason, you know, all
groups would be treated the same. It was also -- our ordinance is
based on Hillsborough County's which had the exact same total
prohibition and had withstood judicial challenge.
If you were to explore some type of exception for
charitable organizations as a whole, first of all, you could not
single out any one charitable organization. It had to be applicable
to all. And, secondly, you probably need to look at some type of
insurance and/or indemnification and other time, place, and manner
restrictions as to how the activity would be conducted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that still leaves -- I'm
sorry. But that still leaves the question, if I'm not mistaken when I
monitored this, that the all-or-nothing argument that was more or less
proposed by the paper left us open, the county attorney's office felt
at that time, to a legal challenge on discriminating on not-for-profit
versus profit-making ventures and could we discriminate and that hold
up under challenge.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hope the newspaper reports
tomorrow that, you know, the Board of County Commissioners is
interested in allowing charity to collect, you know, funds in the
street, but because of the interference of the Naples Daily News we're
afraid to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure that's exactly how
it will read.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Headline.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there are three other
commissioners who want to do that, I don't have any objection to us
looking. I just hate to have us go through the exact same exercise we
did two years ago and use up our staff time doing it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's poll the board and see if
there's any --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question -- before you
do that, quick question for Mr. Weigel. I don't recall us doing the
following, and that is some of the things we allow in the county we
allow only a temporary permit for. For example, yard sales or those
type things, you can only be issued a couple a year, if I recall
correctly.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps there's a way to have
this type of activity but only done in a temporary manner so that if
it's one weekend a year or something, that's fine. And that way if
the newspaper or someone wants to go do it once a year, they could.
But they'd be under the same rules everyone else would.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have that wording -- under
number three where it says the permit may be issued for no more than
one continuous four-day period, I inserted each calendar year and
shall permit solicitation only during daylight hours. That means if
the paper wants to hawk for four days out of the year, they can.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I support --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Based on that I'd like to have
staff take a look at it again to see if there is a way to work it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. With that insertion in the
language, I'd like to know are we opening ourselves up to legal
challenge, and if we are and we have to spend tax dollars to defend
it, then I'm afraid I'm not interested. But I need that question
answered before I can say yea or nay.
MR. HANALICH: I think it's conceivable anytime you draw
distinctions you could have an equal protection-type challenge.
However, it appears that Lee County, I am told, has undertaken this
analysis and apparently has found a theory under which they can
defend. But obviously anytime you draw a distinction, the question --
the litigation could arise. Now, perhaps we can defend it. We'll
have to see if we can report back to you if we believe that is a
defensible distinction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my question. I need to
know if it's defensible, otherwise we're back in the same boat we were
previously. And at that point I think it was determined that what was
presented was not defensible.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you suggesting then that we give
staff direction to do that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's three, so we have three
to direct you to bring back a report at some future commission date.
Thank you, Mr. Price.
MR. PRICE: Thank you so much for allowing me to come
today.
MR. HANALICH: What we do know at this point is that
what we have currently drafted is fully defensible because a court
approved it. This we can analyze.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to look at the Lee
County language with that one insertion. That may determine whether
or not that is legally defensible.
MR. HANALICH: Very well.
Item #8A1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR ESTATES COHMUNITY PARK A/K/A MAX
HASSE, JR. COHMUNITY PARK - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item is add-on 8(A)(1).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: These are -- these are ordinary
MR. DORRILL: It's all routine. The documents were
received and have been reviewed and approved by the county -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve Item 8(A)(1).
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for 8(A)(1). All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WOODS COURTYARDS -
APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion to approve Item 8(A)(2). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
8(A)(2). All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #8A3
REQUEST TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WOODS COURTYARDS" - APPROVED
WITH STIPULATIONS
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve item 8(A)(3).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
8(A)(3). All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #SB1
REPORT REGARDING THE USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
- PRESENTED
Next item is 8(B)(1), report regarding the use of inmate
labor in road maintenance activities.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. I apologize
for being out of pocket at the time that this issue arose. Perhaps
you could give me a little bit of background, Mr. County Manager, so
that I'll make sure that I'm on the right track with my presentation
this morning.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I sort of brought it up,
so I'll be happy to. We have a Hendry County work agreement on the
consent agenda and -- and that apparently is something that's annually
done, and it's rather routine to approve it. And I'd just asked the
question: Are we utilizing -- are we maximizing the opportunity to
have sentenced inmates in Collier County work for the public? MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you identify yourself for the
record, please.
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. Captain Greg Smith. I'm jail
administrator of Collier County. Cer -- I'm prepared to answer that
question this morning. Certainly this is an area where a lot of
research -- where a lot of foresight has been exercised. As far back
as 1991 and '92, the county manager in conjunction with Sheriff Hunter
has looked for ways that we can utilize the resource of inmate labor
to reduce budgets within Collier County to provide services and
thereby holding the line on costs. Unfortunately, you have to -- you
have to decide -- or not decide, but you have to draw a line as far as
what you're able to provide and weigh that against the protection that
you -- you ultimately have to provide the public. Some of these
inmates who we confine in the jail don't meet a criteria that you'd
want them out there in the public sector working, and certainly that
has been approached.
It -- it all boils down to the fact that our inmate
population doesn't lend itself to -- to a great deal of this type of
resource. We did a snapshot of our inmate profile on August 7th which
yielded the information contained in the executive summary. Of 515
inmates 102 were found to be sentenced, and of those 102, 81 were
disqualified by reason of the criteria that has been established to
select trustees. That left us with 35 inmates and 61 jobs in-house
that we must fill to keep the jail running in its day-to-day
operations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Captain Smith, when you talk
about trustees, that's not only just those who can work, but they can
earn different privileges and -- is that right? Can you explain to me
what trustee status is?
MR. SMITH: Okay. Trustee status by statutory
definition is an inmate who doesn't require constant visual
surveillance of a staff member. They are in a relaxed custody
setting. They really -- and they're eligible for gain time for work
credits. That -- that's a statutory definition of a trustee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any circumstance --
and you guys know what it takes to supervise these people better than
we do. Is there any circumstance in which out of these examples
you've laid out here with -- with drug treatment and sexually-related
violent crime and so on, is there any circumstance in which it is cost
efficient to put those people to work even with the supervision even
if it's not necessarily on a road network but somewhere put them to
work?
MR. SMITH: It all -- it all boils down to at what point
do you want to -- to reach the conclusion that these people shouldn't
be granted an access that would allow an avenue of escape or further
harm to society. You have to also understand that an inmate would
much rather work than sit in a cell. So those who have committed, you
know, more severe crimes by making them sit in a cell all day and
reflect and maybe ruminate on what they've done, you know, is -- is
much more punitive than giving them the luxury of going out for a --
for a daily activity such as work. We have to make the determination,
we as criminal justice practitioners, of what inmate group is likely
to be successful at that endeavor and which inmates may by virtue of
their nature compound the problem even greater -- to a greater
degree. I hope that answered your question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in your opinion, it would be
difficult, if not potentially dangerous, to expand the work program
beyond what you have now because you may, in fact, be putting people
that are at significant risk of escape in positions where that's
possible?
MR. SMITH: I think that the -- the parameters that have
been drawn up that have been formulated and adopted by the sheriff as
his policy in making the determinations on who's eligible to work and
who is not, I think that lends the public a great deal of security.
And I think that if we go beyond that criteria, then that possibility
heightens.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I assume the sheriff's office
is committed to turning whatever possible inmates that are available
for labor into just that?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. If I could give you a little bit
of history on that, currently we have 61 jobs that we have to fill in
order to keep our facilities running and 35 sentenced inmates to do
that, so we have a shortfall. We fill that with presentenced inmate
volunteers. You can't, you know, compel a nonsentenced prisoner to
work, yet they can volunteer for that. We've taken those volunteers
that also meet the qualifications for trustee, and we've injected them
into that work force. We have 22 kitchen positions that we fill on a
daily basis. These positions are a part of the contract negotiations
with our food service provider. If we were not to fill those
positions and couldn't supply that inmate labor, our -- our food costs
would skyrocket. We -- we utilize 11 inmates in jail maintenance to
keep the floors cleaned, to provide painting and other janitorial
services. We use three inmates at the Collier County Sheriff's Office
garage to do light mechanic work such as changing oil and rotating
tires. We use six inmates in laundry. We use one as a librarian, and
we currently have a -- a brand new range, thanks to the commission,
that we maintain fully with inmate labor.
Our year -- our yearly -- our estimated yearly savings
to the taxpayers by utilization of the labor we have in place is
$680,843.56, and that's using the wages -- the wage figures
established by Florida Job Services when you look at those types of
jobs. So certainly we -- we do have a history of -- of holding the
line on costs by utilization of inmate labor. It's my personal wish
that we could do more along those lines. And certainly as -- as our
population continues to change, we -- we monitor it quite closely.
And in several discussions that I've had with the county manager, when
it gets to a point in time where we can successfully commit those type
of resources and get that kind of program established, we certainly
intend to move forward with that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I had -- I had one question
just for Mr. Smith. I know the legislature has dealt with the same
issue, and they're trying to resolve the security issue by requiring
prisoners to be shackled in groups of five. I don't know where the
county jail administrator is in addressing the security issue. Can
you shackle county inmates for the purposes of road crews or road
gangs? Do we have that same line available to us, and would that be
something that we could do a little different to reduce the oppressive
security costs? I don't know what the administrative code allows for
that.
MR. SMITH: That's something that's currently under --
under review as -- as you alluded to. The nature of -- of chain gangs
is currently heavily scrutinized by people in the criminal justice
field. One of the recent revisions that I've read said that you can
no longer chain a group of inmates together. They must be chained
separately. That -- that arose out of an incident that occurred in
the State of Alabama, which was one of the first in the nation to
reinstitute chain gangs. They have now departed from that totally.
In fact, that's my understanding that the gentleman who developed the
idea is no longer employed by the State of Alabama. So, you know, we
have to be quite careful when we -- when we go out there and we find
programs to bring back and copy that we're not setting ourself up for
a failure. And I think in this regard we need to move slowly, and we
need to make sure that we're not placing the public at risk or the
county in an area of increased liability. MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Captain Smith.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
Item #8B2
AMENDMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PATHWAY WORK PROGRAM FOR COMHISSION
DISTRICT 2, FY 1995-96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(2), an amendment to
the Collier County pathway work program.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board
members. Agenda Item 8(B)(2) involves a recommendation from staff to
amend the program for District 2 involving pathways and sidewalks.
Specifically it involves the sidewalks that are proposed for Victoria
Park along Nottingham. And the sidewalk program there is one in which
it's planned to get under construction and be in place to serve the
Pelican Marsh school when it opens this year in a few weeks.
The agenda item is -- is somewhat straightforward in
that the residents within Victoria Park have petitioned very heavily
to see if the staff could design a concrete sidewalk in lieu of an
asphalt sidewalk. We have had a series of meetings with the different
associations, and those meetings indicated that not only would the
asphalt be much, much cheaper, but there would -- there may be, in
fact, a large differential in cost.
The good news I have to report to you today is that by
changing the design, providing for a 4-foot concrete walk versus a
5-foot asphalt walk, the cost now is cheaper for the concrete than it
is for the -- the asphalt itself. What staff is recommending as a
result of that change in price is requesting the board to approve the
amendments that would allow us to reallocate dollars between the three
projects that are identified in District 2 to allow us to allocate
from an amount of about 8,000 to an amount of -- of $24,900 for that
bike path project within Victoria Park.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Archibald, why did we start
out with about 5 feet of asphalt if 4 feet of sidewalk is cheaper? I
mean, what were the advantages of the 5-foot asphalt?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Typically in the particular location we
had, we're attempting to install a sidewalk where, in fact, people
have done quite a lot of landscaping, so the issue was whether or not
we could design one where equipment could very easily and economically
place the new sidewalk. The advantages of going to the difference in
width, the 4 feet versus the 5 feet, provides a little less of a
pathway, but in the particular location we have it's ending up being
cheaper because, in fact, it's going to have to be placed mostly by
hand whether it's asphalt or concrete. So because we couldn't get a
piece of equipment in there to place the asphalt, then we're not only
recommending to the board that we use concrete but, in fact, comply
with the wishes of the association.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Archibald, you mentioned
that the concrete is a lower price than -- than the asphalt, but our
material doesn't reflect that. Is this information that has come
forward since this was developed?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. The actual bids came about late
last week after we had submitted the agenda item, and I'll be glad to
give you the -- the low price on both options. The low price on the
concrete was $21,950. The low price on the asphalt was $25,376. So
staff is asking that we approve the low bid proposal from Varian
Construction and, of course, process the budget amendments that will
allow the funding for that to occur.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. There are two; Mr. Whittenhall,
he will be first. And then, Ms. Warnken, if I could have you stand
by.
MR. WHITTENHALL: Good morning. For the record my name
is Joel Whittenhall. I'm a resident of Victoria Park. And first of
all, I'd like to thank Tom Conrecode for his constant updates to me as
well as the association on this issue. We are very pleased that we
are going to be able to have concrete sidewalks rather than the
asphalt. That's what we wanted all along.
We also feel as residents that there's another issue
with the school that does need to be addressed, and that's the placing
of traffic signals and where they're going to be and how they're going
to be designed. To the best of our knowledge, the current plan is to
have a signal just at the entrance to the school which, in our opinion
as residents of Victoria Park, causes great concern, because we feel
that some students, especially fourth and fifth graders, will not take
the extra 300 feet to walk down to that signal. They will continue to
cross at Nottingham; and, therefore, we would request that we have a
signal both at Nottingham and at the school entrance. The school
entrance could operate only during the key hours of the school day;
and, therefore, the light at Nottingham could be a full-service light
that could service both Victoria Park and the Crescent Lake
subdivision. We al -- we feel by doing so, the crossing guard could
be moved up to the Nottingham intersection thereby eliminating or at
least reducing the amount of students that might attempt to cross
there and increasing the safety, in our opinion, of the students that
are walking not only from Victoria Park, but also from a northerly
direction.
If you look at the plans for busing in the area,
students south of the school primarily are going to be bused, so the
majority of walkers are coming from the north, and that's our major
concern. We have been able to work with the school board, and they
have agreed to provide Victoria Park busing for at least through the
first semester. And we're just trying to plan ahead and look at needs
that we feel are going to be there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- I'm sorry. Is this
similar -- is what Mr. Whittenhall proposing similar to what we did
about a year ago at Poinciana Elementary School?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. That was a caution light and
a guardrail. That was -- there was only -- there's one entrance
there, and right now we don't have kids crossing the street to get
there. They're coming from the same side of the street. This is
different in that when the school planned its entrance, they couldn't
do a joint entrance at Crescent Lake, so they went down the road a
little bit, and now we're faced with a full intersection and a school
entrance within what; 600 feet, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So which is more important,
protecting the bus turning movements into the school or -- so we're
kind of getting ahead here because, Mr. Dotrill, you've been involved
in this, and I've been involved with some of the homeowners in
Victoria Park, and we may have an update on that. If I could ask that
if we could hear from maybe Mr. Wincon (phonetic) and then get an
update from Mr. Dotrill, that might be the way to go.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I appreciate that, but our agenda item
today deals with the sidewalks. It has nothing to do with the traffic
light situation up there. That -- we'd be glad to hear that at a
future date, but today we're hearing sidewalks.
MR. WHITTENHALL: With all due respect, Commissioner
Norris, I think that the entire sidewalk issue is relative to the
safety of those children.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonetheless, our agenda item
advertised publicly deals with the sidewalks and not the traffic
light.
MR. WHITTENHALL: And I understand that. School opens
in two weeks, and you don't meet again for three weeks. This is an
issue that has been addressed with the county for three months, and we
don't have an answer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've been looking for an
opportunity to get an answer to this, and I don't know when it might
be scheduled. If you want to hang around and talk about it during
public petitions if the chairman won't allow you to talk about it now,
you certainly have that opportunity, but I'm interested in finding out
the answer to this question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We might already have an answer,
so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's call our second public speaker
if you're finished.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Warnken. Then I can tell you what
we're doing to evaluate the entire school safety issue.
MS. WARNKEN: I'm sorry. I really did not realize I was
going to speak, so at this point I don't have anything to say.
MR. DORRILL: Very well. I have -- on the other issue I
had asked the staff to analyze the alternative of putting a single
light in front of the two subdivisions. People in the audience always
boo and hiss when I say -- because everybody wants a light, and we are
installing lights at an alarming rate in this county that have a
degradation on the ability to move traffic at the same time. Traffic
lights are, I believe, the leading cause of accidents in this county,
albeit failure to yields and rear end-type accidents. They don't
always provide safety. I share many of the same safety concerns as
the residents of Victoria Park about asking the children to walk down
the road, cross at that intersection, and then walk back north by an
equal amount in order to gain access to the school.
I went out there and looked at it on Friday, and I think
there is one last opportunity to ask the school to evaluate a design
to still come through Crescent Lakes. And I went out there and walked
over the entire site and drove my car in and out through both the bus
loop and what they refer to as the car rider loop.
The school is prepared to spend, I'm told, $40,000 to
pay half of the cost of a part-time light only in front of their
school. And if we could get them to spend $40,000 on a short
realignment to the entrance of the school and still allow for the
other entrance onto Airport Road with the cooperation of the Crescent
Lake Estates people, I think that can be done. I'm not immediately
concerned about the start of school because the school board has
already said they will bus all of the children and will not even
consider alternatives until after the Christmas break. But I'm going
to ask the staff to work with the school to see if we can't develop a
second access into the school from Crescent Lakes.
My rationale is the current subdivisions at Crescent
Lakes and Victoria Park do not under any scenario warrant a light for
the current policy that you have in -- in effect and probably will not
until that segment of highway is six laned sometime five to seven to
ten years from now. The school, though, if taken into consideration,
would allow for a -- a full-time functioning light, and I would like
for us to take one last look at that from an engineering perspective
to see if it could be done, otherwise we have then what is a less than
desirable situation there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The chairman's correct. The
sidewalk issue is what's being decided today. Mr. Dotrill, I'm here
for the better part of our vacation and as liaison to the school
board. When we get that worked out, I'll be happy to go meet with
them individually and further that as best we can so we will be
working on that in the interim. But what's before us today is solely
the sidewalk issue, but I think staff is working in the right
direction on that, and I'll work with them to see if they can get it
done.
MR. DORRILL: It will require a little diplomacy on the
part of the school with the Crescent Lakes people. There are still
some hard feelings that are there, and someone needs to swallow their
pride and be willing to look at some alternatives, and that's all
we're asking them to do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you can help with that. I
mean, maybe the neighborhoods can talk to each other and see if you
can't help smooth the way at Crescent Lakes.
MR. WHITTENHALL: We'll certainly attempt to.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Motion?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, are we
transferring the additional funds to another project on this list
where we were allocating a set amount of funds -- realized a savings?
Are we transferring them to expand possibly number 37 MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are we -- specifically to
expand number 37
MR. ARCHIBALD: We're recommending that we allocate
those dollars to the two jobs that are shown there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: One would be increased $8,000. That's
the project in Naples Park. The other would be increase the
difference; I believe it's $2,000. That would be for Vanderbilt
Drive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #883
ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY DATABASE REPORT FOR THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM
AND REPORT OF BARR-DUNLOP, PLUHMER & ASSOCIATES AND HPO ROAD SYSTEM
ANALYSIS RELATIVE TO SCHEDULING IMPROVEMENT OF THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
CORRIDOR - REPORT ACCEPTED W/CHANGES
Next item is Item 8(B)(3), the Livingston Road item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if we could back
up for just a moment. Commissioner Hancock, would you care to give
direction to staff that we hear more on the traffic study sometime in
September?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- well, that sounds like
there's three at least. When the board comes back, maybe our second
meeting back, we'd like to have an update on the progress. Is that --
is that sufficient?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: September 10th? Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I assumed that.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from public works, and what I would like to do
is simply introduce this item this morning. You're going to hear from
a large group of folks, and so I'll be very brief. The board's going
to hear from a number of experts today that will all be able to
justify their conclusions based on a reasonable analysis of our
transportation model. I'd ask that the board keep in mind that the
model is relatively easy to manipulate to achieve various results.
And also please recognize that staff comes to the board annually
without bias and to recognize that the staff is, in fact, not
overbuilding road capacity throughout the county. To the contrary --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, can I ask you a quick
question? I'm sorry to interrupt. I know staff does come and comes
unbiased and does what they think is best, and 99 percent of the time
I agree with you all. One of your early comments, though, was these
things are fairly easy to manipulate. That -- can you just tell me
what that means a little bit because, yeah, that's --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're spending millions of
dollars on easy-to-manipulate material.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, what -- you're going to hear from
a number of recognized and reputable professionals. If those
professionals have an opinion about a capacity of an intersection or a
roadway and they use that opinion, then in their opinion they can
manipulate the model, change the numbers, change the capacity of a
roadway. And in some cases a change of 2 percent in a roadway
capacity will reflect a change of a level of service C to a level of
service A or from E to D or E to F. And it's important for you to
recognize that that manipulation can, in fact, occur and have some
faith in what your staff has done and what the MPO has done to date
over the last number of items --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- just by way of quick
follow-up, by way of clarification, I guess, it's possible for experts
to have an honest to goodness difference of opinion. When you say
that 2 percent and then -- my only concern in the way that is worded
is when I hear the word manipulated, it's as though someone is
purposely distorting the numbers, and is it possible --
MR. CONRECODE: In fact, the numbers aren't distorted at
all. It's simply a matter of -- we all use the same model, and at
some point we used a different method to arrive at our conclusions.
All of them are professionally valid. But you're going to see that
they come up with three different results in level of service
standard. Jeff Perry is going to give you a specific example of that
in a few minutes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Mac'Kie goes first.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe this is for Mr. Perry,
but in my meetings with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Barr prior to -- the
reason I was late getting here for the start of the meeting, we were
talking. But on that issue of the ability to manipulate the data, one
question that I have is -- let me -- let me back up and say I'm
supporting the building of Livingston Road. I think it can be
designed in a way that is -- that protects the community. And I come
here with that predisposition that that's what should happen.
However, one little flag or actually rather large flag
that goes up for me is -- I don't remember the dates, but I remember
when we had a 47 million dollar crisis in road building shortfall, and
then we hired Plummet and Associates to do numbers. And they said,
oh, Collier County is completely different from other counties. We're
not going to use those state numbers anymore. We developed these
Collier County numbers that -- that diminished the impacts to the
roads so that the 47 million dollar crisis went away as a result of
using a different statistical model, a different basis for analysis
for roads.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We put a 5 percent gas tax in to
make that 47 million dollars go away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. But the basis for analysis
of -- of county road impacts changed from the state model to a Collier
County model.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you're correct,
absolutely correct in what you're saying. We used the more detailed,
more specific numbers for our short term -- short-term planning
horizons. The further you get out into the future, the cloudier the
vision is. In fact, Commissioner Hancock as a planner can tell you
that very clearly probably more so than I can.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me just be sure -- I'm asking
the question. The allegation is that the county in -- in -- in the
advice we're getting from our independent staff, which is what I've
got to be able to rely on, is that instead of using those Collier
County specific numbers, we're using the general state numbers in
determining whether or not it's time to build Livingston Road. And I
need to know; do we always use the same set of numbers, or do we use a
different model for different purposes?
MR. CONRECODE: The model remains -- the model remains
the same.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, before you answer,
I'm a little concerned here. We've all been inundated with
information, and we all probably have questions. But all the folks in
the audience may not have been privy to everything we've seen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's why I was trying to
lay out the background for my question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm just afraid we're
getting ahead -- through staff's presentation I believe your question
has been anticipated, and probably som -- all those that we have on
our list have been anticip -- I would just like to see a comprehensive
presentation so we're all in the same base of information before we
get into the question and answer. That's my personal preference.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it a hard question to answer?
If it is, I'll wait for the answer. If it's a simple answer, I wish
you'd give it to me.
MR. CONRECODE: I'll give you the simple answer. You're
going to hear it in more detail as part of the staff presentation. In
fact, staff uses two different sets of numbers, two different planning
horizons. We use one model, and that's what you will see here today.
It was also summarized for you briefly in the white paper that Jeff
Perry had delivered to you all yesterday. So if you want to look at
it in more detail, you can reference that document.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just needed to know if
there are, in fact, two sets of numbers.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've got one quick
question of Mr. Conrecode of something that happened in 1973 when we
approved a 5 cent gas tax. Were those models put together using the
FDOT numbers or the Collier County numbers?
MR. CONRECODE: If I could please refer to Jeff --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You may have to check and find
out, but I want to know that because if we don't need that 5 cents, I
want to give it back. Seriously.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could defer that to Jeff, because
Jeff is our expert on the transportation modeling -- and you'll hear
from two other experts outside of county staff today on that.
To continue, just to recognize, in fact, we aren't
overbuilding capacity on any of the county roadways, you'd find that
we aren't overbuilding our level of service standards. To the
contrary, I'd ask you to reflect on your EAR that you just adopted
which gives an indication that we're, in fact, losing ground in the
race to maintain road capacity.
Next, I'd like you to keep in mind that the staff does,
in fact, use a long range plan that is fairly inexact and -- but still
serves as an excellent planning tool nonetheless. Livingston Road,
for instance, was envisioned in the long range plan for Collier County
in 1974 before a number here of you started driving. In addition,
staff works from the five-year AUIR which you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two of us were just out of
diapers, Tom, let alone driving. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He was being kind.
MR. CONRECODE: The five-year AUIR allows the board to
review its current board plans in terms of building road capacity and
adjust it annually, and that's based on the much more accurate
detailed traffic counts that we read throughout the year. You drive
across those little pneumatic counters the same as I do. And in each
year in adopting the AUIR the board moves projects in and out of the
current work plan to meet the most critical current needs. The
board's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is -- AUIR is Collier County or
state numbers?
MR. CONRECODE: Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. CONRECODE: The board is facing a critical policy
decision today, and I would ask that they keep in mind a couple of
things: first of all, the integrity of the entire transportation
network. You're going to hear a lot of discussion about the network
today; the proven effectiveness of your HPO planning efforts that have
served you so well today; the impact of your decisions on others not
necessarily represented here today such as communities such as
Berkshire, Poinciana, Naples Bath and Tennis, among others that aren't
represented here today; as well as impacts on previously approved DRIs
and PUDs; and the effect that you're going to have to do comp. plan
amendments if you take certain steps today in order to bring your plan
back together in the eventuality that you were to eliminate it
altogether.
That concludes my remarks. I'll be available to answer
any questions you may have, but I'd like at this point to turn the
floor over to Jeff Perry for a more detailed presentation of the
model.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
We're handing out a little three-page exhibit at the first part of my
talk we'll refer to. I have some extra copies here. I'm sure some
people in the audience would like to have those. They're examples
that I've -- because we're going to be talking about a lot of numbers,
I wanted to make sure that you had something to look at as I recite
some of these numbers to you.
My name is Jeff Perry. I'm the transportation planning
manager for the county. I also serve as the HPO coordinator. I'm
going to talk about three areas in my little presentation today. One
is the level of service tables that we've talked about so much
recently and their differences. I'm going to talk a little bit about
why Livingston Road is needed by the year 2000 and why we should also
be considering a six-lane cross-section at its ultimate buildout
whenever that happens to be.
Different levels of service, maximum service volume
lookup tables. These are the numbers that you hear bandied about, the
capacity of a roadway at an adopted level of service standard. We
quantify level of service standards as A, B, C, D, E, and F. That is
the level of congestion that we are willing to live with. Whatever is
chosen by the community is established by policy in the plan. In
general it's level of service D on most roads. There are a few that
are at E adopted standards, and there are a few that are at C adopted
standards. They're much like the grades that you receive in school.
The further down you get down the alphabet, the worse off your
condition is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your grades maybe. I got A's.
MR. PERRY: The measure of those levels of service is
oftentimes referred to in terms of hourly traffic or daily traffic.
The scale of the measure can be peak hour, either two-way volumes
adding both directions, or they can be directional because obviously
under peak conditions, as you know, traveling around certain roads
have higher peak directional volumes at given times of the day.
The daily volumes are usually referred to as average
annual daily traffic, AADT, and there is also peak season daily
traffic. Obviously the annual average is what you would average if
you were to take 365 counts per year and average them all together,
you would come up with an average number for the year. Those are what
gives you -- that is what is used in our growth plan and our AUIR
analysis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The peak or the average?
MR. PERRY: Annual average is what is reported in your
AUIR each year.
There are sophisticated computer programs that calculate
these service volumes based on the highway capacity manual, which is
an industry standard. It's a very complicated process, and I do not
profess to understand it. It's a -- my analogy is it's a black box.
You type in a lot of information about the transportation system, and
it produces these lookup tables or these numbers of -- that you apply
to a level of service standard such as A, B, C, or D.
The lookup tables are -- maximum service volumes are
given for different roadway types and different roadway sizes,
collector roads versus arterial roads, two lane, four lanes, six
lanes.
The first exhibit on page 1 there is -- you have is
simply an example of how you might see a lookup table in our
comprehensive plan or in some other publication. This example is a
Collier County maximum service volume signal group B. A number of
traffic signals per mile is calculated and is one of those input
values that helps determine what those lookup tables ultimately
reveal.
The first one is AADT, annual average daily traffic, and
you'll see that for each of the different service standards, A, B, C,
D, E, and for each of the lane calls, 2, 4, 6 lanes, there is a given
volume of traffic. And simply jumping to six lanes at level of
service E, that means that if you adopt a standard of level of service
E for six lane and signal group B type, if it goes up to 60,000
between -- in this case fifty-seven four and sixty thousand vehicles
per day, it is deemed to be operating at level of service E. If it
goes over that, it's level of service F.
There's also a peak-hour table. You'll see the numbers
are obviously smaller because during the peak hour there's only a
certain number of vehicles per day that are -- have been calculated by
the computers to actually travel along a particular segment during a
certain level of congestion, which is the A, B, C, D, and E.
On Exhibit 2 I'd like to give you a couple of examples
of how these tables are applied and how different tables can produce
different results. The -- Airport Road north of Golden Gate Parkway
is the only section recently completed is signal group C or the
equivalent, and some tables don't use a signal group category exactly
the same way, but the equivalent to signal group C adopted standard is
level of service E.
If we use a future volume of 58,400 -- it's a seasonal
daily volume from the computer model 2020 -- I believe we can apply
that to any one of seven different tables that I've chosen to use, and
there are probably others that -- that can be utilized in trying to
determine what the level of service is of a particular roadway or what
it's operating at.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're using fifty-eight four
because that's what an E is for --
MR. PERRY: Fifty-eight four is a model volume. That's
the amount of traffic that will be on the road, let's say, in the year
2020.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sort of picking a number.
MR. PERRY: Yes. In the case of Table No. 1, one of the
county tables, it's used at AADT volumes. The service volume for that
particular road segment -- in other words, the capacity of that road
is 59,000. That's what's reported, in fact, in your AUIR. It's
what's adopted in your comprehensive plan.
We need to convert AADT -- excuse me. We need to
convert the peak seasonal traffic that comes out of the computer
models to an average annual daily traffic, and we do that -- you can
do that by looking at the relationship of peak to annual on the given
roadway segment. And in this case it's .923. So if we multiply the
seasonal volume of fifty-eight four times point nine two three, you
come up with an equivalent average daily traffic of fifty-three nine 0
three. The volume standard ratio, which is what we carefully look at
each year to determine how much capacity is being used and likewise
how much is left, in that particular instance is .914. Ninety-one
percent, almost ninety-one and a half percent of that roadway's
capacity is -- is utilized by that volume of traffic in the year. In
this case let's say it's 2020. That means there's only about 8.6
percent of the capacity of that roadway remaining using that lookup
table.
If we use the FDOT average daily traffic table, the
service volume reported in there is 65,800. Using the same
mathematical calculations, we get a V over standard ratio of .819,
which means that there's 18 percent capacity still remaining. There's
yet another FDOT table which happens to be for a different type of
roadway, a nonstate highway, which is probably perhaps a little more
appropriate to use in this case since we're talking about Airport
Road. The first one -- first FDOT is collector -- excuse me, arterial
highways. The second -- Table No. 3 has a much lower service volume
of 50,200 at the level of service B standard, and it mathematically
yields an overcapacity roadway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What kind of standard is the
first if FDOT is arterial -- MR. PERRY: The second is classified as nonmajor county
nonstate highways.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And now the 60-million-dollar
question: Which one do we use for our needs analysis?
MR. PERRY: We used Table No. 1, what is adopted in your
growth management plan, what is shown to you annually in your annual
update and inventory report. Those are the numbers that we use -- we
have used consistently since 1989.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now, here comes not quite
a curve ball, maybe a slider. Which one do we use to determine impact
fees?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did we use.
MR. PERRY: My understanding is -- I have been told --
my understanding is that we -- that those tables that were calculated,
that these average daily tables are the ones developed for the county
were used by the impact fee analysis.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So No. 1 has been used
consistently both to determine impact fees and for the 2020 needs
analysis. That's a very important point for me.
MR. PERRY: Not the 2020 needs analysis. We're talking
about concurrency, and we're talking about impact fees. And my
understanding is they are both using the same calcu -- the same tables
in their calculations, service volume-type tables.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We use a different analysis for
concurrency than we do for the needs analysis? MR. PERRY: I'll get to that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm jumping the gun a
little bit.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which table was used for the
analysis that caused this board to adopt a 5 cent gas tax? MR. PERRY: Table No. 1.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Table number -- so we're using
the same table for all of these -- MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- funding mechanisms? Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jeff, just one quick question
before you go on. The last scenario you described of the several
there, what situation does that create?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Overcapacity.
MR. PERRY: On Table No. 37 If that table were to be
used, it reflects a condition that is overcapacity.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One hundred seven percent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you say that one more
time?
MR. PERRY: If you were to use Table No. 3 for this
condition, the road would be overcapacity.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the state standard would tell
us that this road is overcapacity?
MR. PERRY: It depends which table you use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The state standard makes no sense
MR. PERRY: If you use one lookup table, it tells you
that there's still capacity left. If you use another category of
roadway, it tells you that it's overcapacity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you're telling us that the
most logical state standard to use would be the nonarterial, which is
Table 37
MR. PERRY: No.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the one that makes it
overcapacity.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I know. But I thought you
said that's what is -- that's the most similar road, that Airport Road
in this analysis was most like the standard used by DOT, the
description of a roadway type for Table 3.
MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Despite that --
MR. PERRY: The FDOT tables -- what I'm trying to point
out is that the FDOT tables and the county tables are so different --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. PERRY: -- and the application of those tables, the
use of those tables, can change the results or the conclusions of an
analysis. And what we use for concurrency, which I'll be talking
about in a little more detail, is consistent. It has been consistent
since 1989. Now, the state has changed their tables at least three
times since 1989, so the values change over time as -- as techniques
change and so forth. What I'm trying to point out is that there are
different tables out there floating around, and depending on which one
you use, under any single circumstance the results or conclusions can
be different.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why the choice of --
of -- that policy is the most important decision that this board
makes, and then you guys go apply it however -- MR. PERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get too far away,
you said the state has changed three times since 1989. That update is
done for any particular reason? Is -- is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mood.
MR. PERRY: I'm not sure why they do it. When they
adopt a state set of tables, they oftentimes will put a deadline or
put an expiration date on it, and I think it means that they just plan
to go back after two or three years and review them, see if the
technology has changed. In this particular field -- and you have
experts far more knowledgeable about it than I that will tell you that
these things change over time, and the ability to calculate these
things change and the way they're done --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the fact that the state
has updated that isn't necessarily a bad thing?
MR. PERRY: Not necessarily. No, not at all. In fact,
it may be seen as a good thing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PERRY: To continue down the examples, not only are
there three tables, but there are four other tables that I've shown
here. There is a peak season daily table that was also prepared for
the county.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Jeff. Do we use any
of those four?
MR. PERRY: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we use any of those four in
our calculations, the county?
MR. PERRY: Well, we don't use them for concurrency, but
there are people in this audience who have used them, and that's why
they're included here. That's why I want to show you what the
differences are in these things and why you have experts standing up
here with what appear to be different conclusions and why they are
different.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't use them for
concurrency, but do we use them for impact fees or needs analysis? MR. PERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of those four --
MR. PERRY: Needs analyses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which one of those is for needs
analysis?
MR. PERRY: Okay. If you let me walk down through them,
I'll get to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: Number 4 is the peak season daily table also
prepared for the county in 1990. This is the table that was -- has
been used by Barr-Dunlop in their analysis. There is no factor
necessary to convert the model volume, because it is already peak
season daily, so it's a direct comparison. And it reflects about .827
standard ratio and about 17 percent of capacity.
When you leave the daily, you get into the peak-hour
tables. There are three peak-hour tables. The last one is in here.
Three FDOT peak-hour tables, again, for those two different types of
roadways that you could sort of say Airport Road is either one or the
other of those two types of roads. Both of them have drastically
different peak hour service volumes obviously resulting in different
standard ratios. In fact, both of them has been --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry, which one of 5 and 6
would Airport Road most likely fit?
MR. PERRY: I have a difference of opinion as to the way
the state defines their roadways and simply says if it's a state
highway, it's arterial and it's category here; if it's a nonstate
highway, it's a category here. In fact, we know that our roadways
operate equally in the same manner as a state highway, so we routinely
typically use the arterial-level capacities for most of our highways.
There are a few roadways that we do not simply because
they are not designed as arterials. They are designed more as -- as
collector roadways. And in those cases we -- you have published and
adopted in your AUIR and in your plan tables that do deviate from the
arterial-level capacities. But those are all published, and they're
all adopted, and we've used them consistently since 1989.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Back to my question. Airport
Road, in your judgement --MR. PERRY: In my judgment, Airport Road, from a state
standard, we would be using either Table 2 for AADT or Table 5 for
peak-hour calculations.
There's also a county peak-hour table that produces
similar results to the state peak-hour table. In fact, it's a --
very, very similar. But that's -- to give you an example of the
different conclusions that you get when you apply a particular volume
to these different kinds of tables, if you'll jump to Exhibit 3,
another example. This time we're going to use actual 1995 traffic
data on the segment of Airport Road south of Golden Gate Parkway.
This is the problem roadway that's causing this whole thing to come up
to you at this point in time. Airport Road south of Golden Gate
Parkway is a signal group D or equivalent. It has more signals per
mile than the signal group C category. The adopted minimum standard
in your comprehensive plan is D as in David. If you apply some of
those same tables and run the calculations, you'll see in the first
example that the FDOT table AADT table says it's level of service F.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correlating number on Table 2
is?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that 2 or 37
MR. PERRY: That would be No. 2.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you give us the
correlating number, that would help me.
MR. PERRY: The county's AADT, which would be No. 1,
says that it's operating at level of service C. The county's peak
season daily, which would be Table 4, says it's also operating at
level of service C. The county's peak hour, which is Table 7, says
it's level of service E. And the state peak hour says that -- excuse
me, which is --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five.
MR. PERRY: -- five, it says it's level of service F.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PERRY: Now, the one thing I'd like to point out
here, although you see these as level of service of F, B, C, E, and F
as existing operating conditions, if you look carefully at the
standard ratios, you will notice there is sometimes very little
difference between what appears to be a roadway that's 92 percent of
its capacity, but it's still operating at level of service C. That's
because there are very, very narrow margins. To go back to the very
first exhibit, sometimes there are very, very narrow margins between
B, C, D, and E conditions so that a 2 or 3 percent increase in traffic
can actually jump you one level of service.
We've had -- on our particular roadways, which have a
tendency to grow sometimes at alarming rates, you can go from level of
service A to level of service E in one year with a 5, 10, 15 percent
increase in traffic as a result of traffic growth.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Perry, again, I don't mean to
jump, but this is something I don't want to lose. We have three
elements that I've heard at least one other commissioner question. We
want to know which table is used to determine impact fees, which is
used for the needs analysis, and which is used for concurrency.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And are there others? Those are
just three that I've heard, and I'm grabbing. Are there other
purposes for which these standards are used, or is that the only
three?
MR. PERRY: There are -- well, levels of service --
anytime you're dealing with development and development impacts, the
Regional Planning Council and DRIs uses level of service in their
analysis. I mean, there's a variety of -- and let me -- let me answer
the question and jump ahead to that point in time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PERRY: We are mandated by law by the Growth
Management Plan to use the tables that are adopted in your plan for
concurrency purposes. And we use those for short-term planning
horizons. In other words, we're planning and programming for five
years or ten years looking to that five-year period, that period where
we were -- we came to you and said we need money to build roadways.
We were doing it based upon those analyses that -- that we looked at
in a short term the best we could looking into our crystal balls, and
we found that there was a -- a need for a certain amount of revenue to
build a certain amount of roadway system, and those concurrency tables
are used for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask -- and this
is, I think, along the lines of where both of you have either been or
are going, and that is for impact fees -- and I realize you don't deal
with impact fees day to day. But impact fees, are we using those same
short term, or are we using --
MR. PERRY: There is -- impact fee uses a single-service
volume, a single capacity of a lane. You don't have A, B, C, D, E,
Fs; and you don't have two lanes, four lanes, six lanes, etc. My
understanding in speaking with someone who told me that they knew that
said -- read the report, and it was -- it was a compilation of the
county's numbers that resulted in a single-lane capacity to be used in
the calculation. Now, if I'm misstating that, he will correct me.
That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I think we're raising
that question is if we're building our road network using the stats
for short-term planning, that five-year snapshot --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are the county numbers;
right?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- yet we're doing impact
fees, I assume, on the long-range growth, the state numbers, there
seems to be an inconsistency, and maybe I'm misunderstanding it but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's flip-flopped
actually. Our 2020 is based on the more conservative numbers. Our
short term are the more liberal numbers of what's presented.
MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what actually is happening is
we're approving development based on concurrency on the more liberal
numbers where there's more capacity; yet we're planning more
conservatively. So we're setting ourselves up here -- and correct me
if I'm wrong -- for a funding shortfall.
MR. PERRY: That was pointed out to me yesterday and,
quite honestly, I haven't had a chance to look at it carefully, so I
don't know what kind of impacts we're looking at there. We do it --
we do review the impact fee analysis, look at it, I believe, on an
annual basis. There are -- there are other issues related to what is
the cost of constructing these improvements 10 or 15 or 20 years out
in the future. I can't argue with that issue about are we using --
are we underestimating our needs in the future. I think the argument
is we're trying to use conservative numbers to make sure that we don't
overestimate or overstate our capacity in the future so that we don't
underplan something. If we're not collecting enough money up front,
then maybe we need to look at that but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the two needs to be
reconciled, because long-range transportation planning is like an
inverted cone. The further out you get, the less stable that planning
model is. And any change you make near the base of it has a
magnifying impact on that model. So being conservative on the end is
a way of keeping that model more stable. But if we are going to be
conservative in the end and plan to build roads to that end, then we
need to use that as a base assumption on how we collect fees,
otherwise we have 5 cent gas tax questions that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can't resist the
opportunity to tell you that just in the last week I had a client who
on the same building got three different impact numbers, you know,
depending on who he asked.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question also,
Mr. Perry, based on these numbers, and Mr. Cautero may have to be the
person that answers it. When PUDs and DRIs come through us, and we're
invariably told that the project has less than a 5 percent impact on
traffic and so forth, which set of numbers are they using?
MR. PERRY: Using the concurrency numbers.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're using Table No. 17
MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even though there may be a
20-year buildout, they're using Table No. 1; yet when we went 20 years
out in the future, we're not using that same table.
MR. PERRY: The point in the 5 percent --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a yes or a no?
MR. PERRY: The point in the 5 percent analysis has
nothing to do with 20 years from now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm talking about local projects,
DRIs and so forth. When they do their traffic impact statement, are
they using Table 1 in the submission of the traffic statement?
MR. PERRY: Generally not. They're using the peak-hour
tables. I think the DRI requires the DRI -- there may be -- they may
do both, in fact. They may do daily --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, this is not an admonition
of staff. It's just that the difficulty we have when Barr-Dunlop's
report is brought forward is just coming to the surface now in that I
think we all were under some level of assumption that the numbers
throughout the course of our deliberations were similar and the same.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're the same numbers and
they're not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We're finding out now that
they're not, and although the issue before us today is not do you
revisit how we use those numbers. It shouldn't be. It's becoming
that. This is really something that is more appropriately -- that
issue is more appropriately remanded to the HPO for reconsideration.
How this applies to the Barr-Dunlop report versus the David Plummet
report is appropriate today because that's a decision we're being
asked to review. So I know we're asking a lot of basic questions. My
feeling is this is going to have to come back to the HPO in the near
future to obtain the understanding we're seeking today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm getting that today, frankly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm just, again --
MR. PERRY: I want to -- I want to try to assure you
that the numbers that you've been seeing in your annual updated
inventory report that are used for concurrency are consistent. They
have been consistently applied. The numbers that we have used for
evaluating the financial needs, which we do not necessarily -- we did
not adopt the ten-year gas tax based on 25- or 30-year traffic
volumes. We adopt -- we based it on what we thought we were going to
need within that 10-year period, which we believe earnestly are very
sound numbers, and they are, in fact, based on the required numbers,
the numbers that you are required by law to use in your Growth
Management Plan.
Now, if there's an argument about whether or not we're
not collecting enough impact fees for that -- that dwelling unit that
may be built 25 years out into the future, I can't -- I can't tell you
that we're perhaps not collecting enough. We may not be charging
enough for that roadway that has to be built 25 years out into the
future. That's a -- that's a different argument that needs to be
addressed separately from whether or not your concurrency system is
working and whether or not you need to build Livingston Road because
they --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. PERRY: It's a relevant issue as far as the
Livingston Road being needed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, and that was my purpose
of my statement, was to separate the two and also to request that this
be remanded -- that that element be remanded to the HPO, because I
think it needs to be addressed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When you say that element, you mean
the impact fee discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, the impact fee discussion,
which tables are we using, how do we reconcile them for the purpose of
collecting substantive impact fees to pay for the growth. So what --
pardon me?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was saying I don't think the
HPO does affect these.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm not sure that -- yeah, that
the HPO necessarily would be impact fees. Mr. Dotrill?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's true. Maybe it
needs to come back to us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I -- if I went through and
asked and gave you a list of AUIR impact fees, concurrency, DRIs, and
PUDs, could you give me one of those table numbers and tell me which
we use for what purpose? Can you do that, Tom?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode's been trying to jump in
here for a little bit. Let him --
MR. CONRECODE: For the record again, Tom Conrecode from
public works. If I could answer the impact fee question. If you
really want to muddy this, we'll get into the details of the numbers
in the impact fee ordinance and the analysis that was done as a part
of that. The impact fee was derived out of trip generations for types
of land uses throughout the county. Those tables and those series of
numbers will really get this thing all mucked up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the board recognizes that we
need to make a separate discussion of that.
MR. CONRECODE: The county in adopting its impact fees
in requiring us to review it every two years is to go back and relook
at the financially feasible plan, which is the concurrency numbers
that Jeff's referring to, cost per lane mile. The impact fee then is
what does that building -- that single-family home or that retail
establishment -- what is the impact in traffic in terms of lane
miles. What's the cost to build that lane mile; therein is how the
impact fee is derived. So it's less related to the actual traffic
counts than you think.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood. I'd still like to
know if it's possible then -- after this I promise I'll stop -- is
which of the -- of Tables 1 through -- Tables 1 through 7, which do we
use for AUIR?
MR. PERRY: No. 1.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which do we use for impact fees,
even though I understand what Mr. Conrecode just said? MR. PERRY: No. 1, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do we use for concurrency?
MR. PERRY: I'm sorry. I thought that was the first
question, No. 1.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is AUIR and concurrency the
same?
MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Then for DRI and PUD
thresholds for that 5 percent threshold.
MR. PERRY: The D -- the PUD threshold, 5 percent, we
use -- I believe they use No. 1. That's the 5 percent of the capacity
of the roadway today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so on all of those we use
No. 17
MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, the big question: needs
analyses. The 2020 needs analysis -- not financially feasible --
needs analysis was presented to us, and the justifying table is table
number?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just asked that. You said
No. 1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. You asked for concurrency
and AUIR.
MR. PERRY: The 2020 system planning process, the needs
analysis process, does not use -- and, in fact, when we did it, didn't
use any of these tables because the tables that we used were repealed
by the FDOT, so they're not even in here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But which of those is it similar
to?
MR. PERRY: They are probably most -- they are probably
most similar to the FDOT peak-hour table No. 5.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So if you were to do -- if you
were to do a needs analysis today the same way it was done in 1990 or
whenever it was, you would most likely use Table No. 57
MR. PERRY: That's correct. That's probably the table
we would recommend to the HPO.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's now understandable to me how
a group of residents could hire an engineer and come up with a
different number, because between those two we have a 14 percent
difference in remaining capacity of the same roadway. So, you know,
that -- that's where -- and I think we've got to the bottom of where
does the difference lie. That's where the difference lies. Now,
Barr-Dunlop may have used additional tables in here that are maybe
more liberal to paint a different picture.
MR. PERRY: And, in fact, if you want to add to that,
No. 4 is the one that Barr-Dunlop has used, which is even more
liberal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is a 22 percent difference.
MR. PERRY: It's even a larger increase. And that is
why two or three or four or seven professionally prepared analyses
will produce seven different results. There's no wrong answer here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the problem, because
when we look at traffic impact statements for future development, the
idea that there is no wrong answer is wrong in itself. As we look at
a future mall on U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road and they produce an impact
statement, they can use one of seven formulas, and we can't tell them
they're wrong. There's a problem there. And, again, this is
something that we as a board -- or that issue may be more appropriate
for the HPO -- needs to be revisited, but we need to come back to the
issue at hand today.
MR. PERRY: Typically -- in defense of the development
or EAR process -- that doesn't happen. The staff tells the developer
analysis -- analyst what tables to use. If the RPC -- well, typically
let the county decide which tables are to be used, but -- but there
are decisions that are made up front as to what the appropriate set of
tables are to be used.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So now that I've got this part of
it, I'd like to ask Mr. Dotrill to ask the staff to bring back to us
-- we need to adopt as a policy, if we haven't already -- as a board
we need to say, you know, Dear Mr. Cautero, when asked, please apply
this standard in this set of circumstances.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was my -- my question. I'd
like to ask this board to give direction at the MPO meeting that we
discuss the adoption of a specific table. And if any engineering firm
uses any other table to justify whatever they're going to do, they
need to convert it to our table.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But isn't that our policy to begin
with?
MR. PERRY: It is, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they're using Table 1.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hopefully.
MR. PERRY: The only difference is when you deal with
system planning as opposed to what's the level of service out there
today or within the next five years. There is an argument -- there is
an argument that I would like to raise that you're probably better off
using more generalized tables, less specific. And I can give you a
lot of reasons why, but essentially I don't believe 25 years from now
the system will operate in the same manner, that the roads will
operate in the same manner that they operate today. They will be --
there will be more development. There will be more traffic signals.
There will be more of everything 25 years from now. And to say that
-- that the capacity of that roadway out in front of us here is -- is
50,000 vehicles today in capacity, in 25 years it will have the same
capacity, I don't think is -- is a statement that I want to make. I
would rather be more conservative in a long-range planning venue and
say it's probably going to have less capacity and, therefore, we
should be planning a little bit better. We don't have to build it
necessarily, but we do need to plan for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So for the purposes of the
presenters today, I'm going to be asking you did you use Table No. 1.
If you didn't, then I'm discounting your analysis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perry, how much more of your
presentation is there?
MR. PERRY: I've got some -- I've got a few more
minutes. I've got some very important points to make on why
Livingston Road is needed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PERRY: If you're done with asking questions, I'll
be done in --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie promised she was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I swear.
MR. PERRY: -- why Livingston Road is needed. I'll be
discussing five important considerations that I'd like the board to
reflect on: the benefits to Airport Road south of Golden Gate
Parkway; the utilization of Livingston Road, that segment of road
you're talking about constructing; the improved level of service on
adjacent links; and the spreading of future traffic growth throughout
the network improving levels service to key major areas and, lastly,
the percent of system-wide utilization.
There's no argument that County Road 31, Airport Road
south of Golden Gate Parkway, will be deficient by the year 2000.
There's no argument that Livingston Road south between Golden Gate
Parkway and Radio Road is needed at this time by the year 2000 to
correct -- to help correct that deficiency.
The problem is that if you build just that segment of
roadway, it does not provide the concurrency relief that you will have
to have. And you can talk about 2020 and 2010, and we can do -- talk
about that all day long. The point that I need to drive home today is
that -- that when you open Livingston Road south of Golden Gate
Parkway, if that's the only segment you build in the year 2000,
between now and the year 2000 the Airport traffic will grow from
51,500 to 56,500 between now and the year 2000. On the day that you
open Livingston Road south of the parkway, if that's all you build, it
will return the condition of Airport Road back to what it is today.
So you will be going -- we will be here in the year 2000 -- we will be
looking for ways to improve Airport Road after a brand new section of
Livingston Road is open.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Current level of service for that
segment is? It's operating currently at what level of service?
MR. PERRY: It depends on who you ask.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm asking you. Tell --
MR. PERRY: The current level of service is C.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PERRY: The operating V over standard ratio is 92
percent. It's 92 percent of capacity, which is much more important
than a level of -- it's like a C minus, minus grade. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what you're saying is if
that segment were built in five years from now, it would still be
level of service C.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. The model -- the model used
by Barr-Dunlop, by us, which is the same model -- there's no
differences in the model. I don't know if I made that clear. There's
no differences in the model, only in the way you change the model to
make it react differently, which is the manipulation that Tom was
referring to, was changing the model to make it do different things
and checking the results. If you use that analysis, you'll get an 8
percent drop in levels of -- excuse me, an 8 percent drop in the
traffic on Airport Road when you open Livingston Road just south of --
just the southern section, an 8 percent benefit, if you will, an 8
percent drop in the volumes on Airport Road.
If you extend it further to the north and provide a much
longer corridor for people to use so that there's a greater
utilization of that facility, which is no argument by looking at the
numbers, that there will be more people utilizing that facility. If
you build Livingston Road in its entire length to Pine Ridge Road, you
will get over an 18 percent increase -- excuse me, an 18 percent drop
in the volume on Airport Road. It will return us back to 1992
operating conditions on Airport Road south of the parkway.
I have no quarrel with anybody's conclusions on Airport
Road north of the parkway. That's not the issue. It's south of the
parkway, plain and simple. If you build just Livingston Road today,
in the year 2000 -- you're not building yourself out of any -- any
trouble. You're going to be right back trying to figure out exactly
what to do next once the road is open.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me make sure I can
understand concisely what's being said. If we build by the year 2000,
we have in operation this segment between Radio Road and Golden Gate
Parkway, we will have -- Airport Road on that parallel segment will be
operating at level of service C, 92 percent capacity. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we build Livingston Road north
of Golden Gate Parkway, the year 2000, that parallel segment of
Airport that is of concern -- if Livingston Road is running all the
way up as was originally intend -- what level of service would it be
operating at? In other words, is it any different if we build the
segment north of Golden Gate Parkway by the year 2000? Does that
little segment of Airport Road operate differently at a better level
of service? I've long been convinced that unfortunately the section
between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway is the one that can't be
delayed, but north of that seems to be the question in front of us
today. So I need to know the level of service impact on the most
constrained segment of Airport with the corridor north of Golden Gate
and without.
MR. PERRY: I think I have every calculation but that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PERRY: I'll have to look it up in the lookup table.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me tell the board why I'm
asking that. There are some outstanding issues that may take some
time to resolve in the movement of water management facilities in our
other areas so that roadway corridor can be moved as far west as
possible. And the reason that question is important to me, Mr. Perry,
is if the segment north of Golden Gate Parkway can be put behind the
segment to the south and delayed for a year or two to let us find
those relocation opportunities, everyone benefits and we don't
sacrifice the road system. That's the reason I'm asking that
question. I just want to kind of put that on the table for everyone's
consideration.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only that, and maybe this
is -- I think this was the question you were asking; maybe it's not.
But if the north segment is put in, Airport Road is then traveling at
what level of service? You did not have an answer to that question;
is that right?
MR. PERRY: There's an 18 percent drop in the volume of
traffic on the roadway.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which puts it at what level
of service?
MR. PERRY: I don't know. I'll have to look it up in
the table.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The possibility is it could
still be --
MR. PERRY: B or C.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and that's an
important point for me, is if it's at level of service C either way,
then I start to question -- you can throw out percentage numbers and
all kind of things, but if it's still operating at level of service C
without the addition then it seems like maybe we're getting a little
ahead of ourselves and building before it's necessary.
(Applause)
MR. PERRY: I would urge caution in -- in relying on
what the grade is, because levels of service C roadways may be level
of service E roadways next year. When we look at traffic -- and
that's why we calculate this V standard ratio, because the volume as
compared to your adopted standard is what's important. It's -- the
fact that it gives you a level of service C, you can take comfort in
knowing that that's better than level of service D or E, which is what
your choices are as far as meeting or exceeding your standard. But if
-- if making the improvement only gives you five years' worth of
relief, that's what's important, knowing that you've only got five
years before you're going to have to do something else. So by the
year 2005 Airport Road will again be deficient if you build just the
southern section. If you build it -- if you build the northern
section at the same time or within a reasonable period thereafter, you
will gain that extra capacity on Airport Road south of -- of -- and it
still may operate at C, whatever the -- whatever the category is. But
the fact is you're going to have greater capacity so that you'll be
actually giving yourself another five to six years' worth of growth on
Airport Road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you've helped make my
point, though, that I brought up both last meeting -- and I realize
you weren't here, so you're operating at a disadvantage there, but the
question -- and most of the folks from both Briarwood and Wyndemere
said we realize there's going to be a road there at some point. What
they were asking was that it not be done prior to when it was
necessary. And what you just said was, yes, it may be a level of
service C, but five or six years later it may be required after all.
Well, that five or six years later would be ten years from now, and so
if -- if we can wait for a ten-year period, build it, and keep
ourselves in compliance, I think that's all anyone is asking for.
We'd still be in compliance. We still don't have congestion.
And secondarily, I guess I take a little offense when
you make light of level of service categories, C, D, whatever, because
that's the mechanism that triggers what we do. According to our own
long-range planning, we have a category and that we don't want to go
beyond, and that category isn't the volume ratio. I'm sure that
figures in somewhere, but the category we use in our long-range
planning is that level of service letter. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's based on those volume
ratios.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is.
MR. PERRY: That level of service letter -- and I
certainly don't mean to make light of it. That level of service
letter is critical in maintaining concurrency, but you have to
evaluate that letter of service letter by attaching a number to it.
And how fast you reach that number, it's -- it's absolutely a policy
decision of this board whether you build this section of road in 2000
or in 2005 or at some point thereafter. It's absolutely your
decision. And all I'm trying to tell you is that there are very good
reasons why you should consider building them both at the same time.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my concern mainly is
that -- obviously you don't want to wait too long. You end up with
congestion; you end up with a lot of trouble. But, on the other hand,
if you build it too soon, then I think all we're really doing is
encouraging faster and more growth there. So I'm trying to find the
balance in between, and that's where I think if you get a window like
Commissioner Hancock said of a few more years out, that it gives not
only us an opportunity to move over and have less of an impact on the
neighborhoods that are concerned, but not to encourage growth sooner
than it needs to be there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to careful. You had
mentioned ten years out. But the point Mr. Perry made is ten years
from now we can be relatively assured we're going to have a segment of
Airport Road that is, in fact, deficient. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we as a board as responsible
or -- or parties responsible to this community cannot allow a road
segment to become deficient.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point was just somewhere
between building in 1997 and eight and ten years from now may make
some sense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other factor there -- and I'm
not asking an answer for this right now, but for somebody to be
prepared from staff to talk about it, is the -- how much more does it
cost to -- to build this in stages than it does to build it as
originally planned?
MR. PERRY: I can't answer that, but I'm sure --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can give you a hint of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We were going to do 951 --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In stages.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- between 41 and the interstate in
two segments. By doing it in one segment, we saved 6 million dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: However, Mr. Conrecode, correct
me if I'm wrong, but the construction schedule for south of Golden
Gate Parkway, north of Golden Gate Parkway, has already been
differenced by a year because of funding shortfalls. Currently it's
scheduled one year apart. Am I correct there?
MR. CONRECODE: You are correct in that. This was going
to be the next project until all this came up. This was going to be
the next project that staff was going to propose to do under the
cash-flow process that we used on County Road 951, because we put that
behind us. We're ready to do another one like that, and we were going
to recommend that we try and take advantage of those same cost savings
until this all came up, so we're kind of holding off on that
recommendation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I go right back to the
point I made a minute ago, and that is that you may have a savings
there, and obviously that benefits everyone. But if you build it
years sooner than you need to, you have growth sooner on that
corridor, and the long-term cost then gets eaten back up again.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner, in this case it was the
difference of one year. We would have combined the projects and bid
them as one, late -- late delivery on the first segment, early
delivery on the second segment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In what's proposed, I
understand that. What I'm saying is if you build a corridor sooner
than it's necessary -- and I'm suggesting that perhaps the northern
part of this corridor isn't necessary in nineteen ninety-seven or
eight -- then you are encouraging growth sooner and more than would
otherwise be, which costs all of us money in the long run.
MR. CONRECODE: I think it should be noted in your
executive summary packets that the current AUIR is telling you that
even the southern segment shouldn't be built in '97 or '98 but, in
fact, in the year 2000. Again, that's based on your detailed
numbers. So you're already moving -- or staff is telling you that you
ought to adopt it for the year 2000 to be open, and then the only
question is for the northern segment, do you then build that in 2001,
2002.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I have
one question for Mr. Perry that's really important to me. The
interchange of 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway, what will happen with the
building of that interchange based on the construction of this road?
Do we do it sooner? Do we do -- do we do it later? Will that
interchange be held up longer if we fail to build this road?
MR. PERRY: I'm not sure I could actually answer that
question, because the Florida DOT will decide whether or not to
support that interchange. If and when the interchange is built, there
will be a dramatic change in the travel patterns of -- along our
highways. There will be improvements to some roads in terms of
dropping of traffic volumes, and there will be increases in other
roads as a result of that interchange being opened. That's one thing
I can assure you, that there will be dramatic changes in the way cars
are moving around the highway system. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. PERRY: But whether or not the interchange will be
delayed any or postponed as a result of the county's actions, I really
can't tell you. All I -- I can raise the flag, and I can tell you
that there is a possibility that if the Florida DOT takes the position
that you're -- that you are dumping local traffic on the interstate
and that that's why you need the interchange and that a widening of
Interstate 75 is then necessary long term, they will not support the
interchange without widening the interstate. So there could, in fact,
be -- it may not have any effect at all, but there could be dramatic
impact on the 1-75 system.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, I
think I can help you with that. I talked to Norm Feder from FDOT two
or three weeks ago at the Regional Planning Council about that
specific question, and realistically it's not going to have an
impact. And part of the reason is timing of this is -- regardless of
whether we go ahead with Livingston a year from now or five years from
now, it still happens before the interchange is likely to happen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 2008, I believe, is the earliest
date for the interchange --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. But 2005, I think, is
when he said is the earliest possible. But I think two thousand seven
or eight is a likely but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So now the interchange is 20
years late instead of 10 years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I went from two
thousand to two. They said five now, but realistically it's not going
to have an impact at all, because that was obviously a concern to me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's what I wanted to
know, too, because that certainly will influence my -- my feeling on
this particular road. If our failure to go forward with this
influences that interchange to the point where it goes into permanent
delay, then -- then that would definitely influence me.
MR. PERRY: As Commissioner Constantine has pointed out,
the -- by simply --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what it is now, a
permanent delay.
MR. PERRY: By simply altering the start date of
Livingston Road is not going to influence the interstate. We had
discussions with FDOT concerning deleting, removing, Livingston Road
in its entirety from the system or changing the capacity of Livingston
Road in some way. By changing it from six to four lanes or two lanes,
that could, in fact, influence the lane calls on 1-75 and, therefore,
the interstate interchange, and that's what I was referring to.
I'd like to speak just for a moment about the
improvement to the other adjacent highway system links and spreading
traffic throughout the network by adding additional facilities such as
Livingston Road. A greater network provides for greater path choices
for motorists. There's a fixed amount of traffic using the network.
By removing links or adding links you change travel patterns. An
improved level of service on Airport Road north and Santa Barbara,
Logan Boulevard would -- would result by building Livingston Road. It
would help to preserve the integrity of 1-75, and it would improve
level of service at major intersections, spreading out the new traffic
growth by not concentrating it on existing roadways. By the year
2010, 17,400 trips will use Airport Road north without Livingston Road
being in place as opposed to only 6,400 trips with Livingston Road
north of Golden Gate Parkway constructed. That's 275 percent increase
or two and three-quarter times the amount of traffic that would have
to use Airport Road north of the parkway because Livingston Road is
not in place.
The same thing happens on Santa Barbara. Seventy-four
hundred new trips will use Santa Barbara north of the parkway without
Livingston Road in place by the year 2010 as opposed to only
thirty-five hundred that would use it if Livingston Road is made
available. So we're actually causing that new traffic growth to
continue to grow on the existing transportation system rather than on
-- on new facilities. Traffic on north Airport Road will grow by 42
percent without -- by 2010 without Livingston Road north as opposed to
only 15 percent if Livingston Road north is constructed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By 2010 you said?
MR. PERRY: By 2010. Traffic on Santa Barbara will grow
by 41 percent by 2010 without Livingston Road as opposed to only 19
percent if Livingston Road is constructed.
Improvements to intersections, by only building the one
segment of Livingston Road between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway, with
the exception of the -- of the local traffic that would continue north
of there, you're creating two T intersections that will force
additional turns, forcing additional turns not only at those two
intersections but also at Airport Road and Radio and Golden Gate
Parkway in order to get to and from that particular facility.
The extension of Livingston Road north should help to
eliminate turns at major intersections by creating opportunities for
further north-south travel choices. North-south turns using
Livingston Road north and south of the parkway will be at less
congested intersections since there will be no major activity centers
at those intersections of Livingston Road.
And, lastly, the percentage of system-wide utilization.
Since 1989 we've been tracking the amount of our capacity that's been
utilized. I can tell you based on your evaluation and appraisal
report analysis that in 1989 there was -- 41.3 percent of the system
capacity was utilized. In 1994 it was up to 50 percent. We are
building less capacity each year than we are consuming. We've been
doing a very good job at reducing deficiencies since that time, but we
are still not producing enough capacity to stay ahead of the -- of the
growth curve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perry, that's a very important
point in this discussion. I understand there's a lot of concern about
this roadway, but to -- to let Collier County get behind the growth
curve in building roads and end up with a situation similar to
Sarasota County or even Lee County is something that I certainly want
to avoid, so we're relying on you to help us with that discussion.
That's a very important point.
MR. PERRY: I want to point out that while it sounds
like there's a lot of unused system out there, keep in mind that we're
doing a countywide analysis for your EAR, and we have a lot of rural
highways. Fifty percent of our lane miles are in the rural area and
are operating at terrific levels of service and are skewing those
results. All of the lane miles that have been added since 1989 have
been added in the urban area to try to keep up with urban growth, and
we are consuming that capacity faster than we are building it.
I wanted to make one point about -- one remark in one of
the -- I'm not sure exactly which one -- I think the August 1st report
by Barr-Dunlop. The concluding statement said there was a substantial
amount of unused capacity using their analysis. There were 75 -- if
you look at the numbers, 75 to 95 percent, these standard ratios.
That is not a substantial amount of unused capacity. Those -- 75 to
95 percent of capacity when roadways are like that in your AUIR, we
are one to five years away from having to expand those roadways. That
is not a substantial amount of capacity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It -- because that translates
into 20 -- so a range of 5 percent at the least and 20 percent at the
most of capacity existing.
MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you would tell us that's
going to be eaten up in one to five years?
MR. PERRY: That's correct, easily. It would easily be
eaten up on some roadways that grow -- some grow, you know, 2 or 3
percent per year, and others grow at a much larger -- much larger
rate.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: I have some other remarks about the need to
plan for six lanes rather than four or something less even than that.
I'm not sure you want to hear that argument at this point. I've been
up here a long time, and you've asked a lot of questions. If you have
any other specific questions -- but I -- keep in mind that we do have
-- if there is to be a discussion about whether or not the maximum
lane call for that road should be six lanes --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the MPO has already decided
that through the year 2010 it will be four-lane limited-access
facility, I believe that discussion is better suited in front of the
MPO.
MR. PERRY: I just don't want to close any doors on the
design of a six-lane corridor, building two or four lanes today or
within the next five or ten years. I don't want to close any doors on
the need for six lanes long term.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The MPO was very clear in that
six lanes may happen some day due to -- utility relocation
difficulties can be resolved.
MR. PERRY: And I won't bore you with a lot more
numbers. If you have any other questions, I'll be glad to answer
them, otherwise I'll sit down and let someone else talk.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, we have a request for a
time certain of 11:30. Obviously that's not going to happen, so you
might notify the interested parties that that's not going to happen.
Why don't we take a very short break. Please come back in five
minutes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A question about that time
certain, the point being there's a judge coming, I think. Could we
not pause for a few minutes and hear --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully if we can give them
20 minutes' notice, we can catch him before he walks across the campus
and let him know we'll be a few minutes late.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: See what the response is, but
we've also got 50 or 75 people here on this issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Hiss Filson, are we on? Yes.
Mr. Perry, I think you had answers to a couple of
questions very quickly and -- MR. PERRY: I did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- then we'll go to the public
speakers.
MR. PERRY: I did, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make one
correction in -- in -- there was a typographical error on one of the
exhibits that I wanted to correct. In answer to the question
Commissioner Constantine raised, the level of service currently on
Airport Road south of Golden Gate Parkway that is currently 92 percent
of capacity is level of service D as in David. That's what your AUIR
is reporting to you. I had inadvertently listed C on that particular
exhibit. And if you build the entire length of Livingston Road, you
drop back to a level of service C standard. So instead of staying at
the D in the year 2000, it would drop back one level of service and
improve the capacity by an additional 10 or 15 percent when we drop
back to that one level of service C standard instead of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you do just the
southernmost portion and it's also C --
MR. PERRY: It would drop back to D. It would drop back
to the current conditions. In other words, what we're saying in the
year 2000, in essence, what it's doing, you're building the capacity
for -- that's being used up by the growth between now and the year
2000. That's what's moving over to Livingston Road, and we're back to
the same conditions we have today on -- on Airport Road if we just
build that southern point. If we build it north of there, it will
improve the use of the facility, more traffic will divert over there,
and you will drop back one level of service to C on that southern
section of Airport Road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. One question that was not
asked and I think needs to be addressed. I kind of hear the potential
for a delay in the section north of Golden Gate Parkway maybe to 2001,
2002. Do we put ourselves in a position for a concurrency fight from
other landowners by delaying the roadway to say 2002?
MR. PERRY: No. If you maintain concurrency by that
facility being put in whenever you deem it's necessary to maintain
concurrency, which is what your staff will ensure, then there is no
concurrency risk.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even if we say we're going to
delay to 2002 and four years later we see that we are approaching
failure and that roadway has to be moved up, it -- you know, I mean,
that's just a reaction you have to make later?
MR. PERRY: That's correct. That's correct. Those are
mid-course corrections that you make each year when you review the
AUIR. We push projects back, we move them forward in response to
changes and conditions. And if that happens, then you have the
capability -- having designed the facility and ready to go with it,
you can accelerate the project if necessary, or if you deem it's
appropriate, to push it back another year, whatever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that process makes any
accusation of failing to meet concurrency requirements pretty tough.
MR. PERRY: We're not condoning the delaying of any
project that would risk concurrency.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. I think we're ready to go
to the public speakers. About how many do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Seven.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Seven. I'd like to remind the public
speakers that we allow five minutes for each public speaker, ask you
to please not be too redundant if you're saying the same thing that
the previous speakers have already said. Mr. Dotrill, with that, if
you'd call them, please.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Yovanovich. And if -- Mr. Barr, just
have you ready, please, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Commissioners, for the record,
Richard Yovanovich. I represent the Wyndemere Homeowners'
Association. We originally brought this to the Commission's attention
because we were concerned about building Livingston Road prior to its
actual need. We still believe that county staff is advocating a
position that it's just going too fast.
The initial -- as we understand the process of deciding
what roadways you need in determining your 2020 plan, your first step
is a 2020 needs assessment. A 2020 needs assessment has not been done
based on the new population figures, so you are basing a financially
feasible plan on a document that hasn't been done yet. So I don't
know how you could put the cart before the horse and decide that
that's an acceptable way to go about planning your roadway system.
We also want to caution the commission before they
embark on a 50 -- or a 500-million-dollar plan that is based upon a
document that doesn't exist at this point, that they move a little
slower. And we are also troubled with the fact that there has been an
overall reduction in population of over 180,000 people in your
projected outcomes, yet nothing changes from the plan and the needs
assessment that was adopted based on higher population figures.
I'm not going to get into a whole lot of detail as to
what the differences between the two or the three plans now are. The
way I understand it, staff has adopted David Plummer's analysis as
their plan, so Jack Barr will be here to explain the differences in
the plan. I'm not going to focus a whole lot on that. But I do want
to point out -- and I think it is important -- that this commission
recognize that when it is approving a 20-year DRI, it is using a
different standard than when it is planning its roadway system. And I
think that is important, because that is today's decision about
tomorrow's roadway system. And when you approve a home and you let it
impact your system or measure its impact, you're not only measuring
its impact to today's system, you are measuring its impact to
tomorrow's system. So you are -- by using a different set of
standards, you are approach -- you are using this picture to approve
your road -- your new development when the staff is telling you the
picture is really this picture over here.
So if we are impacting the system more than we are being
charged for, you're going to have a shortfall. And who pays for that
shortfall? It's going to have to be the taxpayers who are going to
fund the difference. Through whatever tax you decide is appropriate,
that will have to be funded by the taxpayers.
We have also checked with DOT to make sure that the
interstate interchange will not be affected at Golden Gate Parkway.
We don't want to affect that interchange. We have never wanted to
affect that change. As early as this morning I contacted FDOT and
talked to Norm Feder, and he said that Livingston Road and the
interstate interchange are totally separate issues and will be
evaluated separately. So if there's any concern that we're impacting
the interchange, we are not.
I find it a little interesting when Jeff Perry was
talking about the reduction to Airport Road if you only do four lanes
of Livingston Road up to Golden Gate Parkway as opposed to four lanes
of Livingston Road up to Pine Ridge Road. He said there's an 8
percent reduction if you only do the first four but an 18 percent
reduction if you do the entire length. Based on his memorandum dated
yesterday, the numbers he was using were from your Table 4 numbers, so
he was using peak season daily traffic volumes and not average daily
traffic volumes. We're having a hard time figuring out what numbers
we have to play by and what numbers staff has to play by. We have
used the numbers you have used in your 2010 financially feasible plan,
which was your Collier County numbers, in building your long range
plan. Those numbers keep changing. We don't, frankly, know what
target to shoot at because the target keeps moving. We are asking for
you to be consistent throughout.
If you want to use a more conservative number in
planning your roadway system, make sure you have adequate funds out
there to build that roadway system. But if you're comfortable enough
to build your development today based upon the county's numbers,
certainly you should be comfortable enough to build your roadway
system in the future on those numbers. I don't want to repeat
anything that Mr. Barr is saying -- so I'm right on time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perry, is there any confusion over
what table of the analysis -- I sat here bored to death for an hour
and a half while you said Table 1, Table 1, Table 1, Table 1. Is
Mr. Yovanovich confused about that? Do we need to correct --
MR. PERRY: He is, Mr. Dorrill. In response to the last
comment, the differences in percentages have absolutely nothing to do
with tables. It's -- it's a division of the assigned volume against
the traffic -- two different modeling assignments. It has nothing to
do with tables. Tables weren't even factored into the -- I said that
if you run the model with Livingston Road north and with Livingston
Road absent, the difference is 18 percent in the results. It has
nothing to do with which tables you choose.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But are you running it vers --
using Table 1, Table 4, or Table 5 when you run the road?
MR. PERRY: You don't -- you don't run -- the tables
have nothing to do with the volumes coming out of the models. The
model produces a certain amount of traffic. How you relate that
volume to a level of service standard is where the tables come into
play. And what I said at the beginning of this after the break is
that when we related that difference using the county's concurrency
tables, which are the only ones that really matter -- we can talk
about all the other tables all day long, and the only ones that really
matter this year, next year, and the year after that are the
concurrency tables. When using those concurrency tables, the current
level of service is D. In the year 2000 without extending the road
north it will still be D. If you extend the road north, you will drop
back to C. And that's when the tables come in, and that's using the
county's concurrency tables.
But the 8 percent difference drop in volumes as compared
to the 18 percent are directly related to the modeling volumes coming
from the same model that Mr. Barr's staff ran and that my staff ran,
which were identical numbers. In fact, I'm using the numbers from his
table to calculate the difference between before and after
conditions. It has nothing to do with tables.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate the question, Mr.
Dotrill. I'm not sure that's a tremendously relevant element --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's helpful to me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Barr, please.
MR. BARR: Thank you, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. For
the record my name is Jack Barr of Barr-Dunlop and Associates. When
we last addressed you on this subject, you recall that our attempt was
to shed some light on a rather confusing issue that it has now become
and to show you some facts and results of analysis which resulted from
some scenarios that we tested using the model, same model, as Jeff has
said, that your own staff and their consultant have not used.
And just to briefly review what we concluded, some of
the main items that we brought to your attention at that time was that
we did our analysis based on the latest growth projections which were
provided by Jeff and his staff to us. And we tested scenarios without
any of Livingston Road being constructed either in the year 2000 or in
the year 2020 and then with other scenarios where parts of it were
constructed. In other words, we examined scenarios that had not been
examined before, and we examined it with the lower growth projections
which had not been done.
We reported to you that it is possible to delay
Livingston Road, except for the south segment, until somewhere around
2020 with these new growth projections accounted for without causing
deficiencies until around the year 2020. You wondered at that time
why the differences between our analysis and your staff and the -- and
the Plummet analysis, and we were commissioned by our clients, the
Wyndemere Homeowners' Association, to explore why those differences
exist. And I appreciate the courtesy and the cooperation of staff and
the Plummet company in providing us documentation so that we could
make those comparisons.
We examined needs based upon the adopted Collier County
tables. I'm going to come to that in a minute and try to simplify
what has become a confusing issue of which tables.
We also -- the other major difference -- whereas the
Plummet analysis for the first time this past fall and again in recent
months has been using the statewide Florida DOT generalized tables for
their analysis of deficiencies and needs.
We looked at what minimum improvements -- the other
reason was we looked at what minimum improvements would be needed by
the year 2000 and by the year 2020 based upon the lower growth
projections, whereas your staff and its consultants has not yet looked
at those minimum improvements. What they did was look at the 2020
plan that was adopted in December and said, yes, with the -- it was
nearly sufficient, nearly adequate with the higher growth projections
upon which they based it, and it will, therefore, be more adequate
with the 32 percent decrease in growth projections. But it has not
been analyzed to see what could be taken out of it to provide a
minimum schedule to maintain adequacy of your system.
You have already observed some of the things that I was
going to point out to you, so I'll not observe -- re-cover those as to
what your county tables are being used for and what the state tables
are being used for. We believe in those county tables. We believe
they ought be used for your planning and for your capital improvement
programming. They were developed with measurements that were made
right here in Collier County of the relationships to peak hours and
capacity. That was a study done by Plummet company for the county in
1990, and we still believe those are good tables.
All of the tables are good tables. All of those county
tables, we believe, are the valid thing to use for analyzing needs now
and in the future in Collier County, certainly better than the
statewide tables that Plummet has now been using for their
evaluations. The reason is -- the reason we think that all of those
tables are good and you can't discount analysis based on 1, 2, 3, or 4
of those tables, they're all related to the same peak-hour criteria.
Peak hour -- peak hour is when you look at capacity.
And the 24-hour service volumes in those tables are related to what
24-hour volume will produce that particular volume in the peak hour
and, therefore, how close that peak hour is to capacity. All -- all
of the county tables, therefore, are interrelated. It doesn't matter
which one you use as long as you factor correctly to get into the
table you want to use. We utilized the tables properly. The second
main reason -- I believe I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can we just
grant a little bit of leeway, because his testimony two or three weeks
ago is the whole reason we're doing this today? And the difference
between staff and the engineering expert, Mr. Barr, seems to me to be
the whole crux --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Barr, how long will it take
you to wrap up?
MR. BARR: Probably no more than 2 minutes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We gave staff about an hour, so
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead, Mr. Barr. Wrap it up.
MR. BARR: I'll be as brief as possible, sir, and I
understand your concern about time for all speakers.
Again, back to the second main reason for our
differences, and that is what we are trying to do and what are we
looking at in terms of needs and based upon growth projections. There
was a 32 percent reduction in your population projection, and that
occurred after you had adopted -- those adjustments were made after
you had analyzed and adopted your 2020 cost feasible plan last
December. The needs analysis really needs to be reviewed. We were
basing all of our analyses on those reduced figures, and we were
looking for conditions that -- we concur with Jeff's statements that
it would be well to look at right-of-way needs beyond 2020. Certainly
those project -- the original projections, which were the basis for
your present 2020 cost feasible plan, were based upon what then was
projected for 2020 and which Jeff now tells us are horizon year or
ultimate capacity-type development -- ultimate buildout I think is the
term used for the county -- which might not occur for 20 or 30 years
beyond year 2020 based upon your -- your present 2020 projections.
Certainly we need to do long-range planning. The
differences in findings coming to you, we think, have been explained.
There are some differences of opinion on what is the most accurate way
to estimate future deficiencies. We are sure that our approach
yielded valid findings. They certainly should give you concern about
doing some more work to make sure with the 32 percent reduction in
growth that there should -- should be some significant reduction in
your road program between now and 2020. At this point we would agree
with Jeff, and we -- you certainly have not underplanned. We believe
it is possible that you have overplanned. I'll be glad to respond to
any questions that you might have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have a question for staff
based on Mr. Barr's presentation, and that is we did recently adopt
population numbers, our new method of calculation -- of calculating
population maximums, that take us from what; five fifty to three
eighty or something like that as a buildout in 2020. When you apply
those numbers, that -- that reduction, what does that mean to the
needs assessment?
MR. PERRY: As Mr. Barr indicated, it -- we were in
trouble. The needs assessment was in trouble as far as not having
sufficient capacity in the system. There were segments that you could
not get to operate efficiently because there just wasn't anyplace else
to build anymore, lands no more, room in the system, if you will.
When we reduced the population projections, we reran the 2020
assignments for the financially feasible plan and found that there was
a marked improvement in many of the facilities, that they operated
better. There was a rudimentary analysis prepared as to what segments
you might consider. That was brought to the MPO, and we suggested to
the MPO that in the next update we would look at reducing the 2020
financial feasible plan by pulling some of those segments out that
perhaps were not needed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this one of those?
MR. PERRY: Livingston Road is not one of them.
Livingston Road has been a key component of the future long-range plan
since -- as was stated earlier since the mid '70s. We received no
indication that there was any desire on the board's part to consider
removing, deleting, scaling back the long-term need for Livingston
Road. In the short term, in the next five or ten years, which is
where I believe you should be focusing your attention, the 2020 system
planning process breaks down.
There are umpteen different ways of analyzing it.
There's so many different possible alternatives of -- of roadway
alignments and corridors and suggestions and options that can be
offered. What you need to build within the next five or ten years is
-- is a more specific analysis that Mr. Barr has not been able to --
to refute any of the information concerning what's going to happen to
Airport Road within the next five or ten years. That's -- that's
where I'm focusing my attention.
The 20 year -- the 2020 time frame, the lowering
populations, that's all good system planning information, and the MPO
needs to look at it, and this board needs to look at it. But that has
nothing do with the issue of whether or not you need to build
Livingston Road within the next five years, and we believe that you do
to some degree to stay out of concurrency within the next ten years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Barr.
MR. BARR: Mr. Chairman, may I respond with one
comment?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Barr, we've given you some
additional time.
(Audience protested)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Smith and then Mr. Fridkin.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and fellow
commissioners. My name is Scott Smith. I live at 811 Coldstream
Court in the Briarwood development. I'm here today representing my
fellow residents. I'm the most recent past president of the Briarwood
Homeowners' Association.
And as I sat here today listening to these very eloquent
speakers, there was one word that kept coming into my mind, and that
was confusion. That's the same feeling I have today as I had when I
walked out of my first advanced calculus class at the University of
Nebraska. I'm not quite sure, and I'm wondering from some of the
commissioners if you're quite sure where we're headed with this.
I think as taxpayers -- and quoting the figures today
from the Naples Daily News of 15.2 million dollars I think was the
figure that was quoted, that we might be rushing a little bit to move
forward. We're not against growth. We're -- we're looking at moving
forward in a prudent, conservative -- fiscal conservative manner on
building this road. I as a parent, of course, have a few more
personal concerns as do the other members who live on Coldstream Court
who are parents of the 13 children who are under ten who play in those
backyards that will be just a few feet from your road, but we are
trusting you that you will meet those safety concerns.
What we're here today to talk about: is this prudent to
move forward in the timetable. And I think as commissioners I would
implore you to look at this very, very carefully based upon these
conflicting studies what is needed. One thing we are not confused
about is that this area is growing. We have to address those needs,
but are we doing it in a prudent manner based upon the costs and
situation as it now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fridkin, then Mr. Gillis.
MR. FRIDKIN: I need to hand this to Commissioner
Mac'Kie. Good morning. I'm Jeff Fridkin. I'm here as the chairman
of the government affairs division of the Chamber EDC Coalition for
Government and Community Affairs. We've handed you a position
statement from the coalition. That position statement is based on
some work that our transportation committee did. Our transportation
committee is made up of engineers, property appraisers, business
owners, and concerned citizens. And it lays out some questions and
answers to try to trace the history of this corridor and also to
address current issues surrounding the corridor.
The Chamber and the EDC Coalition supports timely
planning and construction of an ultimate six-lane roadway facility for
the betterment of the entire community. The roadway project should
and will include provisions for bicycles, pedestrians, landscape,
improved access to existing and proposed developments and, frankly,
should have appropriate buffering.
As to what the time is, whether it's next year, two
years from now and the like, that's not an issue that the coalition
has taken a position on. But what is very important to us is we
recognize that segments may have to be phased, but the roadway needs
to be master planned for the future. You know, typical sections need
to be drawn that will call for expansion with minimal disruption to
the public. And adequate right-of-way for future expansion should be
acquired in today's dollars and not the future's dollars.
The facility, we believe, is necessary to relieve
existing roadways and to maintain adequate levels of service.
Lowering existing levels of service does not appear to be an
acceptable option to anybody. The -- this roadway has been in the
initial Collier County comprehensive plan since the early '80s and is
consistent with the current Collier County Growth Management Plan as
well as the county's 2020 long-range transportation plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gillis, then Mr. Ward.
MR. GILLIS: Good morning. Mark Gillis with David
Plummet and Associates. You certainly heard a lot of numbers this
morning and, as you know, we prepared a traffic study with some
follow-up correspondence. And I don't intend to get into presenting a
lot of more numbers to you, but certainly if you have questions, I'll
be happy to answer those questions.
Let me just highlight the conclusions that we've come up
with in our original traffic study and in our -- our follow-up
correspondence to that. The first one is that we believe Livingston
Road is one of the most critical components of the future county's
roadway network. It relieves Airport Road, Golden Gate,
Goodlette-Frank Road, 1-75, Santa Barbara. It is also one of the few
roads that provides north-south continuity between Lee and Collier
County. I think anybody who drives Airport Road even today in the off
season would realize that a parallel facility to Airport Road is going
to be needed some day certainly in the future.
The second conclusion we have is that we believe that
ultimately six lanes are needed -- will be needed on Livingston Road,
may not be needed by 2020, but as Mr. Perry identified in his report,
there's a lot of growth that is forecasted for the county beyond the
year 2020. We would recommend that you do not preclude six lanes on
Livingston Road in the future.
Our third conclusion is regarding the timing of
Livingston Road. We believe that -- the section of Airport Road south
of Golden Gate Parkway, we forecasted that that will have a level of
service problem between now and the year 2000. We also believe that
by the year 2000 the section north of Golden Gate Parkway will be
operating at acceptable levels of service but at potentially 98
percent of capacity, which to us would -- would raise a lot of flags
about its -- its future operations in the next year or two after that
period. So we've estimated that Liv -- that Airport Road north of
Golden Gate Parkway could fail by the year 2001.
Now, there's a lot of different service volumes out
there, and we did do our analysis based on the Florida DOT service
volumes that are current as of today. And we did that because we were
directed by the Florida DOT to consider those service volumes as the
most current up-to-date service volumes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, there's an important
question. Why are you using the state numbers instead of these
Collier County numbers that we all love and trust? I mean, how can
the State DOT tell us what to do on a county road?
MR. GILLIS: I would simply offer a word of caution when
we use the Collier County service volumes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you adopted -- you gave us
the Collier County service -- MR. GILLIS: We prepared those, yes. We prepared those.
(Applause)
MR. GILLIS: We prepared those back in 1989 and 1990.
The data was correct and current at that time. That's six years ago.
The service volumes are becoming somewhat outdated.
Secondly, if you -- you would -- if -- if we go back
into the original report, you'll also notice that there are 14 road
segments in Collier County that were studied in particular. The study
came up with basically two things: One were generalized Collier
County service volumes. The second thing it came up with was specific
service volumes for 14 roadway segments in the county which the county
felt was operate -- were operating under special conditions.
One of those road segments was Airport Road from Golden
Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road. It was operating under special
conditions largely because of several factors: One, it crosses two of
the county's major arterial roadways across Airport Road, Golden Gate
Parkway and Pine Ridge Road. Because of the domination of those two
roads, there are tremendous turn volumes at the intersections, and
there's also not the kind of green -- signal green-time allocation
that you get at the two terminal intersections. For that reason,
Airport Road was developed -- a route specific service volume was
developed for Airport Road, and that was 18 percent lower than the
generalized service volumes. So what we're saying is use caution when
you're looking at these service volumes and coming up with levels of
service.
Yes, we are taking a conservative viewpoint on the
situation, and our concern is that the segment of Airport Road just on
levels of service and operations may have a level of service problem
by the year 2001. And to us that means for solid planning, let's get
the roadway planned, designed, and constructed before the system fails
rather than after the system fails.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my question was, did FDOT
tell you you have to use these numbers. And if they did, how can
they?
MR. GILLIS: Florida DOT has advised us -- let me give a
moment of background. When the needs assessment was done, the Florida
DOT had District 1 service volumes available. They directed the HPOs
that were preparing the 2020 plans that they should be using those
service volumes. Since the adoption of the 2020 plan, Florida DOT
District 1 has withdrawn those service volumes. They've said the more
appropriate service volumes now are the 1995 statewide generalized
service volumes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we did specific Collier
County volumes. We -- we created Collier County numbers because we're
different from the rest of the state. So why -- why do they not
apply?
MR. GILLIS: Back in 1989 and '90 that's true, and all
I'm saying is identifying a couple of cautionary points. When we use
those service volumes, we should -- if we use those, we should
recognize that they're somewhat outdated and that Airport Road was
identified as a roadway operating under special conditions. For that
reason, we believe that the -- that there may be a level of service
problem on Airport Road in the area of around 2001 north of Golden
Gate Parkway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting that those
specific county numbers that we've been using since 1989 may not be
the most credible source in 19967
MR. GILLIS: What I'm suggesting is that it's probably
time that the county start updating --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a yes or no. Can I get
just a yes or no? Did I hear you correctly? You're suggesting that
those numbers that are specific to the county may not be the most
credible numbers to use in 19967
MR. GILLIS: May not be the most current numbers for use
in the county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a yes?
MR. GILLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And you're here today
representing whom?
MR. GILLIS: I'm here representing the Grey Oaks
development. And I'm representing the Grey Oaks development, as I
said last meeting, because we did the original traffic study for the
DRI, and one of the roadway improvements that was identified as being
very important for concurrency purposes was Livingston Road.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In your DRI did you use the
numbers -- did you use 5 or 17 Do you know what I'm asking you? Did
you use the state numbers that you're proposing to be used today, or
did you use the county numbers from your study?
MR. GILLIS: As Mr. Perry has identified, the state has
updated those service volumes repeatedly. I don't know the exact date
that the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But were they county or state
numbers that you used in the DRI for Grey Oaks?
MR. GILLIS: Ma'am, I don't recall. The study was done
sometime before 1990. I don't remember when the study was done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we done any recent DRIs?
MR. GILLIS: Yes, ma'am. The Florida Department of
Community Affairs, the Regional Planning Council, and Florida DOT are
telling us for DRI purposes to do the traffic analysis based on peak
hour peak season and use the Florida DOT generalized service volumes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you're -- okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Gillis.
MR. GILLIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ward and then Mr. Corkran.
MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Whit
Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. I'll
just take about two minutes to tell you that the Collier Building
Industry Association in our industry has relied on our comprehensive
plan that we've developed. We have recently, as most of you are
aware, commissioned a study, a voter opinion poll, by Public Opinions
Strategies, a nationally known pollster out of Washington D. C. Some
of the things that that study showed us was that our constituents, our
residents, are concerned about adequate facilities, adequate
transportation in our area. They are -- they were also -- one of
their highest concerns was that we -- we as a county commission, we as
a county family, have a plan and we follow the plan that we have
adopted. We adopted our -- this -- our transportation plan many years
ago. As a matter of fact, Livingston Road has been on that plan for I
guess some 20 years. The growth that has been in that area has always
known that Livingston Road was going to be built. Now, we're down to
our five-year projections. And our five-year projections can become
pretty accurate, I think, as our experts have indicated. And -- and
they have focused on the need for building Livingston Road and
building it according to our plan and on -- in a timely manner. We
would encourage you to do that because it will never be any easier,
and it will never be any less expensive to build Livingston Road than
it will today. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Corkran.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While he's coming up, I'm going
to have a question for staff. I don't know who. I thought when we
asked this question before, we were told that DRIs and PUDs for
threshold analysis of traffic we use the county numbers and that '-
I'm sorry. I forget your name, but the man from Plummet and
Associates says that they are instructed to use state numbers. I need
to get that straight.
MR. PERRY: There's -- excuse me. There's a policy in
your growth management plan that says if a roadway -- excuse me, if a
development is going to put so much traffic on a road -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 5 percent.
MR. PERRY: -- versus 5 percent of a level of service,
we use -- for that one analysis we use the county's level of service
standards for the roadways that you've adopted, because that's what's
adopted in your Growth Management Plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: So when we talk about will the project
generate greater than 5 percent of a level of service D capacity, the
answer is yes or no depending on the county lookup table. When you're
dealing in the long term with the traffic impact on the system, then
you're -- then you're going to be using -- right now on your DRIs
you're going to be using the state level of service standards for peak
hour. The PUDs analysis -- the more -- the smaller projects typically
would probably use the county's tables as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Corkran.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who's after Mr. Corkran, Mr.
Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: He's the last one.
MR. CORKRAN: I'm Sewell Corkran. I live in Olde
Naples. I check the road counts on every single road in Collier
County on each quarter, and I've done it since 1990. I want to
compliment Jeff Perry and the staff for taking the rightful position
that they have. Actually their position is about as conservative as
it could possibly be.
For example, in your recent AUIRs they predicted that
Airport Road would be deficient by 1997. And this is no longer true,
because with the six-laning of Golden Gate Parkway, people didn't go
north on Airport Road and hook west, and they didn't cross over Golden
Gate Parkway to come south so that the traffic counts which I follow
on Airport Road showed a decline in spite of a general growth in
traffic. That's an aberration. And Jeff Perry, if he wanted to
present the strongest case, could make a case that the present traffic
on Airport Road is not ninety-two percent but something over a hundred
percent.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about numbers and
charts and so forth. What you need to do is go to the law. And the
law is 163 Part 2 under the Florida Growth Management Act. The
arbitrator of concurrency, which is the Department of Community
Affairs, doesn't give a darn about the debate that you're having.
What Collier County is held to under state law is what's in their
plan. And what's in their plan are the charts that they provide as
part of the plan to the DCA, and they also provide on an annual basis
the AUIR. It's irrelevant to start arguing about what Barr says or
Plummet says or the FDOT says. The law says what counts is what's in
the plan. And Jeff Perry and this staff have given you what's in this
plan. And under state law there is no excuse for not proceeding with
the construction of Livingston Road, particularly the section south of
Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road, which is the immediate critical
need.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Corkran.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: After that I think the one
statement we need to recognize is our plan may be wrong. Just because
it's in the plan doesn't mean the plan is right. And the discussion
that has occurred today shows us that there are a variable number of
ways to look at that plan and to model that plan, and they range in
excess of a hundred percent in -- in how you plan your roadways, so a
few givens.
What I'm going to try and do is craft a motion that
incorporates what we've had today. We are on a time line today that
we actually should be breaking for lunch to keep our afternoon agenda
and some of our commitments made, so let me float this. If there is a
lengthy discussion on this -- it's up to the chairman -- we may have
to break for lunch -- I don't know -- but let me try and cover this.
There's no question in my mind this roadway is needed in
the next ten years. From everything we've heard today, I don't think
we can take the liberal approach that has been incorporated in the
Barr study that puts it out 24 years. I don't think anyone is really
buying that. I've heard it doesn't matter which numbers you use. I
don't buy that either. There's a dramatic difference depending on
which numbers you use and how you use it and what factor you apply to
it.
We've heard a couple groups say plan for six lanes. Six
lanes are needed. At what cost? At what cost to communities do we
shove six-lane roads 10 or 15 feet from the property line? So all
these absolutes are not absolutes. They're all open to challenge.
I think -- I'm going to incorporate four elements in my
motion, and they are as follows: The 2020 needs assessment needs to
be done with the revised population of 393,000. We're operating off
the wrong chart. That needs to be done.
Second, based on the information we've received today,
I'm comfortable in a delay of a Livingston Road segment from Golden
Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge and possibly Immokalee -- we haven't heard
anything on that section -- to the year 2002. Third is to investigate
in that time frame the relocation of water management and bike paths
into the FPL easement to allow the westward shifting of the roadway
corridor to the greatest extent possible. Once the HPO reviews the
2020 needs assessment, a total adjustment may need to occur throughout
the roadway system based on that, but I think it's premature now to
shove this segment of Livingston Road out ten years. I think we need
to be a little more conservative than that and put it maybe in the
year 2002.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which segment?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm talking about a segment
between Golden Gate and Pine Ridge, because I have heard nothing about
the segment from Pine Ridge to Immokalee. I haven't heard hide nor
hair of that, so I'm focusing on the segment between Golden Gate
Parkway and Pine Ridge, because north of Pine Ridge I haven't heard
the same concerns.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you persuaded at all by what
Mr. Perry said, that they have done, I think he said, a rudimentary
analysis using the new population studies, and while it shows there
may be some teevaluation, it doesn't indicate any change for
Livingston Road?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I hear that, but by the same
token, I've also heard from both sides of the podium that 2001, 2002
may be possible. And there are some other elements of this roadway we
need to investigate such as anything that allows us to move it to the
west. And I'm not staving off -- I'm not -- staving off a roadway to
make people in this room happy is not my approach. My approach is to
buy what time is prudent and necessary to allow us to relocate the
roadway as best we can to the west. 2002, from what I've heard today,
is a comfortable level that would not place us in a deficient status
in any roadway corridor but doesn't -- doesn't give false hope to the
people here that this roadway will never be built, which is something
we've tried very hard not to do. So that's the reason for coming up
to that year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second your
motion, and I'm going to do it for a couple of reasons. Mr. Perry
mentioned earlier today that -- and in the memo you gave us earlier in
the week, that this has been -- the plan has been in the works for a
number of years, and it has. And as Commissioner Hancock said, I
don't think we're giving anybody false hope that it will never be
built. But when the numbers haven't proven out with what was assumed
long term, in the past in other cases we have made changes. A case in
point, Santa Barbara extension; case in point, Vanderbilt west of U.S.
41. Both of those were projected for a particular time frame; a
necessity would be there at a particular frame. As that time frame
drew closer, it was found it wasn't required at that time, and both of
those projects were put off for a period of time, not to appease
neighborhoods but because the numbers weren't there.
The -- I have a couple of concerns, and you've addressed
some of these through, and one of those is that the numbers -- I know
you asked do you have a comfort level with the rudimentary review.
And I don't think when we're planning long term and we're talking
about hundreds of millions of dollars, that we're going to have to
plug that in. I'm sure you will, but we're going to have to plug in
that smaller number before I'm comfortable with it.
My discomfort is we're approving 20-year impacts that
new development has using different standards than we're using for the
20-year road assessment. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
We're comfortable enough to plan the development on certain numbers;
yet we're not using those same numbers. That just -- that seems
something very, very wrong there. If we're going to plan our road
network on what future development would be, there ought to be more
consistency there.
And the last item that really raised my discomfort --
that's why I asked the question twice -- is the very planner and the
very company that worked with the county on those numbers that Jeff
indicated we've been using since '89 is now questioning whether or not
they're the appropriate numbers to be using. And -- and he's the one
who put them in place in the first place.
So I think your suggestion for a delay here is
appropriate for a number of reasons: One, we need to plug the smaller
numbers in and get a more realistic picture; but, number two, the
numbers we're using may not be the most credible ones anyway.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we better get our money
back then on that study, for heaven's sake.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me qualify -- let me qualify
the segment again. It's Golden Gate to Pine Ridge. South of Golden
Gate we've heard from both sides that we cannot delay that beyond what
it's currently scheduled, that that would be very short-sighted. But
north of Golden Gate we have the opportunity to do that, and I would
like that opportunity to try and make a western relocation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, do you have something
you want to add or question?
MR. CONRECODE: I was just making sure that I got the
motion right. Item number one was do the needs analysis using lower
population figures, and make the appropriate adjustments to the road
plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Correct.
MR. CONRECODE: Number two is the segment between Golden
Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge is pushed out to 2002.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Completion in 2002; correct.
MR. CONRECODE: But the portion south of Golden Gate
Parkway to Radio Road is due as it is currently planned.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stays on schedule.
MR. CONRECODE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume -- just before you
go on to the fourth point, I assume you don't mind -- similar to your
suggestion, on the northern portion where we're trying to move that
west, that we do the same to have the minimal impact on the
neighborhoods running through that southern portion.
MR. CONRECODE: As far as I'm concerned, we're doing
some of that now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a function of
transportation that should be ongoing right now. And I heard somebody
raise a question. All the numbers we've been using on dates have been
completion dates; is that correct, Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what was scheduled for the
year 1999 or something we're now pushing back to 2002.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a completion date, not
start date.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. All the dates we've
mentioned today have been completion dates.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a start date for a
completion in 2002?
MR. CONRECODE: We started it a year ago. We're 30
percent design.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When are you going to start
digging?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, you're going to confirm
the fourth section?
MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. The third item that I had here
was to relocate water management -- for the segment between Golden
Gate and Pine Ridge, relocate water main -- outside water management
and pathways as far west as possible to allow the roadway to be as far
west as possible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And that's going to
take a partnership with Grey Oaks, I believe they own the property
underneath; the permission from FP&L, and it's going to take some time
to work that out. But, yes, I would like to pursue that.
MR. CONRECODE: And then there was a fourth item that
you mentioned, but I have nothing written on that item number for you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I lied. There are only
three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, let me ask -- I can't support
the motion in that current form. I need one little modification, and
that is rather than have a rock-solid 2002 date, I think that it's
only prudent for us to reevaluate this every year and have some
flexibility there, that locking in at 2002 could get us in serious
trouble on Airport Road. It has the potential to do that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, because the board is not --
because we have a policy that will not allow deficiency of a segment.
If that deficiency becomes proposed or projected and we have to move
the construction schedule up, we aren't really given a lot of choice
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But your motion doesn't reflect that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The motion doesn't reflect
that. That was my concern, Mr. Chairman, was that the 2002 date is
kind of giving staff marching orders that we don't want this leg
completed until that time; yet at the same time we're asking
Mr. Conrecode to do the needs analysis with lower population numbers.
I'd like the motion, if you would incorporate it, to reflect a desire
for the road to be completed at 2002, but if his reexamination of the
needs -- needs analysis indicates it should be done sooner, I'd like
to know about that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're suggesting if his
needs analysis brings that back different, then they need to bring it
back to the board?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that's any
different because it may be beyond 2002. I wasn't trying to say the
road cannot be built before a -- or before a day in 2002 but that the
people in this room at least have some impression of the direction and
line we're taking as opposed to go home, we'll consider it, and we'll
let you know how it comes out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two questions. One is
wouldn't it be in the normal course of the construction of this
project for you to design the roadway in a -- in a manner that has the
least possible impacts? I mean, wouldn't we be talking about
berming? Wouldn't we be talking to FP&L? Wouldn't be talking to
Grebbs (phonetic)? Is it necessary to move this road to stop this
project in order to allow that to happen?
MR. CONRECODE: Actually staff has had 20 public
meetings with homeowner groups and associations all up and down that
corridor to do just that, to make sure that we address those impacts.
A number of them was with a member of the commission.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that business about so that
we can move it as far away as possible and talk to FPL and Grebbs,
that's going to happen whether we talk about 2002 or we talk about
1997. And let me -- just one more question. I need to understand the
reality of if 2002 is some sort of a target expectation date for
completion. If we don't make this motion -- if we were to support
staff's recommendation, what would be the completion date?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: '99.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '99?
MR. CONRECODE: '99, 2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: SO we're talking about --
MR. CONRECODE: 2000 based on your AUIR today.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I can't support this for a
couple reasons. One is that we have adopted -- we can't -- this is
the cart before the horse. If our comp. plan is wrong, we've got to
change the comp. plan. We cannot make up the standard that we want to
use today when the comp. plan says what the standard is. If we need
to amend the comp. plan, so be it. But we can't be ignoring the law
that we've already adopted. And it says --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Please don't lecture me on
concurrency. I don't happen to agree. There's a motion and a second
and three people opposing the motion, so obviously my motion is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I think
if you make that one minor alteration --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you let me, I will.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will modify my motion to
instead of a target year of 2002, to direct that the analysis be
performed at the -- and that the segment from Golden Gate Parkway to
Pine Ridge not be built before it is needed and warranted based on
that revised study.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're setting the target
date still at 2002, but if the numbers come back under the new
analysis --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they've already told us --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my
comment, Commissioner Hac'Kie. You've interrupted all four of us
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion then is that
we keep the target date of 2002. If staff analysis shows there's some
problem, they bring it back to the board. And I think that's exactly
what Commissioner Matthews had said.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. I'm concerned about
marching orders for 2002 and they come up with 2001, or they may even
come up with 2004. But I'm concerned about 2002.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. My revised motion states
that it be built when it is warranted and needed based on the revised
study.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode has something to respond
to that.
MR. CONRECODE: That's an important clarification that I
need to made. The revised needs analysis we're doing is a 2020 needs
analysis. It's not going to indicate the specific year a specific
segment like that stretch of Livingston Road -- that's based on your
five-year, ten-year planning horizons based on traffic counts, your
AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then there is a fourth element to
my motion. It's that we review and revise, if necessary, the five-
and ten-year road construction plan to reflect that this segment from
Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge not be built prior to it being
needed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And how do we define needed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Based on what numbers?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just said with the revised
population figures.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Using what table?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Collier County or state numbers?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He uses Collier County numbers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five and ten year automatically
uses the county numbers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's already told us that if
you do that, you're building it in 1999. Haven't you told us that?
Didn't we hear that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
MR. PERRY: Not exactly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: If you -- you'll recall that I said in the
year 2000, which is when we plan to open the southern section of
Livingston Road, our suggestion is that it would be prudent to build
the northern section at the same time because the southern section is
simply going to return you back to present-day conditions on Airport
Road, give you about five years' worth of leeway. So the point I
think that the commissioner is trying to make -- Commissioner Hancock
is trying to make is that between the year 2000 and 2005, the traffic
projections indicate to us today that probably by the year 2005 we
will -- we will again be in trouble and have to extend -- we'll have
to extend Livingston Road north. Now, you've suggested 2002. You
know, I don't know what other analysis to do. We've -- we've -- we
have to use the concurrency tables. We've looked, you know, right at
the numbers as far as traffic growths go --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Perry.
Does the motion give comfort level that if we start to see problems on
other roadways, that Livingston Road then would be accelerated and
built?
MR. PERRY: I didn't have a problem with the first
motion, because you could come back next year with the AUIR, and if we
tell you then that, as Mr. Corkran has indicated, that there may be a
huge jump in traffic on Airport Road and we need to move that segment
closer, then we'll be here standing in front of you telling you that.
So I don't have a problem with --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we can go ahead and accelerate it
then.
MR. PERRY: -- the motion -- programmed construction in
the current AUIR so the construction is completed in 2002. We can do
that in your AUIR now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But my question to you is, does
the motion as it is currently constituted give us that comfort level.
MR. PERRY: It does, but I have no idea what analysis
you're looking for to tell you anything different than I'm telling you
right now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. This is very simple.
I've heard two words. I've heard prudent and necessary. They don't
mean the same thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's true.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The fact that it's a good idea to
build a road doesn't mean it's needed. It would be a good idea to
build our entire 2020 network next year, but that doesn't mean it's
needed, and here's the discontinuation. You've been hearing prudent.
I've been hearing necessary. These people want to know about
necessary. And before we go spending -- your point earlier. Before
we go spending tax dollars on a roadway that isn't needed, there might
be other things we want to do like right-of-way acquisition in other
areas and, you know, let's spend the money as it's needed so we
maintain concurrency. No one is saying anything different than that.
My motion is intended -- by putting 2002 out there was just kind of a
-- something to put your hands on, the point being that a segment
between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge should be constructed when
it is needed, and the numbers do not show that it is absolutely
necessary in the year 2000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what we just heard Jeff
say was sometime between 2000 and 2005.
MR. PERRY: But we need to be able plug those dollars in
one of those five-year columns. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. PERRY: That's our concern, as to what year are you
asking us to plug the money into. Are you asking us to plug it into
2000 so it's constructed in 2002? We can do that and submit that to
DCA as part of your AUIR, and there will be no concurrency problem.
Next year you can reevaluate it again with the latest up-to-date
traffic projections as to whether or not you can push it out another
year or whether it needs to be accelerated.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like that one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going back to my original
motion.
MR. PERRY: Your original motion I have no problem with.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. In that case we'll go back to
the original motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The only concern that I have --
and I want the people who are here today from Wyndemere and the people
who are here from Grey Oaks -- is that we're saying 2002. And if we
have to move it up, I don't want to hear two years from now you
promised, because we can't make that promise.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- the only thing we're
promising is that we don't do it before it's necessary.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's right. That's the only
thing we're doing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. With that in mind, we have a
motion and a second. We're back to our original motion. Scratch the
amendments.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the four-part motion
cleverly disguised as a three-part motion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That passes 4 to 1.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One agenda note -- excuse me, ladies
and gentlemen. We still have a meeting going on here. If you could
hold it down just for a second, we -- an agenda note, the time certain
for the judge to make his presentation has been changed to 3 p.m. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll try to -- try to accommodate him
at that time, and we'll break for lunch till 1:30.
(A lunch break was held between 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county
commissioners' meeting this afternoon. Next item, Mr. Archibald.
Item #8B4 - Continued
Item #885
RESOLUTION 96-363, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AND
EXECUTE A PERMIT/AGREEMENT WITH THE FDOT FOR UNDERTAKING LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS ON S.R. 951 AT THE MARCO RIVER BRIDGE - ADOPTED
HR. ARCHIBALD: Chairman, board members, for the record,
George Archibald representing the transportation department. Agenda
Item 8(B)(5) has been added to the agenda, and it is a resolution that
staff is recommending that the board adopt that authorizes at county
administrator in the board's absence during the next two weeks to sign
or execute the easements or permits with the F-DOT for a landscape
project on 951 at the Harco bridge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. Okay.
Mr. Archibald, this was that work that was supposed to be done way
back in Hay or June; is that correct?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. Actually, the grant was approved
back in --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: April -- April, I believe.
MR. ARCHIBALD: January. I think we got the funding in
Hay, and we've been waiting over three months for a permit. And it's
a result of the change in the F-DOT process. We're hoping to get
something from the F-DOT within the next two weeks, and that's why
staff is recommending --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I -- I've had a -- a member of
the beautification district said if we don't get this done this month,
then we're going to lose the funding. Is that --
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, we have until September, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that is --
MR. ARCHIBALD: -- coming awfully fast.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this is a formality and a
follow-through and something we've already approved, so I'm going to
make a -- I'm going to move the item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If she wants to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't -- asked me -- I was
just pointing out something.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six weeks. I'll second the
motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got weeks, six of them, you
know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When will this work be done, if we
approve this today?
MR. ARCHIBALD: As soon as we get the permit approval
from the state, we're ready to start work. If we get it before the
end of August, we plan on starting the very first week of September.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The project shouldn't take more than two
weeks to complete.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8C1
REQUEST TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PARK RENOVATIONS TO EVERGLADES CITY - NO
ACTION
Next item is 8(C)(1) concerning the Everglades City
Park.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm sorry. I have a -- a
real question on this. We have a unique relationship with Everglades
City in that the county does provide some services in there that we
wouldn't provide the City of Naples, but if -- if the City of Naples
asks for repairs to Fleischmann, you know, I -- I have a difficulty
treating Everglades City different than another municipality, and
maybe you can shed some light on that, Commissioner Matthews, but I --
this -- this doesn't seem appropriate --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the outset.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the -- the letter that
Mayor Hamilton has supplied us asking for three repairs that
Mr. Olliff estimates will run about $32,000 -- I'm not sure they'll
run that high because I -- I think the estimate includes an entire
resurfacing of the courts where they really only need to repair and --
and resurface the damaged parts. But the -- the justification for
their request are threefold: Number one, the park serves at entire
Everglades City area, which includes Plantation Island, Chokoloskee
Island, and aids the county in not having to recognize the -- the fact
that these citizens are also entitled to some sort of park -- park
facility. The city supplies that for them. In addition to that, when
I -- I was first contacted about this item, I noted that it's -- the
repairs seem to be required because of drainage difficulties, and I
asked the city to make those repairs before we came forward with it,
and the city finished those repairs in Hay. So now -- that began to
make sense that we should go forward. And in ad -- in addition to
that, the county has made repairs to HcCloud Park in the past, and --
and we have made repairs and capital improvements in the City of
Naples, i.e., Naples Landing and the -- the pier. So with -- with
those things in mind, the -- the City of Everglades City had asked
that we -- we might aid them in helping our citizens as well as their
own by hardening the lights at the park with some housings that better
protect the lights and to resurface water-damaged areas on the park --
on the tennis courts and the basketball court, and the perimeter
fencing essentially needs to be restretched. It's -- it's not much
more than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I got to agree with
Commissioner Hancock. I -- I understand your intent, and it's -- it's
good, but -- but it's -- if -- if the city came and said, we want to
resurface the tennis courts at Cambier Park, we would say, well, good
luck and -- and go ahead, and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that despite the -- you know,
the significant contribution of city taxpayers to the county coffers,
and I don't think that happens with any --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, the pier and the
landing are unique facilities that you cannot recreate elsewhere in
the county. You know, we can't go build a second pier.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I want you to
consider the fact that there -- there are several thousand county
residents who live in Plantation, Ochopee, Chokoloskee Island who use
this park; and they pay their taxes as well as everyone else, and
they're entitled to park facilities.
And, Mr. Olliff, will -- will you tell me the last time
that we put money into a park facility in this area. I think it was
19907
MR. OLLIFF: I believe you're right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when was the last time we put
money into a park facility in Bonita Shores? MR. OLLIFF: Never.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, we don't have one. Okay.
The point being there are areas in the county that don't have a park;
and, you know, Bonita Shores in the north part of the county, right on
the Lee County line, doesn't have it. Pick an area. I mean,
everyone's district has an area that isn't right next to a park.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. This is 40 miles
away. But, I mean -- I mean, we can argue this all day. I can count
to three, and I understand that these people, even though they're
entitled to representation and they're entitled to a fair share of
their tax dollars and all the amenities that everyone else in this
county has, this board, in counting to three, I see does not want to
grant them that, but that's -- that's fine then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, your -- your statement is,
in my opinion, well out of line. Saying that they are entitled to
things that we're not willing to give them is -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They are entitled.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is accusatory and inflammatory
and not accurate.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They are entitled.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- but beyond that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's -- do we have public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably not.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we have a motion then?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to ma -- like to make a
motion that we ap -- approve this item and direct staff to go forward
with the repairs and -- even though I know that motion probably will
fail.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a second for that
motion?
Motion dies for lack of a second then.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's fine.
Item #8C2
RESOLUTION 96-364, ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND REPEALING AND
SUPERSEDING COLLIER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS 95-548 AND 95-629 - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGE
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is -- is 8(C) -- I'm sorry.
16(C)4 used -- was the former item number. It's now 8(C)(2).
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. This is the annual parks and
fees, and I -- and I think I'll just answer the questions, if you have
some specific ones.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was, I believe, in response
to community associations that were being charged -- not --
not-for-profit community associations being charged to use park
facilities for meeting space. Is that the -- the focus and -- of this
correction? I -- I just remember -- maybe the rest of the board
remembers -- being contacted by community associations that previously
had not been charged to use the facilities as meeting space and -- and
our adoption of the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is only tennis, isn't it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, this is just tennis?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the way I --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe staff can give us a
two-minute synopsis of what --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. This is pool.
MR. SMITH: My name is Hurdo Smith, M-u-r-d-o, Smith,
parks and recreation department. This is the annual update for the
fees and license policy that we bring to you every year. What we've
done this year is we've gone through and consolidated a lot of the
wording in the -- the policy. We've removed some wording that we
think is not fee related, and we've also increased various fees. Some
of the fees that we've increased are at the aquatic facilities in both
Naples and Immokalee. We've also increased the fees for the summer
youth camps in Immokalee and in Naples, and we've also increased some
fees as far as after-school programs. And we've also reviewed and
looked at the fees at the Collier County Racquet Center, and we're
increasing the fees down there on Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I pulled this off was
because I saw the -- what I thought was a total of -- review of fees
and the issue of not-for-profits using county parks for meeting
facilities. I guess I'm requesting clarification on that. Is there a
per-hour charge for those groups now?
MR. SMITH: We have two -- two groups of not-for-profit
organizations. The easiest way to explain it is those that are
focused internally, like, chess clubs, radio clubs, and so forth, they
pay a $5 fee for the use of the facility per hour. Groups that are
outward focused, like, the Audubon or something like that, they do
not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Homeowners' associations?
MR. SMITH: Yeah. The second district and the Marco
Island Taxpayers Association, they -- they do not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMITH: -- not pay a fee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that was the
clarification I was seeking, really. I -- I don't have any problem
with the rest of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one other question.
Noncounty run leagues will increase from $8 to $107 Would that be
like Little League?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. What was Little League
the year before? It was $8 this year.
MR. OLLIFF: Eight dollars. It's possible -- like, five
the year before.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- and I guess -- it
doesn't sound like a lot, but I -- I went to the Little League
season-end cookout this year, and that was the one thing I heard over
and over and over is if they've got three or four kids, doubling the
fee in a two-year period turns into a lot of money for them. And --
and I -- I wondered if -- how much harm does that do to our budget if
we keep that at $8 for the time being since we just moved it up 60
percent last year?
MR. OLLIFF: I couldn't hazard a guess, but I would
imagine it's going to be in the neighborhood of less than $5,000 one
way or the other.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'd ask if the board
would keep the Little League fee steady for another year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. I'd like to do that.
Any -- any objections?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to take the $5,000
and use it at another park myself, but --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Any idea which park that might
be?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that fee increase probably
will come home in -- next year possibly? I -- I understand --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, for two years --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because two years -- two
increases two years in a row is -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item
with that one change.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #SD1
BID #96-2555 FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - AWARDED
TO UNITED STATES SERVICES INDUSTRIES
Next item, 8(D)(1), recommendation to abord (phonetic)
-- award Bid 96-2555.
MR. OCHS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Leo Ochs, your support services administrator. The item
before you is a recommendation from staff to award a bid for private
janitorial services for a two-year period to the apparent low
responsive bidder, that being United States Service Industries, at a
cost of approximately $522,000 annually. That cost represents about a
1 percent reduction in cost compared to the current contract for
janitorial services.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Is this a different
contractor?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question. We --
our trash in our offices now is being picked up, like, three or four
o'clock in the afternoon.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and if we happen to be
meeting with somebody when they come by to collect the trash, then we
don't -- our trash doesn't get picked up. And -- and -- and I don't
-- you know, I prefer not to have --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that meeting interrupted, but
at the same time it used to be that they would do that service in the
evenings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was before some things
started showing up missing, and rather than having an investigation
and all that kind of garbage, we just -- I think it was decided that
the pickup should occur late in the afternoon, and we could avoid the
nighttime entry into the board offices.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surely we can give this to
Mr. Dotrill to decide.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure. Surely we can. I just
have, you know, questioned that our trash is not always picked up if
we're in meetings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Of course you do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #BE1
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND
THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO REDEFINE
THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS REQUIRED FOR A QUORUM - REQUEST DENIED; STAFF
DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM WITH OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS
Next item, 8(E)(1), having to do with the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question I raised a
couple of weeks ago and I think you may be able to answer now, but --
when this item first appeared was if we have a problem, doesn't it '-
MS. ARNOLD: Expanding it to all the other --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Depending on how many times
that this problem might occur with others? And rather than single out
one advisory board.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should we make this across
the board or not do it for any or -- should be some consistency, it
seems like.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I thought was --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- what -- what exactly are you
suggesting?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Hichelle Arnold with the
county manager's office. The Black Affairs -- Affairs -- Black
Affairs Advisory Board requests a modification to the definition to
the quorum language which would modified (sic) it to the extent where
there is less than the maximum nine members that are active on the
board. The quorum would fluctuate with that. So if there are seven
members, a maximum of the -- the majority of the board in -- then in
office would be defined as a quorum rather than an absolute number.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the way I -- the way I was
looking at this, Commissioner Constantine, is we are treating
everybody the same. They came and asked. If anybody else has this
problem, they'll come and ask.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- I '-
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we -- we've, at -- at the
recommendation of the board, met with -- I met with Sue and Ramiro
Hanilich in the county attorney's office, and we've discussed it. I
don't know if you want to speak with either one of them to see --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there -- there were two
parts to our request. One, I understand, doesn't work; and it was my
request that maybe we advertise twice a year, three times a year, four
times a year for all vacancies so that that's consolidated. I
understand that there are some operational problems with doing that.
But the first part of the request was not to treat this board any
different than any other board, yet the request in front of us is
asking us to do just that, treat this individually.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we just -- we -- we just left the
item as --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: -- originally presented to you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And then we can modify that if that's the
request of the board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I '-
MS. ARNOLD: It just would mean an impact to the county
attorney's office because of all the amendments that would have to
occur to the resolutions and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or if we don't alter it, then
there would be no impact to the county attorney's office.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't we just have as a --
isn't it a fair policy across the board that upon request we'll make
those changes? And this is the only committee that's seen the need
and come to us to ask for a change. We'd make the change if
somebody
else came and asked.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me -- let me point
out the one little caveat here, though, would be if -- the request is
to make it a majority of those active members. The -- the -- the --
it's currently constituted as nine members; right? Okay. So what
could potentially happen if you say that is that you could have three
active members, and two of them make a quorum; and I really don't
think that's what we want to do, but '-
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that's the one little caveat that I
__
MS. ARNOLD: The board is not opposed to limiting -- you
know, putting a cap or a limit on the minimum amount of active board
members. Right now they have six active board members. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So maybe five would be a good
number. The last thing I want to do is just turn this away because,
you know, we've -- we've had less than the best communication with
this -- with this board in the past, and we don't want to send them
away with the message that everything they ask for we're going to say
no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's not the
message. The message is, though, that we have 40 or something like
that different advisory boards, and we can't just make up rules for
each one of them. And my suggestion is let's be consistent; and just
saying, well, when someone comes to us with a request, we'll deal with
it isn't my idea of being consistent.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And -- and, in fact, the Black
Affairs Advisory Board was going to come and request it for all the
advisory boards, but we felt that we, you know -- they're just one
board. They really hadn't discussed it with anybody else and so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd -- I'd like to comment on
Commissioner Constantine's comment, and -- and that is that we -- we
establish these boards to meet needs that -- that we determine the
community needs, and -- and the Board of County Commissioners would --
would like to have input from different segments. And -- and, you
know, quite -- quite frankly, we have different ordinances that
establish ea -- each one giving them individually direction on what
they do; and -- and, quite frankly, I don't see any problem with --
with adjusting an ordinance to meet the specific needs of a board that
we recognized has a -- a specific purpose, and I don't see any problem
with it. I -- I'm not sure I like the two-out-of-three id -- idea
Commissioner Norris br -- brought up. I think I'd like to see a
bottom line to what the quorum would be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you can explain to me
how quorum in any way relates to the specific purpose of a board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine, we have 43, 42,
41 -- I don't know how many, a lot of them -- advisory boards who, in
their attempt to meet our needs and our desires, spend their time
uncompensated and so forth. And this particular group has come to us
saying that we are having trouble meeting our quorum, and we would
like to reduce the quorum. I'm not certain that I like having the
quorum set at some percentage of those present. I -- I don't think I
care for that, but I -- I do think I see a need to lower the base
number for the quorum. I mean, it could be two-thirds of those
present not -- not to be below four or whatever it might be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, how that specifies to
this group, I don't know. Mr. Weigel, we have a particular resolution
or ordinance that refers to all of our boards, be they advisory or --
and it goes through a whole little litany, and I can't remember the --
the number.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Category.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eighty-six, dash, something.
I don't know what it is, but --
MR. OCHS: Forty-one, right there.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. And -- but it
deals with all boards and -- and the rules and regulations for all
boards. And then when you get into the individual ordinance that
creates individual advisory boards, they deal with the specifics. And
obviously the Black Affairs Advisory Board deals with minority issues,
and obviously the Library Advisory Board deals with library issues,
but that 86-41 deals with those things that are common to all of them,
issues like quorum or, like, if you miss meetings or whether or not
you are qualified to be on there as an elector and so on. Those
various things have nothing to do with the specifics of any individual
board, and -- and all I'm suggesting is we need to be consistent when
we're dealing with those bigger-picture items.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I'm -- let's go ahead
and move this ahead. I'm -- I'm in agreement because when I was on
the productivity committee and shortly after I got off, they had a
problem reaching quorum. So it was incumbent upon the members of that
committee to go out and recruit people who were truly interested and
who would show up and -- and maintain the quorum. So the committee
needs to take a -- a -- a step forward there. So I -- I'm not in
favor of this one specific change to the -- the BAAB. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one more question,
please. Mr. Weigel, if -- if we're amending an ordinance and yet a
resolution controls the quorum, then why are we amending an ordinance
or -- or being asked to?
MR. WEIGEL: That a resolution controls the quorum -- I
think that the -- it's really the ordinance controls the quorum here,
as far as that goes. And as Mr. Constantine indicated, we've got our
basic 86-41 general mold for advisory boards, and then we have -- have
ordinances for all the other advisory boards thereafter.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My simple thought is if
there's a problem, let's fix it, but let's do it across the board.
And Tim has said -- Commissioner Hancock has said productivity
committee had that concern. I suspect there are several that have had
that concern, and -- but rather than do this one, I'm just saying
let's -- let's look at the problem and do it across the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion to
deny creating a special exception for the BAAB regarding quorum.
COMHISSION MAC'KIE: Could you -- could I ask the motion
record to include that we thank them for bringing this issue to our
attention and ask our staff to investigate whether or not it's a -- a
-- a problem for more committees, and if so, propose an
across-the-board solution?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
Item #8E2
REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO SWAMP BUGGY INC. FOR $38,800, GULF COAST RUNNERS
FOR $6,456, AND NAPLES YOUTH SOCCER CLUB FOR $3,630 TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT, CATEGORY C FUNDS - SWAMP BUGGY INC. FUNDING APPROVED; GULF
COAST RUNNERS REQUEST DENIED; AND NAPLES YOUTH SOCCER CLUB FUNDING
REQUEST WITHDRAWN
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item, 8(E)(2), some
category C TDC funds. This is what we had authorized at the TDC
meeting last; is that correct?
MS. GANSEL: Last -- of last July. Jean Gansel from the
budget office. Yes. The three applications that you see before you
were reviewed by the Tourist Development Council on July 22nd.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God knows, we always do what they
advise us to do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MS. GANSEL: I've -- I received a phone call this
morning. The Naples Youth Soccer Club would like to withdraw their
application at this point. They would like to reconsider the dates.
They are now looking at Hay. They want to take some more time to
study those dates, and rather than to amend their application -- have
it approved today and amend it, they have chosen to resubmit it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's fine.
MS. GANSEL: Okay. The other two applications just --
the swamp buggy requested $38,000 for a country concert that was a 4-2
affirmative vote. I like to see when there's affirmative votes here.
And the Gulf Coast Runners had requested $6,456. I'd like to indicate
that this event is in season. It was a 3-3 split vote of the tourist
council.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the vote?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three-three.
MS. GANSEL: Three-three. There were six members there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What -- what were the
objections? Was it only --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Since it's in January.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Since it's in January?
MS. GANSEL: Because it's in season.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pretty substantial objection
based on the way the ordinance reads. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Guidelines.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Guidelines, excuse me. Thank
you. Based on that I'm going to move approval of the $38,800 for the
swamp buggy concert, but I'm not going to move approval of the Gulf
Coast Runners amount.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for the
swamp buggy funding only.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could -- then -- can we consider
the runners separately? I mean, I'd like to hear why --
MS. GANSEL: Someone is here if you are interested --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll let just my motion
stand for the swamp buggy concert without any -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Vaccaro is here. I presume he's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Vaccaro, you want to come talk us
out of this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
MR. VACCARO: I think I'll just be quiet and watch.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about the runner's guy? Is
he here?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Another motion on the Gulf Coast Runners.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to hear more about
what -- what they want to do. I mean, I know it's in January, and I
know our guidelines steer us away from high season, but I -- I'd
certainly like to hear more about it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a representative back in the
back, I believe, if he'd like to come forward.
MS. GANSEL: Mr. Silverman is here. I can convey some
of the discussion at the TDC meeting. One of the hoteliers did
indicate that that first week in January or mid-January they are not
filled to capacity so that there was some interest because of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: They also felt that possibly the runners
coming in January would be coming back at off -- at off-season and be
exposed to Naples in a very positive way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, I -- I think most of us who
live here year-round recognize that there's a lull in our track
problems from mid-December to the latter part of January, and then it
picks up again, so --
MS. GANSEL: That was a comment that was made by one of
the hoteliers.
MR. SILVERMAN: Yes. My name's Perry Silverman, and I'm
the race director of the Naples Daily News 1/2 Marathon and, I guess,
past president of the Gulf Coast Runners. Just a quick history of --
of the race; it started out as a very, very small event a number of
years ago. I've been very active in this race getting quite large,
and what's happened is that it's developed a reputation, not only
statewide, but nationally as a quality race. It's probably considered
now one of the five top races in this state where there are hundreds
and hundreds of races.
And your -- to answer your concerns, some of the rewards
that we get in the community is that people who come to this
particular event come back, come back for other events out of season.
They come over here for many other reasons. We have a -- we have a
race the end of September that -- we will put 75 to 100 people into
various hotel rooms, and that is because of this particular event, the
Naples Daily News 1/2 Marathon. And if we just had a little bit more
funding to get some more national magazine ads, I think we could
probably double the attendance, and most of that attendance would come
from people out of the area.
We -- we -- we had last year -- we had people from 23
states and 5 different countries along with 7 Olympians. Seven people
who competed in Atlanta this summer ran in this particular race. So
it's a quality event, and with this -- you know, some help I think we
could really make this into something that we could get rewards in the
community 12 months a year. So that's really the -- the reason that
-- that we came before --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion on this item
then?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to move approval on it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't question the quality
of the event. It's been here for a while. This is the first year
you've requested TDC funding, I believe?
MR. SILVERMAN: That's -- that is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have wrestled with the
guidelines and occasionally bent the guidelines and -- and sometimes
ignored some of the guidelines when the overwhelming presentation said
that the -- the benefit is -- is -- is significant enough that the
guidelines may not have considered that. Because of the date on this
-- and I know one hotelier had room and some other didn't, and my
guess is the hoteliers that didn't have room voted against it?
MR. SILVERMAN: No. No -- that's -- that's really --
no. I don't think that's the case. I -- I think that we were doing
it January 19th and, I mean, I -- you know, obviously I'm going to
speak very strongly for my case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. SILVERMAN: But we -- not only other hotels, but all
the hotels on the Trail love this event: the Howard Johnsons, the
Holiday Inns, the Quality Inns, the Stoney's, Trail's End. We fill
all of these hotels. Without this event that weekend, those hotels
will not be filled.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I might suggest you go to those
hotels that sponsor properties to help make up some of this funding.
MR. SILVERMAN: Oh, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, the -- the time frame is
very specific in the ordinance, and we have held to it in the past.
And I -- as much as I think it is a strong community event, I -- I
think the time line is important to the spirit of it, and -- and for
that reason I'm not going to support the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to agree. It's a --
it's a great event, but -- but because of the timing and the way our
guidelines are written, I just -- each time we've had something come
up -- like, the Marco Cat. I voted against it for the very same
reason. It was in season. Great idea to have the Marco Cat here, and
we brought a lot of people here, but it was in season. It just seems
to me if we are going to have those guidelines, we ought to try to
follow them. If we're not going to follow them, let's throw them out,
but let's not have them and then ignore them. It doesn't make any
sense.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll second the motion to get it on
the floor. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
That fails 3 to 2.
MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can't -- I can't believe
that. You'll spend $600,000 for a -- a golf tournament, so --
Item #8E3
REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF $40,720 FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF SOUTH
CHANNEL AND WATER TURKEY BAY, $123,200 FOR SEA TURTLE MONITORING, AND
$5,000 FOR AIDS TO NAVIGATION IN WIGGINS PASS AND CAXAMBAS PASS TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY A FUNDS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(E)(3).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didnwt realize that was on
today's agenda.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In February.
MS. GANSEL: This is a request for Category A tourist
development funds, approximately $169,000, for three different
projects. All of these projects have been reviewed by the City-County
Beach Renourishment Committee as well as the -- the Tourist
Development Council and have been affirmatively -- both of those
committees are -- have voted approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed? None.
Item #8E4
REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES - STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUE
INVESTIGATION & PROVIDE DETAILED REPORT
8(E)(4) is a discussion concerning the development
services fees.
MR. CAUTERO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and board
members, Vince Cautero, your community development and environmental
services administrator. This is a follow-up to your discussion July
23rd in which the board established a policy directive to raise an
additional $742,000 from building permit and development review fees
to offset certain costs in the community development and environmental
services division. The memorandum that I submitted to you that was
distributed this morning outlines some scenarios for you in terms of
what the percentage of those fee increases would be. The item was
taken, again, to the Development Services Advisory Committee in
accordance with your ordinance that states that all items affecting
that division go to that committee, and the committee reaffirmed their
earlier decision by voting 10 to 1 -- by recommending to you that no
fees should be raised at this point in time for these purposes.
I've given you three scenarios, and what I'd like to do
is discuss those briefly with you today and then, if the board is
amenable, prepare the resolution -- the fee resolution amendment for
your consideration in September.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, may I ask one --
MR. CAUTERO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- question before you go
on? What's -- and I should know this, but what is the makeup of that
board -- of those 11 people that voted 10 to 17 What's the makeup of
that? What's the category that each of those falls in?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I used to be on it as a land use
advisor.
MR. CAUTERO: There's 15 members. Four were not present
that day. Most of the members come from the development --
development community. There's engineers on there, planners,
architects, landscape architects, contractors and subcontractors, and
attorneys.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's mixed? I mean, there's some
actual land developers?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. There's a couple of developers in
there. I can get that for you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No -- no surprises in that
10-to-1 vote.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm wondering who the one
Was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Who was the one?
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Savage, Herb Savage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Herb. Herb "The Maverick"
Savage.
MR. CAUTERO: The easiest way to do this -- and I
believe it would be consistent with your resolution which establishes
the fees -- is do it across the board. And that's what I've stated in
the memo. If you do that, it amounts to a 15.7 percent increase which
is, in essence, what you decreased it last November. I can tell you
from experience, since the fees were lowered last winter, over 90
percent of the people who used the system did not notice it, and that
was talked about at the meeting.
I -- I've given you some other scenarios if you don't
want to do it across the board. Most of the programs that we talked
about funding with these types of fees do directly correlate to the
developmental review functions. So if you raise those fees solely,
which I don't recommend, it's over 60 percent somewhere in the middle
is the balance, and I thought the easiest way is to go across the
board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me make sure I
understood your statement correctly. The -- the 15 percent
across-the-board increase would simply reverse the decrease that we
made last November.
MR. CAUTERO: In essence.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In essence, yes. Okay. So we would
go back to last October's level.
MR. CAUTERO: That would be correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- we'd be putting the -- we'd be
putting the fee structure as it was a year ago.
MR. CAUTERO: That would be correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: Keeping in mind that the -- that the money
raised would go towards the functions -- the additional $723,000 would
go towards the functions that you voted on July 23rd to fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got a question, Mr.
Cautero. Then what -- what you're saying then is that the reduction
in fees that we agreed to two years ago was an incorrect reduction?
A. No -- no, it -- it -- I don't think it was. And we're
still waiting for the rest of this fiscal year to show where we fall,
if there's going to be a shortfall. We estimated that there might be
a shortfall of approximately $345,000 for the functions that you
normally would provide from Fund 113, not counting what you voted on
on July 23rd. However, we're having a good year -- or the building
community -- the development community is having a very good year, and
we're looking at bringing in over $4 million this year in building
permit fees. So our shortfall might not be as much as we think. If
it is, I was prepared to go back to the committee and recommend
adjusting the fees slightly to make up some of that shortfall.
However, taking your motion into account on July 23rd, we're looking
at $742,000 for other functions that were traditionally funded by tax
dollars. So if we were to make up the shortfall plus this, you're
looking at $1 million in raising the fees, and I did not bring that
forward to the committee. I'm not prepared to bring it to you in the
resolution amendment until I have a full year of the -- of the current
fee structure to look at what the shortfall might be. The shortfall
might be minimal, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say, because if
-- if we made a correct reduction in the fees two years ago and the
only thing that's happened in the intervening time are -- are -- are
pay -- pay-plan adjustments, which -- which could account for 3, 4,
maybe 5 percent increase, then I don't know why we would want to
increase them 15 percent if what we did two years ago was the right
thing to do.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, the -- the -- you're absolutely
correct and the income adjustment does have -- does have some
interplay here, and we don't know exactly how much that is in terms of
in addition to shortfall numbers. But the 15 perc -- .7 percent
increase that I'm proposing across the board is to accomplish your
goal to fund portions of natural resources, graphics, affordable
housing, and comprehensive planning, not for the traditional building
review and development review functions that the fees currently
support.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's changing.
MR. CAUTERO: That's -- that's the reason for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so two things would be
changing. One is that there is a pay plan in the adjustment, and the
other is that we would be funding some new functions with fees that
we've previously funded with -- I mean, the functions aren't new, but
the funding mechanism would be new. Instead of their being funded out
of property taxes, they'd be funded out of fees. And Mr. Cautero and
I went to a lynching, slash, meeting of CBIA. They were actually very
kind. But they -- they raised a lot of points and a lot of
information that I didn't know about, like, that there are a lot of
general public services that are also performed by Mr. Cautero's
department that sort of -- the one we kind of joked about was garage
sale permit fees. And, frankly -- apparently it's a real prevalent
activity for realtors and others to go to Mr. Cautero to ask for
interpretations of code, and I have a question about who's paying for
those services. And I want to be sure -- well, after we left that
meeting, what -- what we talked about with those people is that we
would look at the whole process to see if there are some things that
fees should be charged for that currently aren't, that we're -- our
intention is to be as fair as possible -- that developers are really
paying for what they get but not paying for stuff that, you know, is
-- is a -- a garage sale permit.
MR. CAUTERO: In the memorandum I mentioned some issues
like that that we would come to you with, regardless of what you fund
and regardless of your -- your motion -- your direction was on July
23rd. One of those is garage sales, but you're not talking about a
lot of money. But there is one area that I would like to ask you to
-- to look at charging fees for, which may bring in tens of thousands
of dollars, and that is letters -- official letters of zoning
verification and land-use verification. I'm not talk about
interpretations of the code and even appeals of the code that can come
to you. There's a fee for that already. But the planning staff is
inundated with those types of requests, and we may be able to generate
some -- some funding for that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's something I could
support.
MR. CAUTERO: But it takes formal research to do that.
We're not just talking about a phone call that somebody makes and says
I need to know the zoning on this piece of property or the future
land-use designation. They're asking for something official that
they're -- they're going to then give to a client, and if we're going
to put it in writing, there probably should be some fee attached to
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you bring that -- a report
to that to us at a future date.
MR. CAUTERO: That would come -- that would come under
fee resolutions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. Okay. Mr. Dorrill, do we
have some public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also, the folks -- the guy who
just wants to know what the zoning is next to his property or her
property can still walk up to the planner's counter and say it's in
this area, and they help him find it and go, okay, the zoning is
mobile home or ag. That -- this -- this idea doesn't affect that in
any way?
MR. CAUTERO: Would not affect that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. It would be an official
declaration of what the zoning is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I understand. I just wanted
to get that on the record, because that needs to stay the way it is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, haven't seen you for a
while.
MR. WARD: You're right. Thank you, Commissioners. My
name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry
Association. The -- as -- as you're aware, the permitting is an
enterprise fund. We -- we did -- have enjoyed the advantage of having
our permit fees reduced a -- a year or so ago, and you'll recall that
there was asp -- specific activity -- something that happened --
occurred that caused that reduction in fees, and that is several years
ago when development services did not have a building -- and -- and
I'll make this very short because you're all aware of it. Building
industry, construction industry, asked and received an increase in
permit fees in order to build that building. And when the building --
when we generated enough excess funds from permit fees to pay off that
building, we did that. And -- and the cost of doing business for
development services was reduced with that action; and, of course,
that extended to a reduction in building permit fees.
Not -- notwithstanding that it is an enterprise fund,
and whatever it costs to run the department is what it costs to run
the department to provide the services. However, what -- what we're
opposed to is pulling an arbitrary figure out of the air. If it's
$442 or $742,000 or whatever it is, just to pull -- pull a -- a number
out of the air we think doesn't make any sense. And -- and -- and an
across-the-board increase, while it might be the easiest way -- a 15
percent increase across the board might be the easiest way, it -- it
really -- that would be hard to justify too.
What we would like to do -- the advisory committee and
-- and your advisory committee, Development Services Advisory
Committee, which admittedly is made up of people whose interest is in
land use and/or building or some type of development. They are,
however, the people that are probably the most knowledgable of the
services that they do receive from their fees, and -- and they have
voted -- did vote, apparently. I was not there -- by an overwhelming
majority to recommend against this fee increase.
What I think I would like to see you do and what I
certainly would like to recommend, is that we back off imposing a fee
at this time. Let's study the fees. Let's take a real good look at
them. Take the time to study them. It -- it may not be the fast way
-- fastest way to get fee increases, but we believe that it would be
the fairest way to get the fee increases. That way we -- if -- if
there are fees (sic) increases that are justified, then fine. That's
what we're going to have to accept. But at least we know that there
is some justification and some rational nexus for the money that we're
paying and the services that we're getting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ward just cited the reason I
knew my -- I knew my vote was going to be misinterpreted when I made
it -- when I did not vote in favor of the 741,000 amount, because I
was supportive of what Mr. Cautero had brought forward. I felt that
what Mr. Ward just stated was what -- what Vince had done. I think
he presented 442,000 that were justifiable; that were easily
traceable; that could -- we're saying these were direct benefits, and
I'm very supportive of that amount.
By a majority of this board, that 741 was tucked in the
budget. So if any of the three of you or four of you that supported
it want to take it out now, you'd better find $300,000 somewhere else
because that's in the budget. So, you know, again, I'm -- I'm not
supportive of the 741 because I haven't seen the justification that we
saw in the 442,000. So if someone's going to change that number,
better be some -- some offsetting amounts to the budget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or some cuts.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what he meant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I knew that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion on this?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not -- does this require a
motion? I think it's just direction to continue the investigation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I very much want to see you
continue the investigation and, frankly, with the absolute clear
direction that what we're saying is to have development pay for what
it gets in services and not any more. They shouldn't pay for garage
sale permits, and they shouldn't pay for things that don't benefit
them. But the instruction was that as much as it's fair to have them
-- as much as it's legally justifiable for them to pay, they should
pay. And if -- if you're asking for continued direction, I'd like
continued investigation in that, but what I would very much like to
see is a real detailed -- what would the permit fees be and, you know,
how those are tied to the services and what services -- I would like
for you to look at that 700,000, whatever number it was, as -- as a
goal or as a suggestion, but I look to you to tell us what the number
should be.
MR. CAUTERO: Let -- let me just state where we were at
in the process and perhaps ask a question. The reason why it's come
to you in this fashion -- and you don't have the fee resolution today
-- is to try to work with the various organizations on their schedule
and not work around them -- not work around the system but try to work
through it and to allow them to -- to have discussions with the staff
and review the documents. And the Development Services Advisory
Committee met last Wednesday, and that's the reason why you're getting
their recommendation today, which is basically don't do anything, and
the staff is saying this is what we think the fee increase would be.
The next step would be -- and I don't think the staff
needs direction, but the next step would be to bring that fee
resolution to you; but I would like to caution the board that if -- if
fees are not raised by approximately -- it -- the number's actually
lower. There was $15,000 in graphics that -- that we did not notice.
I apologize for that error. It would be just under $727,000. If that
number is not attained through additional fees, we would have to then
take that money from some reserve account to -- to pay for those
functions that are normally paid or have been paid by tax dollars. So
while -- I would not look at it as a goal, Commissioner. I would look
at it as a mandate because if we don't raise that money, it's going to
have to come from somewhere else, and the programs would be cut.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Part -- part of that amount may
be the zoning certificates that have been mentioned. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let -- you know, I -- I agree
with the direction: Take the fairness approach, develop new revenue
sources if you deem them appropriate and combine them, and bring that
amount back to this board and what the results are. I think that's a
-- is that the nexus of your direction?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what -- what I
hoped to do -- and I -- I understand your correction, that the 727 s
the 727, but maybe some of that ought to be in garage sale permit
applications, and maybe some of it ought to be in civil
interpretations. Maybe all of it doesn't belong on the development
community.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero, if -- if we were to
recognize the pay-plan adjustments that were made as truly being --
being fundable by the building community, and it -- it makes sense f
the people who issue the permits review the site plans and so forth
earn more, that -- that, you know, perhaps the fees should go up. It
-- it would seem to me that right there alone we're -- we'll be -- we
should be looking at in the 4 to 5 percent range because those
pay-plan adjustments were what, Mr. Dotrill? Between 8 and 20 percent
depending on service?
MR. DORRILL: Maybe not that high but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But, I mean, they -- you know,
averaging them out. I -- I don't know what -- what they were for your
particular division, but certainly to me that's a starting point.
MR. CAUTERO: Your point's well taken. We were prepared
to go to the committee and to the board with a slight increase to make
up for some of the shortfall, notwithstanding this exercise. Point
well taken. Thank you.
Item #8E5
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR INTERIM SERVICE FEES - COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS
WAIVED; STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONTRACT WITH TISCHLER & ASSOCIATES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Interim services fee.
MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
afternoon. For the record my name is John Yonkosky. And agenda Item
8(E)(5) is an update -- it's actually a report to you on the interim
governmental services fee, and we received a report yesterday, and it
was delivered to the commissioners yesterday afternoon. And I would
like to go over two things in it. One is how it was developed and
then ask the board for its direction.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question before that.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When was it requested? When it
was it ordered? I mentioned that to you, Mr. Dorrill, that I want to
MR. DORRILL: It was ordered in advance of the 4th of
July holiday. The purchase order was cut and/or the contract signed
immediately after the 4th of July holiday, the first week of July.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How close -- how close was that
to when the board said we're interested in pursuing an interim service
fee? I mean, how long -- how much lag time between?
MR. DORRILL: Three weeks, and then in the ensuing
period of time, we were involved in some discussions with Lee County
because Lee County asked if they could participate, and they were
willing to cost share the fee. And I -- I don't think there was an
excessive amount of time given the fact that -- that Lee County wanted
to involve themselves and pay half the fee. What we do from now will
also depend on whether you all want to participate with them or not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear that Lee County was
going to actually write us a check?
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll believe it when I see it,
but okay.
MR. YONKOSKY: Staff and the firm of Tischler and
Associates, which has prepared and implemented several of these
interim governmental services fee reports in Florida as well as impact
fee studies -- it took a great deal of information from your budget,
and I will go into that and the process in just a little while. It
took that information and developed a matrix wherein that matrix
covered both people, population, and it covered new nonresidential
development. In the -- what was assumed was a very conservative
population growth of 10,350 people each year and 100,000 square feet
of new nonresidential growth. And -- and that was used because it was
conservative, and this was adjusted -- that amount was adjusted by 15
percent for the cost of collection, and that would -- we assume would
be very, very small. But for existing real estate taxes that are paid
on the raw land or the undeveloped land -- and I want to make very
clear that that is a conservative estimate in -- so that the end
figure -- the end result may vary, but there was a 15 percent factor
that was built into it because of the credit for unpaid -- for taxes
on undeveloped land and for the cost of collection.
After saying all that, the estimate is that the fee,
based on a 12-month period -- and we have talked about and in just a
few minutes of discussion we will talk about that window being even
larger than 12 months. But for a 12-month period year-end taking the
conservative approach, the fee would generate approximately -- based
on those assumptions and credits -- $1,391,000 a year in fees or
$116,000 a month. That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that -- does that still
contemplate -- the last time you were here we talked about this. That
contemplated assessment at issuance of the C.O. Does it still
contemplate that?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am, it does. But -- but actually
in this study itself, we're not looking at when the fee is collected.
We're looking at just the parameters around developing the fee. The
fee can be collected at -- whichever way the board recommends, but
staff is recommending that it be collected at C.O.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Let me be clear,
Mr. Yonkosky. I wasn't asking about collection. I was asking when
does it begin to be assessed. When does the -- is the -- is the fee
assessed from the date of C.O. or from the date of occupancy of the
construction?
MR. YONKOSKY: We assume that it would be date of C.O.,
and that -- we assume that that is occupancy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not occupancy, though, and
I've been saying from the beginning I'm not going to support it if
it's from C.O.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do we do about model homes
and so forth? They give them C.O.s and have no -- no impact.
MR. YONKOSKY: Well --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they have a value.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, this is not a value tax.
MR. DORRILL: The -- the problem is going to be how are
you going to collect it. And if you don't stand there with the C.O.
in -- in your hand -- now, your ability to track when somebody finally
moves in and get the money when somebody finally moves in, we're
wasting our time. We might as well forget this and -- and just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- and, again, I mention
what I said last time, and that is if -- if someone moves to a
different home, they may go six months or a year before they sell
their prior home. And it may sit vacant, but they are still going to
pay something on that home and -- and --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That -- that's a decision they
have made to carry two homes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a decision the builder
makes --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm saying --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before he decides to build a
home.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It -- there's no
difference. They would like to sell their second home, and I'm sure
the builder would like to sell his product; but, you know, both of
them are carrying them, and they're -- they're not causing an impact
either way. I don't understand the difference.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, many of those model homes
are sold even before they become model homes, but -- but they're on a
lease back, and they're not occupied for living purposes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But aren't they at the same time going
on the property tax rolls just as if they were occupied? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, then what's the difference?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the partial-year ad valorem
made the same assumption we're making for this. It made no
delineation between model homes and when people move in. The
partial-year ad valorem that this board supported 5-0 -- partial-year
ad valorem made the same assumption, if I read it correctly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what we're doing is no
different than these partial-year ad valorem we supported unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: This -- this plan will follow the same
parameters that the partial-year ad valorem assessment would.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the inherent problem with
partial-year ad valorem, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any speakers?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, you've
been the champion of partial-year ad valorem, so I don't understand
the difference.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not -- no. I'm -- I'm under
-- I'm understanding now that if -- if we had -- if the state had
given us what we asked for, that would also take effect with the C.O.,
and -- and it's really no different. I'm fine now.
MR. YONKOSKY: The manager mentioned Lee County a -- a
few minutes ago; and, as you know, this fee is in place in
approximately 15 municipalities throughout the State of Florida. It
is not in place in any counties and the philosophy being that it
appears to be a viable revenue source, and with two counties
paralleling the process at the same time gives a -- a lot more
credibility to this process. And they are tracking parallel to what
we are -- are doing. They've gone through the feasibility process.
We're slightly ahead of them, I think, with -- but they're right
behind us. And what will happen is that if you tell us to proceed and
their commissioners tell them to proceed, we will try to work out some
sort of a -- a joint process in the costing of this.
The estimation of the cost that's in the package is
$46,000 -- $46,700, and that includes four -- or $9,400 for
preparation of the ordinance; and that firm, as you will read in the
back of the package, has worked for Collier County before. Berke,
Weaver, and Trell, they were actually involved in the very first
impact fee that this county ever got involved in, the road impact fee
or whatever it was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my earlier sarcasm aside, I
really think this is something, if Lee County is interested, we can
both benefit from. And if there should be a legal challenge, we can
both meet together. And with that, Mr. Weigel, as we come to the
final -- this is something I've been toying with. As we come to the
final approval of this, I am considering -- so I think it was a 3-2
vote to go ahead and collect that 1.7 million even though we have the
fee in place. I'm considering reducing that either all or in part as
we come to set the final mileage rate, and I was one that voted to --
to put the 1.7 in calculating the mileage rate. So I'm going to want
to know some of the legal ins and outs. And having another county do
this at the same time we are may make me comfortable and maybe help to
reduce the mileage rate a little bit with that if -- if the other two
people that supported that idea are still there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- my --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have a comment on
that, I believe?
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that, yes. And, you know,
I've been on record by memo and before the board in its public meeting
that the retained outside counsel that we have had has opined back
four years ago and again this year that, for lack a stronger term,
that this concept is unconstitutional. And I'm going to have a
difficulty as we go forward to sign off for legal sufficiency on an
ordinance that's developed. But keeping that in mind, I've, of
course, had opportunity to work with John Yonkosky and -- and the --
Mr. Tischler of the consulting firm, and I had addressed with them
what I -- I thought was an important point, and that is that we've
done this with the Naples Park project where we have methodologies
that may be -- may be controversial, and I would suggest, and I did
suggest to them that we should have an indemnification clause in our
contract, particularly by virtue of the fact that they will be
proposed to use their own outside counsel for the development of this
which, in fact, I -- I think is probably good advice for them, that we
have the assurance of indemnification so that if and when there is a
challenge, we will have the assistance of these strong proponents
because I -- I just was legally not a proponent of what we have, and
notwithstanding in the curriculum vitae here of the -- of the
consultant and the outside counsel, I'd have taken more suffer in the
idea that, in fact, many of their -- of their projects had been
challenged and the challenge defeated than to know that there has been
no challenge, because the challenge is always potentially out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My concern as -- as we go
forward -- and I hope Mr. Weigel will give us his -- his best opinion
on that, and -- and it was the concern that we addressed when the --
when the trim notices were -- when the mileage was adopted for it.
And that -- and I've got no problem with going forward with this, but
I'm concerned that, number one, it will be challenged; and, number
two, there will be an injunction to either prohibit us from collecting
the money or prohibiting us from using it. And -- and that's why I
wanted to put the 1.7 in the reserves.
MR. YONKOSKY: I -- I think the board has two very clear
choices on that. It can, obviously, say we want to use the money
right now based on advice from counsel and what the probability is.
It also can say to staff we want the money to go into a special
revenue trust fund, and it will be in that trust fund in case there is
a challenge.
And I would suggest to you, as Commissioner Hancock
said, that the -- there is a much more credibility level with two
counties doing this at the same time -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- in a joint manner. So -- but those
choices can be discussed and decided by the board when -- when the
ordinance comes before you if you choose to proceed with this.
The -- using Lee County we're not exactly sure whether
they're structured as we are, so there may -- may be some
differences. There is also the possibility of asking the school board
if they want to participate in this process too. That -- that number
that is given to you is an estimate based on Collier County alone. It
does not include any other governments or the school board. As -- if
you tell us to proceed, one of the things that we will do will be to
discuss the possibility of rolling this process into other
governmental entities.
And I -- I do want to go back and point out to you that
that $1,236,000 is broken down between the countywide general fund and
HSTD general fund. The HSTD general fund has 155,000 of the dollars.
The countywide general fund has 1,236,000. As I understand it, you
can take you all's choice of putting that sum all as one fund or
separating it in accordance with this. I -- I don't know whether you
want me to go over the process with you or not that we went through
and --
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's hear him.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ward again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Gosh, Mr. Ward, you don't show up for
six months, and then when you do, you're up here three times.
MR. WARD: I know. I like it better when I don't show
up.
My name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier County
Building Industry Association. We just received this report today and
really haven't had a -- a chance to look at it. The thing that I
would ask you to do is to direct your staff to include two or three
industry representatives, whether you select them or whether we
recommend them, to participate in any and all discussions regarding
this issue. Because we have not talked to Tischler and Associates, we
-- we -- we don't know really, other than generally, what is being
proposed. We don't know how the figures have -- have been arrived
at. We don't know what is included other than, you know, what I've
read here today. And we really -- since we're going to be so much
affected by this process, we would like to be included in -- in it
from the very beginning.
I -- in quickly reviewing this document today -- or this
report, I noticed that there was no mention in here of Tischler and
Associates meeting with anybody other than your staff, and -- and
that's what kind of alerted me to ask you if we could please be
included. The -- as a matter of fact, the $46,700, I think it is,
estimate of the cost of Tischler and Associates to bring this forward
as -- includes no contact with any of the general public, and we -- we
certainly think that it is important enough that if it costs more
money to have adequate public input -- and through the whole process,
not just when the staff brings it to a public hearing. Actually sit
down and meet with the people that are -- are trying to develop the
rationale. That's what we would like to do. We think that would be
money well -- well spent. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it fair to say, Mr. Ward, that
the CBIA in all likelihood will impose an interim service fee
regardless of its implementation?
MR. WARD: I -- I -- I couldn't speak for them. We have
not taken a position on it yet primarily because we haven't seen it --
we haven't seen how it works. The -- generally, I can tell you that
the people that are affected the most are the people in Golden Gate,
the people who are buying lower-cost housing, if you will. If I read
this right, it's about an additional $550 per house, and if it's
payable at closing, the people that are buying those houses just can't
come up with any more money. It isn't the money. It's the down
payment, and -- and they just can't come up it with. So they're the
ones that are going to be affected the most. It isn't the big houses,
and -- and we haven't seen how commercial would be implemented yet,
but probably not commercial. I mean, it wouldn't be all that much
affected depending on the amount of money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was trying to figure that out
myself, Mr. Yonkosky. Is -- is the number in here -- is $564.94 the
assessment for a single-family house that's proposed? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So five six -- $565 a house,
regardless of the size or cost or -- regard, you know, all houses the
same?
MR. YONKOSKY: That estimate is based on the amount of
services that a single-family home with an average of 2.4 citizens or
people in that house. So that's what it's based on.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Yonkosky, I got to tell you
that -- that you're right. I voted with the 5-0 unanimous board to
support partial-year ad valorem, and maybe I should have researched
that more carefully before I did, but when you get down to the actual
assessing of $564 a house and $564 a unit, you know, in a -- in a
condo building that has, you know, 200 unsold units or for one person
out in Golden Gate who already can barely qualify for a house, I think
-- I think we need to look more carefully at the methodology. We
need to study this. We -- I mean, we haven't -- my reason for asking
when did we order the dad-gum study is because we've been talking
about this in theory since I've been on the board two years, and this
is -- we don't have any information yet that -- that's very useful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have until September to make
the final decision; and, Mr. Ward, all this information is public
record as soon as it's provided to the county. And I think by simply
making a request to Mr. Yonkosky, CBIA can be -- can be contained in
the loop here, and those types of things hopefully can be answered.
But the point I -- I need to make is when I bought my house, it was
existing already. The portion of the tax bill I paid for the
remainder of the year was a heck of a lot more than $564, and my house
isn't worth that much. So, you know, that idea it's an undo hardship
-- maybe for a new home, but you buy a used home, you're paying the
portion of the tax bill anyway. So -- MR. WARD: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I just -- that needs to
be said because that -- that's relative and -- MR. WARD: And you're absolutely right. The only thing
is you don't have to pay it a lump sum up front.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I financed for 30 years, and it's
cost me $8,000.
MR. WARD: Well, that's true. But an -- but another few
thousand would help --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Ward.
MR. WARD: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the $564 is for a full year,
though?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it's proportional as the year goes
along. Could be a lot smaller; and, in fact, the average would be
$282.
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is prorated?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's -- it's per month.
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, we would -- the way we would
establish that would be on a weekly basis. It will decrease on a
weekly basis. That's the premise that this is built upon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They'll be rushing to close in
December instead of January.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're looking at roughly $10
a month then -- I mean, a week. Ten or eleven dollars a week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:: No more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. Yup.
MR. DORRILL: He's your only --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Less than eleven. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I certainly want to get more
information. I just wonder if we're going to be able to get it in
time for this year's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's the directive:
Provide the information before the final mileage is set.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It better be at a faster rate
than it has been so far. This has just been pitiful, the lack of
information.
MR. YONKOSKY: The -- it cannot be done in -- in --
before the final mileage is set. That -- this full process will take
at least 90 days to come back to the board including the advertised
public hearings and everything.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case give us the best
possible snapshot at that time, because we're going to have to make a
-- a funding decision somewhere between where we are now and $1.7
million.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WARD: My final request would be that we -- or
representatives from our industry be allowed to meet with Tischler and
Associates to see what their rationale and formulas are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I don't -- I don't see any
hurdle to that. Do you, Mr. Dotrill?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think if --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I just have to ask one more
question. We just spent $47,000 to get these, you know, six pieces of
paper?
MR. DORRILL: No. I think he spent $1,700 for a month's
worth of work that produced the initial concept and some of the models
and all the research with the property appraiser's records that went
into this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, so far we've spent less than
$2,000 on this, and if we go all the way through --
MR. YONKOSKY: We have spent -- $3,500 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- is what we have spent to date, and --
and we're -- the intent is to share that with Lee County if we can.
But I'm not sure that that's -- we couldn't wait just for -- on
sharing $3,500 to go forward with this. The four -- $46,700 is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From all that.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- includes everything. It includes the
-- the building of the model, building of the parameters that it
would be used for, includes building, a process for future
establishment of those rates, and it includes the ordinance, too, so
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to spend any more
outside consultant money between now and September on this issue,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any idea how much?
MR. DORRILL: Well, we're -- we're going to authorize
them to proceed unless you tell us otherwise; and, you know, it's sort
of a lump-sum contract. I don't know what contingency we have. If --
if you come to your second hearing in September and you decide we
don't want to do this anymore, we will owe them for all of the work
that they have done up until September.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we go forward today, we're
-- we're spending $45,0007
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we get the answers
you want unless we move ahead.
MR. YONKOSKY: If that's the board's direction, staff
would request that you waive the competitive bidding process, we were
going to go out and competitive bid this, because we've got three bids
now already --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, then we -- then we'll be
180 days away.
MR. YONKOSKY: So we -- we would --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Make a motion to waive the competitive
bid, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move, based on -- on
constraints for the upcoming budget cycle, that we -- we waive the
competitive bidding process on this particular item and direct staff
to move ahead in the -- in the development with Tischler and
Associates on this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we hear a little bit about
who they are before we vote on this? I mean, we got this little
paragraph at the end of the six pages here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I'm more or less
trusting Mr. Weigel's ability to read their resume and -- and
determine whether or not they're sufficient to represent and perform
this for the county, and I'm sure he can do that better than I can.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you second that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I seconded that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're out of Maryland and
California?
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, they -- they are a national firm.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, they are.
MR. YONKOSKY: Tischler and Associates has worked all
over the United States and Canada for many years. The -- and they are
experts in this field in developing impact fees and cost analysis.
They've worked for large companies and, I know, large cities such as
Denver, Colorado, and they've even done some --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't we use a local firm for
the impact fees study that we did somewhat similar to this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We still have, like, six
hours' worth of stuff left on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we -- do you --
MR. DORRILL: No. Ray DeYoung's firm was not a local
firm.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Didn't Mr. Hatget do a lot of
the impact-fee studies that were recently done? Can we go back a
review them?
MR. DORRILL: The original work was done by the firm Ray
DeYoung and Associates.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was aye.
Item #8E6
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE
PROCUREHENT OF SERVICES WITH T.R. BROWN CO. AND DR. HILLBURN HILLESTAD
TO ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLAM BAY RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AND TO AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH WCI
COHMUNITIES TO FUND ONE-HALF OF THE COST OF THE CLAM BAY RESTORATION
PLAN - COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 16(E)(6). It's now
8(E)(6). Mr. Warden.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let -- let me -- let me shorten
this up a little bit. I -- I took this off of the consent agenda, and
I'll -- I'll be real -- real clear. I've got no objection at all to
what's -- what's included in this. What I would like to do is to ask
Mr. Warden -- thank God you're here. When is this board going to get
a report on what the task force discovered?
MR. WARDEN: I think our final reports from the
consultants should be ready by the middle of September, and I can
schedule them on your next available agenda probably the latter part
of September or early October.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the record you are?
MR. WARDEN: Jim Warden -- sorry -- Pelican Bay
Services.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sorry Pelican Bay Services?
MR. WARDEN: It's been a long day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: SPBS.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My goodness.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I'll move
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 MATTHEWS: We'll see you back at the end of
September.
MR. WARDEN: We'll see you tomorrow night, actually.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We will. You're right.
Item #10A
APPOINTMENT OF COHMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND
SET TENTATIVE DATES FOR THE HEARINGS - COHMISSIONRS NORRIS AND HANCOK
PRIMARIES AND COHMISSIONERS MAC'KIE, CONSTANTINE AND MATTHEWS TO SERVE
AS ALTERNATES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 10(A). Who wants to serve
on the Value Adjustment Board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's first start with who served
last year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I served last year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Look, I'm willing to pay my
attendance and do two years in a row as chairman, but then I'm taking
a break.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly
sign up for the 27th. I've got a conflict on the 23rd and -5th.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What dates are these?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The twenty -- the -- September
23rd, 25th, 26th, and 27th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Miss Filson's probably
recording those dates. Put me down for the 27th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be glad to serve in any
capacity, including chairman, on any of those dates that I'm
available. And I -- I don't know of any conflicts on my schedule with
any of them at this time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll serve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's three primary. Looks
like we have the two alternates already fixed then. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The boys --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm on -- I'm on 27.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The boys are up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't do every day.
MS. FILSON: Last year we only used one day.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: I need three for the first four.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll -- I'll do Monday the 23rd.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-third.
MS. FILSON: You'll do the 23rd. So I have Commissioner
Hancock, Commissioner Norris, and Commissioner Matthews.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're doing the 23rd?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 27th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm doing the 23rd.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go 26.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Back up on the 26th.
MS. FILSON: I have 23rd, 25th, 26th, and 27th. We may
not need all those dates.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll do them all, Miss Filson.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What days are you missing?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to hope we finish in
one day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think two days is about
all it will take at the most, but --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll do the 26th if we're still
doing it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That old adjustment.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: I need the 25th.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wednesday's just a bad day for
me.
MS. FILSON: I have two for the 25th; that will be a
quorum.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's all you're getting, Hiss
Filson. Looks like nobody else is volunteering. Mr. Dotrill, it's
time for our time certain. Do we have the people here?
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe the judge has arrived
yet. If you want to handle your other tag consideration issues, we
can come back to that.
Item #10C
REQUEST TO CONSIDER BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' JULY 23, 1996
DECISION REGARDING THE OSPREY POLE LOCATED ON COUNTY PROPERTY IN LELY
BAREFOOT BEACH - REQUEST TO CONSIDER APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move then to -- to 10(C),
the osprey pole.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I brought this back up
__
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here they are.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They just came in.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on down.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's do the osprey pole anyway since
I called it. It should be a quick item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I brought the item very
simply at the request of one of the residents that will be impacted,
and I -- I need to hear the explanation. I don't have a predisposed
notion on this. I just brought it back as a courtesy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, could we hear from
Mr. Hendri -- Hendricks because -- is that -- or Kevin. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Kevin Dougan?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kevin Dougan. Thank you. This
kind of came through without discussion. Then I found out later
there's a lot of -- for some reason the -- the -- the association
didn't approve of it. It's within -- it's pretty close to a building,
and there -- there seem to be some complications now that we weren't
made aware of. Would -- would that fairly characterize the situation
or '-
MR. DOUGAN: I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't know. Okay. Called
the wrong guy.
MR. DOUGAN: We were called to review the natural
resources on it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name. Name, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On my desk I have a memo
addressing that very question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, can -- obviously
this is up for reconsideration, so someone has to know something.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, all we're deciding today,
though, aren't we, is whether or not to allow them to come up -- come
back later and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. That's all we're doing
today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. And -- and if Commissioner
Constantine is asking for that, then I'm going to support it, you
know, as a courtesy.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, if he found reason that we
ought to reconsider it, I think --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner
Constantine was just suggesting we do reconsider it today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I support that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need a motion? Do we need
a motion of reconsideration be placed on the agenda?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, sir, we do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: Is Miss Timber still here, or did they
leave?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't see her. I think she
left.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But she will be up. Will staff
please notify her of the date that it's rescheduled for for
consideration?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got to vote first.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
reconsider. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
That will be reconsidered. When would you expect that,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: You -- you're going to have a lot of
public hearings for the 3rd, and I suggest maybe the second or third
meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will distribute the memo I
received today to all of you.
Item #10D
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION A-96-1 - TO BE RECONSIDERED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you want to similarly pop off
this next one, I can tell you it's quite similar. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I had a request to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is Item 10(D) for the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to ask you also to reconsider
-- we had a boat dock appeal. Emily Maggio had appealed it. They
tell me now that there is a solution that will make everybody happy,
give the petitioner what he asked for and still not protrude into the
bay an unacceptable amount. I have no idea if that's true or false,
but I'd like to give them the chance to come in and tell us about it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I -- I -- what I told
the petitioner is as long as what you're proposing doesn't intrude any
further than what anyone else in the canal already has --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: They've assured me that that's
the case, and that being it -- if that's true, then I would like -- I
think is a reason to reconsider.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is an appeal?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And Mr. Weigel has a comment for us.
MR. WEIGEL: This matter was an appeal. It was a
quasi-judicial decision by the board, and if -- since your decision
and prior to this decision, you've had any contacts, you should bring
that to the attention for the record, notwithstanding that you're not
making an ultimate substance decision on the issue today.
Secondly, I just mention that typically an appeal is a
yes -- or up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on an application or petition
that has come before the staff and ultimately then before the board.
And if there are variations from the initial petition, it would appear
that that is not a true reconsideration, and it may have to come
through the process again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. On the other hand, though,
Mr. Weigel, couldn't we -- no, I guess we're stuck on this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are stuck. You can't
reconsider a final appeal.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was going to say, this
is an appeal of an -- an appeal, and I would think that they may have
to go through the whole system again.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you -- you can reconsider. Our
ordinance provides for that, but the parameters are very limited in
the sense that it is an appeal from a yes-or-no decision.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let me do this then,
Mr. Weigel. If we -- if we reconsider our appeal -- reverse our
appeal, wouldn't they have an opportunity to have the Planning
Commission reconsider with the new information that was -- that was to
be presented?
MR. WEIGEL: The Board of County Commissioners is the
ultimate arbiter, and there's no -- there's no send-back review to the
Planning Commission as far as that goes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just defer to the county
attorney then. If he says this is not -- process isn't available,
then I withdraw my support.
MR. WEIGEL: I just wanted to advise you as to the
limitations. Something new that's not before the board in the past
cannot be brought up as an option to change the decision of the
application that was previously reviewed by staff and the underlying
review board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this going to cause the petitioner
to incur another application fee? Is that what you're saying? MR. WEIGEL: Potentially, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there some way of avoiding that?
What would be the -- what would be the mechanism to avoid that?
MR. WEIGEL: Outside of waiver by the board, I don't
know of any.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Waiver meaning we pay it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we invite them to come
in and -- and petition on the public petition of Tuesday and ask for
that -- that very waiver and go through the process again?
MR. WEIGEL: You can still -- you can still vote
affirmatively to reconsider today because you're not making a
substantive decision, and if it can be brought back -- and you could
even change your mind in the meantime and determine to table it or
something of that nature. But I just was advising you that when you
get to the next step, you may have limitations, and I wanted you to be
aware of that before you get into that next forum.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there's limitations of
either we can consider it or we can't. I mean, I -- help me with
that. I don't understand the idea of limitations. Either we at that
next step have the ability to change our mind or we do not.
MR. WEIGEL: The -- to change your mind, though, is to
change your mind to, you know, either one door, the other door, and
both those doors were already before you. You don't have a new third
door of -- of -- of change or revision or compromise.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we do. If the plan is
slightly modified, then that is a third consideration that was not
before this board at that time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What he's saying is you can't do that
because -- because the item was an appeal of a specific item that had
already come through the Planning Commission.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What if information was not
presented in that appeal that is relevant?
MR. WEIGEL: It sounds a little terse, but the chips
fall where they may, I'm afraid. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we do this. Why don't we
bring this back before the board, and in the interim everybody try to
see if they can work it out so we can get the job done and -- and do
that at your earliest convenience.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is going back to Item
10(B), work restitution center project, resolution to cease collection
of the sales tax upon receipt of sufficient money to fund the project.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, the petitioner
needs to understand what just happened.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither do I.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think I understand it
either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand the direction, it
has been scheduled to come back before the board. In the meantime,
try and resolve the issue in the community. If you can't, the board
will rehear it, and we may have no option then but to direct you to
another application, but we need to make that decision at the
appropriate time.
MR. SOLIS: Can I just point out one thing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record.
MR. SOLIS: It's a procedural matter --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Identify yourself
for the record, and get on the mike.
MR. SOLIS: My name is Andrew Solis for Michael Litty.
He was the original petitioner in this matter. If -- if this decision
is put off whether to reconsider this or not, my understanding is that
we will run into a -- possibly a procedural problem with publishing
the public notice for the reconsideration, if you should so choose to
do that, under the rules. And I think my client will then be stuck
kind of in a catch-22 position where he can't meet the -- the
publication requirement for the public hearing should you decide later
on to -- to reconsider it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is clearly a new animal and
one we haven't dealt with. Maybe we need to give qualified
instruction to the county attorney that if the option to reconsider is
available, that it be placed on the board's agenda but that that legal
decision and direction needs to come from the county attorney as to
whether the board has that option available to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's perfect.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's why I directed --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's take another ten
minutes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just thought this was a short
item, and I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Perhaps your record will want to reflect
today that you have approved a motion to reconsider to the extent that
it's legally available to you, and that way we haven't closed the
ability to get before the board without a new application.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to reconsider.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the extent legally available.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is this; a car ad?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-365, PROVIDING FOR THE EARLY SUSPENSION OF THE COLLECTION
OF A ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT SALES SURTAX PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 96-31 AND COLLIER COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 96-300 RE WORK
RESTITUTION CENTER PROJECT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Judge Brousseau, do you have anything
to tell us today? Now, we are on Item 10(B).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10(D)?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: B is what I said.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Good afternoon. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear here. It's indeed a pleasure. Last time I was
here we promised you that if you would allow this matter to go to the
public, that we felt confident that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself for the
record, please.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you. Ted Brousseau, circuit
judge. And we're speaking about the half-cent sales tax issue that's
coming up in November dealing with the work restitution center and the
jail expansion, and since your decision to put this on the ballot,
there's been a tremendous response by our responsible citizens of
Collier County. They have come forward.
I'm here as a newly-elected chairman of Citizens for a
Safe Community. The steering committee is made up of Paul Brigham,
Colleen Conant, Verlyn Fischer, Marcy Flinn, Sheriff Don Hunter, Bill
Jones, John Passidomo, Jim Rideoutte, Greg Smith, Eric West, Don York,
Dorothy Fitch, Huey Howard, Robert Jehring, Pat Miller, Dave Pfaff,
Kathleen Slebodnik, Thomas Traxinger and Cotbin Wyant, and it's
growing every day.
One of the first things that occurred after walking out
of this boardroom was I didn't get 10 feet outside of the door and
someone said why three years? Three years seems to add up to a lot
more money than will be necessary by these two projects. I talked to
Dave Weigel, your county attorney, and he assured me that the tax
would be limited by the fact that the law only allows you to collect
enough to pay for the capital improvements, but we both agreed that
perhaps the public would understand it better if you made a commitment
in English that they could understand that would -- you know, some
people aren't real -- what shall I say -- trusting of -- of
government.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: And, you know, they may think that you
might want to use some of this money for other things. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm shocked.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: And it might help you and us both if
-- if you took this action today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, that's a fairly
simple process for us to do, I assume, is to terminate it once we
anticipate the money is going to be collected? MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then I have no objection to
this at all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do we need to officially
make a motion to adopt this resolution then, or does it need to -- has
it -- have you had the chance for a legal sufficiency review?
MR. WEIGEL: It passes legal sufficiency review.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one -- I got one question
before you call -- call the question. Do -- do we have to end our
collection of this on a quarter -- quarter end or calendar quarter
end?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not absolutely sure about that. The
law will require whatever --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But what -- whatever it requires
MR. WEIGEL: I'll report back to you on that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, this was a good idea, Judge.
Thank you. It helps clarify it for the citizens. You were right.
we're glad to do this.
We have a motion and a second to approve this resolution
MR. DORRILL: Jail here is -- and I will take to mean --
kind of broadly defined -- also include the administrative and support
facilities of the sheriff's department could otherwise include the
kitchen, mechanical room --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. Lots of stuff.
MR. DORRILL: -- processes and that portion of the
building.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever's necessary to support
the jail expansion. Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the expansion includes
considerable administration floor space, doesn't it?
MR. DORRILL: As -- as currently conceived, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. And it's not just the jail
facility; it's an administration center too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Support area also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last I checked, we have to put
folks somewhere to watch the bad guys that are in the jail.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as -- as long as all
those facilities have bars on them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Why don't we take -- that
concludes -- wait a minute. Do we have a public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes. We have Miss Leinweber. I think we
clocked out Mr. Perkins. I believe he's gone home.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's been sloughing off the last
couple weeks.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey. Hey.
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber, Bay West Nursery.
Mary Donovan and I were at a town-hall meeting with Commissioner
Matthews. Commissioner Matthews has been diligent -- diligently
working with District 5 about our water problems and flooding. We
were under the impression Coco weir on the Cocohatchee Canal as the
three weir was supposed to be postponed. Guess what? The Big Cypress
Water Basin has lied to us all again. Weir 3 is going in. Clarence
Tiers had an interview on Channel 2 with Rob Lowe. The weir will be
in in 1998.
Glen Simpson said it seems like every year is a 25-year
flood. Well, we can start expecting a 100-year flood every year now
with the Cocohatchee weir going in and Treeline Drive. The weirs
cannot be opened up when we get storms like Opal and Jerry. What
about a no-name storm? But the weirs that are welded or rusted, we
are now having more and bigger flooding problems. When the weirs are
lowered, they have to be manually cut down. Clarence Tiers informed
us about this at a Big Cypress Water Basin meeting. They are cut down
only during the rainy season. If we get a direct hurricane, we are
going to be in big trouble. Our weir system is completely worthless.
Something needs to be done. The only weir that is automated is the
Coco weir on the Cocohatchee Canal.
I hope or commissioners take notice and take back
control of our county weir system. I had the Army Corps of Engineer
permit I have just given all of you. We have protested it once. We
have to protest it again. Commissioner Matthews has really been
working with us. She's been talking to us and --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Leinweber, let me -- let me
interrupt you. I -- I know you're in the public comment, but for the
-- for the board let me say that when Miss Leinweber and I last
talked and she gave me her belief that she had been assured that Coco
3 would be built, I contacted the vice-chairman of the basin board and
specifically asked him that question. And he said, no, it will not be
built, as far as he was concerned, in the near future. And I asked
him to provide me with a letter stating that, and to date -- I mean,
I'm trying to get through my mail. You saw me, and I have not seen
that letter to date. But based on what you're saying now, I will
diligently pursue it and get you a copy of that. He has -- he has
told me in the affirmative that Coco 3 will not be built, as far as he
knows, in the foreseeable future. They just haven't done their
homework on it yet, but the canal improvement between Coco 2 and the
expected Coco 3 will be done.
MS. LEINWEBER: I appreciate that, and I wanted to bring
it to your attention because Commissioner Matthews has really been
working with her district. And when I get the Army Corps of Engineer
permit and I see different -- and we've been protesting it, as you can
see. You know, we have not been taking shortcuts. We have really
been working aggressively on this, and I know Commissioner Matthews
has really been trying to help us. And I just wanted to bring it to
your attention, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know how long you guys
have been working on this together, but as liaison of the school
board, the issue came up a long time ago, and I have already written
letters of objection to the Army Corps of Engineer regarding the
issuance of this permit. In here it says it will be operated for
headwater elevation at 12.0, except they're building it at 13 when
they've issued permits for 12.5 adjacent to it. So if this thing goes
ahead, then we're -- we may be in a position to contest it on a legal
basis.
MS. LEINWEBER: And also the berms they want to put up,
which is going to back the water up more -- and I'm not a rocket
scientist; I'm not a land surveyor. But just from what I've been able
to de -- decipher, I mean, we're in big ca-ca on -- on -- on the
Cocohatchee Canal, you know.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a word I used to hear a
lot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Weigel involved in this
process as far as monitoring the individual positioning they have to
fix it?
MR. WEIGEL: I expect to be from now on.
MS. LEINWEBER: I thank you very much, and I'm just glad
you gave me the time, and I hope I get you folks energized. Thanks a
lot.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Leinweber, I -- I want to
say that the Lee County-Collier County workshop has been finalized.
The date will be the 12th at -- at two o'clock in the afternoon at the
Lion's Club in Bonita so --
MS. LEINWEBER: Can -- can I have a copy of that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just got the original, so --
MS. LEINWEBER: I'll take it into your office and get it
copied for you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for keeping us posted.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for keeping us posted.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just got it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't aware that we had
supported the idea of a workshop being met, so'- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that concludes our morning
agenda, so we'll take a two-minute break and come back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B1 - Continued to 9/10/96
Item #12B2 - Continued to 9/10/96
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 96-48, RE PETITION R-86-30(1), COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
NO. 87-55 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING A CONDITION OF REZONING FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES, PHASE V - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. We're ready for our afternoon agenda, finally. Our first
item is Petition R-86-30(1).
MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, your planning services
division. This petition has to do with a stipulation placed on a
rezoning action by a previous board relative to the Imperial Golf
Estates Phase 5, which stipulated that no more than 50 percent of the
lots created in Imperial Golf Estates Phase 5 could be developed until
the extension of Livingston Road. That, as my executive summary
points out, poses a real problem because Livingston Road is not going
to be built for some time in this area; and, in any event, its
alignment is unlikely to be contiguous to the Phase 5 development.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, would it disappoint you
greatly if we expedited this because -- MR. NINO: Not at all, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because there's really -- you
know, there's really no issue here. Livingston Road is not going to
connect to the back of Imperial, so that stipulation is moot and --
and irrelevant. So I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to approve staff
recommendation for petition R-86-30(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers, Mr. McNees, I assume.
MR. McNEES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask one question.
Mr. Nino, you said this is not going to connect the Imperial to the
east-west sections of -- the proposed Livingston Road does not connect
to Imperial at all?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's actually north of
Imperial, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm fine then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Not any.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-366, RE PETITION AV-96-004, JOE BOGGS AS AGENT FOR
WILLIAM T. HIGGS, REQUESTING VACATION OF AN ODD SHAPED DRAINAGE
EASEMENT, A PORTION OF A THIRTY FOOT INGRESS/EGRESS AND A FIFTEEN FOOT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF THE PLAT OF
WIGGINS BAY PHASE I - ADOPTED
Let's see. We're on Petition AV 96-004.
MR. MULLER: Good afternoon. My name is Russ Mullet,
transportation. Item 12(C)(1) is a public hearing to consider
Petition AV 96-004 for the vacation of an odd-shaped drainage
easement, portion of a 30-foot ingress-egress and utility easement,
and a 30-foot ingress-egress easement, and a 15-foot drainage easement
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is anyone objecting to this?
MR. MULLER: No, I haven't received any objections.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on
this?
MR. McNEES: Only the petitioner, Mr. Boggs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can staff assure us that the
water management concerns have been fully addressed and that 25 years'
farm protection or whatever the requirement is from south Florida can
be met without these?
MR. MULLER: Yes. This is a stipulation of their water
-- South Florida Water Management permit to do this vacation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to approve, second. All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-367, RE PETITION AV-96-005, COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, REQUESTING
VACATION OF A PORITION OF 10TH AVENUE, S.W., AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 33 - ADOPTED
Next item is Petition AV 96-005.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's been continued, I
believe. Oh, continued from, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Boy, you're really trying to move
things.
MR. HULLER: Item 12(C)(2) is a public hearing to
consider Petition AV 96-005 for the vacation of a portion of a
100-foot right-of-way on 10th Avenue Northwest in the plat of Golden
Gate Estates, Unit No. 33, Plat Book 7, page 60. The said location is
south Pine Ridge Road near 1-75. The reason for the vacation is to
use it -- the area as buffering and detention. We've got letters of
no objections from all authorized user agencies, and the resolution
was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office in
accordance with Florida Statutes 177 and 101, 33-609 and 33-610.
Staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
MR. HULLER: Here is the applicant to answer any
questions, John Asher from Coastal Engineering.
MR. ASHER: I think it's 10th Avenue Southwest. I think
somebody said it's northwest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. Just a quickie, I
swear, is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, somebody in the attorney's
office -- somebody tell me later what's done in the land records to
make these plat vacations clear for title review purposes. I don't
need to know now, but I think that that's an issue that county
commissioners need.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please forward that response
directly to Commissioner Hac'Kie's office. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without a copy to anybody else.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 96-368, RE PETITION AV-96-011, COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF THREE 60 FOOT ROAD
RIGHTS-OF-WAY PLATTED AS ACADIA LANE, ALLADIN LANE AND DOMINION DRIVE
AND A PORTION OF A 20 FOOT UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A PORTION
OF A 30 FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
AVALON ESTATES UNIT 1 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 12(C)(3).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like a copy of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Petition AV 96-011.
MR. HULLER: That's a petition for the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mullet, is there any
public objection to this item?
MR. HULLER: Oh, no. This is us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got a little ahead of you there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody objects to this;
right?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Item
96-011.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 96-369, RE PETITION AV-96-006, TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 50
FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY PLATTED AS WINIFRED AVENUE ON THE PLAT OF TAMIAMI
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
Next item, Petition AV 96-006.
MR. MULLER: That's for vacation of a portion of
Winifred Avenue. The reason for the vacation is to allow paving of a
parking area, and the public benefit would be access management to
U.S. 41. Based on the public benefit and letters of no objection,
staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We received one letter of
objection, at least --
MR. MULLER: I've received a letter today --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. MULLER: -- that was faxed to me taking that back.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The nature of that -- or they
took that -- they've rescinded their objection?
MR. MULLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This Allrobe (phonetic)
Associates rescinded --
MR. MULLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- their objection?
MR. MULLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We didn't get notice --
notification of that. Okay.
MR. MULLER: Just got it today. The petitioner (sic),
Ernie Carroll and Pete Jenks, are both here and available to answer
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No questions? Close the public
hearing. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(The respective commissioners responded.)
Ernie, I'll bet you're glad you stuck around all day for
that, aren't you?
MR. CARROLL: Sure. Thank you very much.
Item #12C5
RESOLUTION 96-370, RE PETITION AV-96-015, TO VACATE A 20 FOOT ALLEYWAY
ON THE PLAT OF TRAIL TERRACE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 12(C)(5), Petition AV
96-015.
MR. MULLER: This is for the vacation of a 20-foot alley
on Block B of the plat of Trail Terrace. It's located on southwest --
southeast quadrant of Trail Terrace and U.S. 41 just north of the Sher
-- Sherwin-Williams paint store. It's to allow construction on the
existing foundation. I've got letters of no objection from all
agencies and adjacent property owners. Staff recommends approval.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we have no objection from
anybody in the universe?
MR. MULLER: Everybody.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there speakers on this one,
Mr. Chairman?
MR. McNEES: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Petition AV
96-015.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(The respective commissioners responded.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mullet. You know, it
may have been a shorter list if you'd have just told us what you
weren't vacating today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to applaud the
petitioner on that for his excellent presentation on that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The backflow's continued?
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-371, RE PETITION OSP-96-2, STEVE ERICK OF BRUCE GREEN &
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING ROBERT BLIVEN AND LLOYD SHEEHAN REQUESTING
APPROVAL FOR OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES ON A PORTION OF LOT 39 TO RECTIFY
A PARKING DEFICIENCY ON LOT 38 WHICH CONTAINS AN 11,548 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING AND THE SUBWAY RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF U.S. 41, NAPLES GROVE & TRUCK COHPANY'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2 -
ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is Item 13(A)(1), Petition
OSP-96-2.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense the pace is slowing a
bit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm dying up here.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record my name is Ray Bellows,
current planning staff, OSP-96-2. The applicant (sic), Robert Bliven
and Lloyd Sheehan, are requesting approval for off-site parking on the
-- a portion of Lot 39 that's zoned RMF-6 to rectify parking
deficiency on a commercial-retail Lot No. 38. Peti -- excuse me.
Petitioner proposes to redevelop an existing ll,548-square-foot
building which is two stories and previously housed the Edison
Community College. That also includes a Subway restaurant, which will
be relocated to this two-story building. This will make way for
improvements to the site for parking and landscaping and water
management. However, to fully utilize the two-story building,
petitioner's requesting off-site parking of 178 spaces on Lot 38,
which is the RMF-6 zoned lot.
As you see, it's adjacent to the existing C-4 lot. The
off-site parking is located to the west, C-4 zoning to the north,
RMF-6 to the south, and the Gulf Gate Shopping Center --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where's the -- I'm sorry. The --
where is the Subway building in relation to the -- the diagram you've
shown?
MR. BELLOWS: Subway was -- is -- would have been
located -- or is located here but on this plan shows the revised
parking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the -- the existing
building is going to be modified to make its front entrance facing
west, is that correct, where the handicapped parking is?
MR. BELLOWS: This is to take advantage of the parking
area here. They'll have an entrance here to -- handicapped parking
here and covered walk from the shopping center here (indicating.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was the answer to that question,
yes, Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. The answer was there will be
two entrances, one to the north and one to the west, if I'm not
mistaken.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is the main entrance?
Which is the main entrance?
MR. BELLOWS: We're also requesting additional
landscaping be provided.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I was asking which
was the main entrance, the west or the north. My -- I -- my big
interest in this is prettying it up. I mean, it's just not anything
anybody is real proud of right now, so --
MR. BELLOWS: The applicant will be submitting a site
development plan for the building. Right now, I believe, the main
entrance will be here, and this is more of a secondary for the parking
here (indicating.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there'll be some sort of
covered walkway, you said, between the shopping center and the
building?
MR. BELLOWS: There's a covered walk along the east
side.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my questions are for the
petitioner, so I don't have any more questions for staff. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There he is.
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover representing
the petitioners. Basically, right -- right now we have a Subway
building that's not real attractive sitting out in front of the -- the
shopping center. The shopping center, you probably read in the papers
over the last ten years, has had a (sic) ongoing parking problem
because the -- this main building here was not owned by the people
that owned the rest of the shopping center, and -- and this building
was permitted with basically very minimal parking spaces, and it would
no longer -- it would no -- would not meet today's code, so it's
basically grandfathered in.
What they're proposing on doing is removing the Subway
building totally and putting in parking spaces, landscaping, and water
management instead of that. The two-story building would be
remodeled, and the Subway would be incorporated inside of that, which
should make it look a lot nicer. And for this to happen we need the
parking to be located on the west side of the building so we can make
these improvements to the shopping center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be bringing it up to landscape
and parking code?
MR. BELLOWS: For this section, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right, for this two-story
building.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, this parking or,
rather, this off-site parking area has no entrance-exit, no
access-egress to the side street.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Only through the -- the
existing -- or the proposed connection here to this existing paved
area, which is out through an exit here --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a condition of the agreement?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's part of their plan that
they're submitting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no, no. We --
MR. BELLOWS: But we can make that a --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We want to make that a part of the
agreement. What about buffering for the residential neighborhood over
there on the west side?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That is in the agreement sheet, and
I'll read --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That is in the agreement? Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think I got to hear
Mr. Hoover's response to Commissioner Hac'Kie's question about
bringing it up to code for the two-story building.
MR. HOOVER: The -- the -- the landscaping for the
entire site -- we've already turned in and have approved a -- this is
a copy of the preliminary site development plan, and it's approved.
And if I'm not mistaken, the -- we do meet the -- the parking lot does
meet the landscaping requirements now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about the building itself?
Let me ask one question before I get to that.
MR. HOOVER: You mean the shopping center?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a better picture than
this that I could have, please?
MR. BELLOWS: You'll need a larger one. I can get you a
copy of the larger one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does anybody have one that seems
better than that? I can't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let -- let me lead off of where
you're going. Mr. Hoover, in September we'll be considering
architectural controls for commercial property, and the reason is the
plopping down of big, ugly boxes throughout the county. MR. HOOVER: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that what you're
proposing is that -- that -- it's been stated that it's an obvious
improvement. What I'm asking for and I think what Commissioner
Hac'Kie's getting to is, one, we would have loved to have seen an
architectural elevation to really help us visualize what it is we're
approving. Since that's not in our packet and I don't see it with you
MR. HOOVER: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- can you help us with -- I
mean, what's this thing going to look like?
MR. HOOVER: The Subway right now is brown and yellow,
so it's going to be gone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, but what --
MR. HOOVER: And right now we have a white two-story
building --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That isn't too pretty either.
What's it going to look like?
MR. HOOVER: Okay. Bob, do you want --
MR. BLIVEN: No, no. We don't want to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So basically you don't
have any specific architectural plans for this building. Okay. So we
could say that if you're going -- if we're going to approve this,
there are certain things that we would like to see as a part of this
building and ask you to agree to those today on the record then.
Okay. I like that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please start your list,
Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to incorporate a 30-page
document on my desk.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just preface your list
by saying I appreciate what it is you're trying to do here, I mean,
the fact you're trying to clean it up. I think the board's just
looking for some parameters in which they have assurance that that
will be. I think everybody likes the idea of the -- the look changing
there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What would happen if we were to
continue this item until after we looked at this further?
MR. HOOVER: That -- we have a -- I believe we have to
close on this property by August 25th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me -- let me --
MR. HOOVER: I don't think we're objecting to what
Commissioner Hancock's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I think what I'm about to
say is probably things you'd do anyway to get the rents up to where
you want them to -- to take care of things. Let me -- let me just ask
for a couple of things. One is that the building on both the north
and west side have an architectural roof treatment to it of either --
some type of -- of tile, kind of an eave on the building that's not
just a blank wall that extends up. Some type of roof treatment that
__
MR. HOOVER: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that gives it a presentation
that -- that it currently does not have, would you be willing to agree
to that?
MR. HOOVER: Can you just go ahead and go through the
list, and then I'll talk with the -- the petitioners, and they can --
they --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second element is to provide
landscaping immediately adjacent to and around the building, not just
out in the parking lot, but something along the lines of planter areas
or planter boxes, again, on the north and west side of the building,
even if they're under the eave. It's important to have some type of
-- of landscaping adjacent to the building so it's not concrete to
concrete.
MR. HOOVER: Correct. The site -- the preliminary site
plan that's approved does show landscaping on the north side. The
other side -- I think you mentioned the west side -- that's tight. We
could go with planter boxes, I -- I would think.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to see planter
boxes on the west side. Yeah. It's a given. And it is tight, I
understand that, but I'd like to see planter boxes incorporated to
soften the side of that building.
Those are the two areas that I wanted to address that I
didn't see addressed, and if you can agree to those two things, I -- I
think we can be assured of a better architectural look for this area
than -- than -- obviously than what's there and what's -- what could
be done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What other kinds of things,
Commissioner Hancock, might we -- might we see if we had your 30-page
document?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You would see a prohibition on
certain types of exterior materials such as bare -- just regular
concrete block as exterior or the ribbed concrete that you see on the
lower half of Walmart or Kmart. You know, that -- it looks like
someone gouged it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't that what this building
currently is, though?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's just concrete
block. I think a -- a reasonable request would be an architectural
finish such as stucco to the exterior of the building. MR. HOOVER: It's stucco right now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there won't be any bare
concrete block or ribbed concrete used in the building?
MR. HOOVER: I think we could agree that the -- that it
would be architecturally finished on the -- the entire outside which
-- as long as it's including stucco. And in regards to that first,
they're -- they're not sure how they're going to do that architectural
-- you mentioned, like, a (sic) imitation porch overhang-type thing.
They don't have a problem with that. Their concern is do you have to
-- does that have to go along the entire length of that, or can it be
a portion of that. They just want a little flexibility, but they do
not have a problem with doing it at least over, let's say, half of
that area or something.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's say roughly 70 percent of
the combined distance of the north and west side? MR. HOOVER: Okay. That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That gives you a little
flexibility but gives the -- it finishes the building off and gives it
a little bit of a roof appearance and looks better from the road, and
that means you can charge $4 more a square foot and make a lot of
money.
Those are the three things that just off the top of my
head have to be -- that would be finish of the building, roof line of
the building, and adjacent landscaping up next to the building. Those
are the three primary focuses of what we have and what we're looking
at.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the parking lot itself then
would be -- would comply with landscape code, current landscape code?
MR. HOOVER Right. It was just reviewed and approved
for the current landscape code.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and there's nothing else
we could do on the building side itself to add some landscaping? It's
just so bare.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. Now, which side is that? So 41's on
the north side and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Anywhere else on the
side. Anywhere is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I -- do I see three planting
areas on the north side of the building? That's what it looks like.
MR. HOOVER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And --
MR. HOOVER: We have six landscaped islands out front
plus a retention area plus a new buffer along 41.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And adjacent to the building
there are what appear to be three planting areas. Those would be
landscaped?
MR. HOOVER: Right. With more than, let's say, flowers,
shrubs. I don't know if you can get trees in there or if you want
trees. You might stick palms up by the building.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I think to be
consistent with what's going on, that -- that's something that should
be done. And then on the west side we're talking about planter boxes
because of limited space as opposed to landscaped areas. That's
already been agreed to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm prepared to support the
petition with the three suggestions you've made.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I don't want to be
premature in applying something that isn't -- hasn't been adopted yet,
but I think those are areas that -- that if you can agree to these
three elements --
MR. HOOVER: We will agree with those three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let the record reflect that you
did so agree. I'll close the public hearing.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item
with the stipulations outlined moments ago by Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Isn't there also an agreement
sheet that's part of the packet?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, part of the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. That -- that's part of the
motion, I'm sure. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-372, RE PETITION CU-96-14, ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF
HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF
NAPLES, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "3" OF THE c-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR
AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1575-1595 PINE RIDGE
ROAD, BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, CONSISTING OF 8+ ACRES
- ADOPTED
13 (A) (2), CU-96-14.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, these -- these
issues that -- you know, the last couple of weeks that we've had these
public issues, we are doing a lot of requests to (sic) petitioner to
do other things, and -- and I'm wondering if maybe the Planning
Commission shouldn't be looking at -- at these proposals just as
critically as we do. Apparently -- I don't know what goes on with --
at -- at the Planning Commission level, but I think I'd like to see
petitions come forward to us that are more agreeable to us as a
group. And I don't know how we go about doing that, but I think we
ought to investigate that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you perhaps draft a letter to
the chairman of the Planning Commission and let him know what we've
done here in some of these cases and perhaps suggesting that they
adopt --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. I would be happy to,
but what I would like to do is -- is draft a letter and pass it to
Commissioner Hancock because he certainly knows more about this than
-- than we do, and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's put this under BCC
discussions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you would go ahead and do
that, I would -- I'd be --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's just that we seem to get
bogged down more and more in this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've had that discussion with
individual Planning Commissioner members myself, so I'd be happy to do
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is CU-96-14.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Fred
Reischl, planning services. This is a request by the First Baptist
Church of Naples to their -- to add an educational facility to their
existing church facility on Pine Ridge Road. The existing church
building is outlined in yellow. You can see the parking surrounding
it.
The church building is proposed to be used as part of
the educational facility for grades K through 6 with a maximum of 200
students. There is the possible addition of five modular classrooms.
One is proposed for as soon as this approval -- if this approval is
forthcoming. The other four are for sometime in the future.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, would modular buildings
otherwise not be approved by our code if we don't -- if we were not to
approve this today?
MR. REISCHL: No. Well, it depends on the kind of
modular building. There are modular buildings that would meet code
for this, and those obviously would be required to get a building
permit; but, no, you would not have to see this to see a modular
building. The fact that this is a conditional use is the fact that
it's an educational facility in C-1 zoning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I'm getting at is I'm not sure
that setting up a group of trailers out there behind the First Baptist
Church is exactly the right thing to do.
MR. REISCHL: And the Planning Commission had that same
concern, and it was brought up by the petitioner that they are
planning to relocate their facility. This is a temporary facility.
There is no -- the Planning Commission decided not to put a -- a cap
on the time span for it, but they did discuss the fact that this was
temporary, and that's one of the concerns they addressed regarding
modular classrooms.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might want to see a commitment to
time frame on that, because even -- it faces a hideaway storage
place.
MR. REISCHL: Correct. Hideaway Storage and Pine Ridge
Middle School, which also has modular classrooms. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same stuff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if it is, indeed, temporary,
I think a time frame would be appropriate. Maybe we can hear that
from the planners.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the Planning
Commission's recommendation?
MR. REISCHL: Okay. I was just about to say that. They
recommended 7-0 in favor, and I -- I also received one letter in favor
from one of the neighbors, not opposed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is the petitioner here? I'd --
I'd like to see a -- a time frame and all that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Yes. For the record, Robert Duane from
Hole, Montes and Associates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many kids you got
registered?
MR. DUANE: Well, we hope to have 123, 104 currently.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like a need to me.
MR. DUANE: The Planning Commission did discuss this
issue at some length regarding the potential modular units that we may
want to avail ourselves of of the future. I think they were somewhat
persuaded by the fact that we abut industrial zoning. We're next to a
school that may very well have its own modular facilities one day, and
the Planning Commission said we don't limit the school board to
modular facilities, and a number of them didn't feel comfortable
imposing those restrictions on us. So the petition (sic) left
unfettered in that way, and I'm requesting that -- your consideration
to leave it that way today.
The existing facility -- by the way, the students that
we hope to have in enrollment this year will be principally in the
existing building. The modular building is just for administration;
and, again, we hope to be in our new facility on or about the year
2000, so we didn't want to make a long-term investment in structures
that we might have to leave. That's our case regarding the modular
buildings.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Any questions for the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one. If -- if you expect
to be in your new facility in the year 2000, this is 1996. If we were
to stipulate and you were to agree that you would be rid of these
modular buildings within five years, is that an agreeable thing?
MR. DUANE: Well, there's a wrinkle. We're -- we're
involved in the Livingston Road issue also. We're looking for
Livingston Road to be constructed north of Pine Ridge Road, and we
don't want to be in a position where we lose an approval and come back
-- I -- I just would ask the board's indulgence. It's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keeping in mind that we're right
next to a storage facility and a school with modular --
MR. DUANE: If I were next to an established
neighborhood, I don't think we would be having this discussion today,
but we know that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a guarantee.
MR. DUANE: And -- and I had one other issue I also
needed to discuss with you, but if -- I'll want to take it in bites.
If you want to deal with this issue first, then I have another one to
discuss with you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have -- Mr. Weigel, do we have
the ability to -- to grant a five-year use on these with two-year
renewals at the board's option so at least we get to look at it again
in the future? Could we make an -- a side agreement like that or
something?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll pass that one to Harjie Student, who I
think can respond quickly -- quicker than I can.
MS. STUDENT: Once the conditional use is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. Once the conditional use is up and
running, if you will, then it's there until its use ceases, and I
think it has to have ceased for one year. What you may wish to do,
rather than put time limits on a use, put a time limit on a type of
building because I think you're talking about a type of building
rather than the use.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. But we -- but we could do
that?
MS. STUDENT: It is my opinion that you could do that as
far as conditions -- be imposed upon the conditions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Next, Mr. Duane.
You had another one.
MR. DUANE: Impact fees. The impact fees for a
200-student school are about $30,000 or $150 per student. When we
move to this new facility, we don't want to pay the same $30,000
impact fee twice.
Your attorney Hiss Ashton is here, but she tells me that
the ordinance, the way it's sculptured, really doesn't allow for
that. And I'm asking you this morning not to try to put this facility
in the position of paying the impact fee twice when we move from one
location to another. The bill -- property is zoned commercial today.
The building could be torn down. It could be redeveloped into an
office building, retail. It's possible another church could come
back. Mr. Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Are you going to be adding
facilities with the construction of these classrooms, in other words,
more bathroom facilities, more sinks, the things that we normally use
to determine impact fees? Will you be adding some of these
facilities?
MR. DUANE: Yeah. We'll have to pay impact fees for
those facilities -- the temporary facilities. As I said, it -- it's
not -- you know, we're not sure that we'll get to that number, 200.
We're starting, you know, in the existing building today. We're just
concerned about paying a thirty -- up to a $30,000 fee twice, and I
would ask you to reexamine your impact fee ordinance. We want to pay
our fair share. We just don't want to pay twice.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe I could comment on that. Seems
to me that -- that you -- you have a point, and -- and you may have a
-- an ability to come to us at the time you do make the transfer to
request to transfer your original impact fees to a new site. But the
problem would be we have no assurance today that the Second Baptist
Church of Naples wouldn't buy your property and operate it as the same
use; and, therefore, you know, we wouldn't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we'll end up paying it for
them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we would be losing the -- the
impact fees that -- that should have been paid. So, you know, to give
them -- give them away to you today I don't think is appropriate, but
if you were, on the other hand, when you move to the new facility, to
remove the old facility, then we may have something --
MR. DUANE: That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I was thinking. If
you do come in and say you want to eliminate the conditional use of
this property for this school and it goes away so that it cannot be
reestablished, then we've avoided that question. Is that -- can that
legally be done in that manner, Miss Ashton?
MS. ASHTON: As I previously explained to Mr. Duane, the
-- the impact fees run with the property. Now, if he were to build a
church and then build another church, if he demolishes the first
church and the facilities and files something indicating, you know,
that the impact fees aren't to run to the -- with the land that had
previously been paid, then you could work something out where no new
impact fees -- well, there may be additional impact fees due depending
on, you know, the number of students, but Mr. Duane had explained to
me that they wanted -- they didn't know what was going to happen to
the building. If the building remains, you're going to have somebody
else potentially coming in there who's going to create an impact.
there's a chance --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me draw a specific scenario,
if I may, that may answer the question. If they build their second
site and they want to move the school, they come and remove the up to
five structures that this conditional use allows for. They remove
those five structures and the conditional use. Granted, they would
have to file a petition to do that, but they remove all five
structures associated with the school and remove the conditional use
of the property. Would that then qualify for that transfer that we're
talking about?
MS. ASHTON: As long as there's a demolition that's
within a certain period of time that's deemed reasonable. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: We have in the past dealt with that
situation when there was a demolition of a building and the
construction of an -- another building where the construction occurred
prior to the demolition, so there were two, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The point is that -- that the
mechanism is available. We're not going to be prepared to grant it to
you today because, you know, that's -- that's sort of a -- it's a
situation that we don't know if it's ever going to --
MR. DUANE: But is there a mechanism available --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think -- I think Miss Ashton just
said that there was.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is, and I can give you
a real-life example. The Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce right now is
moving. They had a -- their visitor center is a modular unit.
They're picking that unit up and taking it away. There won't be
anything on that property again, and so they get some credit toward
their new facility because there's no longer an impact on the first
piece of property.
MS. ASHTON: If I could also comment. There -- if there
are some structures that are built that are not removed, you would not
get the credit for the structures that are not removed for the new
facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would say you just increase
your price of the building to get your impact fees back. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Is there anything else?
MR. DUANE: No, that's all. So we're in agreement there
is a mechanism, and we'll deal with it at the time when we solidify
our plans.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is.
MR. DUANE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: I just want to clarify. Generally
speaking, the impact fees run with the property, not the property's
tenant or the property's owner, and that might change. I just want to
make sure we're not giving the impression here -- because the
precedent could be set if I were a single-family homeowner and I had
three bathrooms and I wanted to build a new house, I'd say, well, I'm
going to a tear out one of the bathrooms in the old house. Please let
me transfer that impact fee money into my new house, and that's a
whole new scenario.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're -- we're -- I want to make
it clear that we're not setting that precedent today because we are
not granting him the authority to do that. That's a decision that
will have -- have to -- have to be made at the time if and when he
ever gets around to expanding or constructing a new facility. MR. HcNEES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Weren't there conditions on the
motions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Other than staff
conditions, there was one --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that was it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I mean, staff's
stipulations are included in the motion.
MR. REISCHL: You had considered --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What about the time on the
building, time frame on the building?
MR. REISCHL: -- portable classrooms.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had -- we had considered a time
limit on the building use, not the conditional use, but the buildings
themselves.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My second does -- does not
include that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The motion did not include --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. The motion doesn't include
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we have a motion and
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion carries 4 to 1.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-373, RE PETITION CU-96-7, JOHN R. BOSSERHAN, REPRESENTING
BETHEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE
rmf-6 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF NORTH 15TH STREET AND WEST MAIN STREET, IHMOKALEE,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
Next item, 13(A)(3), Petition CU-96-7, Bethel Assembly
of God requesting conditional use 1.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is
a request for -- by the Bethel Assembly of God in Immokalee to gain
conditional-use approval for a church --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt you,
but is there any objection to this?
MR. REISCHL: I received no letters, no calls of
objection. It was previously approved as a provisional use. It had
expired. This is basically the same design and impact. So it's
previously approved.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers then?
MR. HcNEES No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve CU-96-7.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You got to let me close public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I heard him say no.
The public hearing's closed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve CU-96-7.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 96-374, RE PETITION V-95-28, ROGER E. CRAIG, ATTORNEY,
REPRESENTING ANTHONY C. GNERRE, REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE
DENIAL OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FOR TWO METAL CANOPIES FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3584 PROGRESS AVENUE - ADOPTED
13(A)(4), Petition V-95-28.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Who placed this reconsider --
Commissioner Constantine, was this you that placed the reconsideration
on the agenda?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? 95-28?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a reconsideration of a
variance.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For those canopies?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I did. Yes,
I did.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is
a reconsideration of a variance request that was denied by the
commission on May 14th. It's the site on Progress Avenue. The pink
I've outlined here is -- are the existing structures, and the yellow
carports are the structures that were in question. The request was
for a variance from the front yard. The front-yard setback is 50
feet. This protrudes 40 feet into the front yard, and the side-yard
setback for this one -- it protrudes 30 feet into the side yard. The
-- the side-yard setback on Industrial is 20 percent for minimum of
-- or maximum of 50 feet, so it would be 50 feet that would require
this to be 10 here and 40 here, so it protrudes 30.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Reischl, an
after-the-fact variance?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Thank you. An after-the-fact
variance.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which followed -- the
construction followed a meeting with our staff in which the petitioner
was told what the requirements were to obtain the variance. Is that
-- is my recollection correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's right. It was apparently a code
enforcement situation, and Mr. Gnerre was referred to planning
services. The rear carport protrudes into the rear setback, not into
the side, because, again, you have over 50 feet on this side, so that
meets the side setback. It's just a 3-foot protrusion into the rear.
And I -- I did have a meeting with Mr. Gnerre a few weeks ago but, you
know, there was no additional evidence that was brought up that would
make staff change its recommendation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which was denied?
MR. REISCHL: Denied.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Craig?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the Planning Commission
recommendation was?
MR. REISCHL: For approval by -- was it 4 to 37 Four to
three.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move denial on the board.
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
Roger Craig representing Mr. Gnerre, the petitioner here, for
reconsideration. The claim here is a hardship claim, and what
practically happened is we have -- and I've provided the commission
members with photographs of the condition, and I have additional
photographs available for members of the commission. I appreciate
your taking time at the end of your agenda to consider this matter.
Briefly, the situation we had was the uses that have
been made are totally consistent with the existing buildings that have
been there for over 25 years. Mr. Gnerre -- to -- to modify the
configuration of the -- of the structures as now existing as an
after-the-fact variance would constitute a -- a hardship on Mr. Gnerre
and a hardship on the use of the property because that property would
not accommodate a different construct of those facilities, and a
different construct would be inconsistent with the existing
facilities. So that we do have a basic hardship.
I don't believe in our last hearing before the
commission, however, that was the commission's main concern. The
concern appeared to be that expressed by Commissioner Hancock that
although Mr. Gnerre had been advised he couldn't proceed, he did.
Let me just very quickly give you the history of the
situation. Mr. Gnerre has been a good corporate citizen, a good
individual citizen of this community, very active in the community for
many years. He has -- he has never been involved in a problem of this
nature, but he did have this -- this situation involved -- he had a
$95,000 special assessment placed on this property, as did his
adjacent -- as the neighbors on each side of him did. In order to
satisfy that special assessment, he went to the bank. He borrowed
that money, and then it became a matter of increasing the
profitability of that property to enable him to meet those payments.
He in good faith came to the county -- appropriate
authorities in the county and sought some -- some resolution of his
problem because all he wanted to do -- he had unsightly -- well, or
sightly, depending on your point of view, vehicles and vessels on the
very location and on permitted slabs on those very places that are now
covered. To increase his profitability, all he wanted to do was put
carports over that.
The department in question was in a state of incredible
flux. Unfortunately for Mr. Gnerre, his payments were not in a state
of flux. They were fixed. In a state of desperation -- and quite
inappropriately and is a matter of which he is now very sorry -- he
did, in fact, construct carports. Understand, however, that if -- if
a penalty were to be imposed, it has been. He is going to double his
fees. He's already paid attorneys' fees. He's put hundreds of hours
-- more time in than he ever anticipated. So if there's a penalty
involved, he certainly paid it. But I would urge the commission only
this: that, in effect, it's inappropriate to require him to remove
those now because it would be inconsistent and would be a hardship.
And, secondly, I would point out that every -- his neighbors not only
do not oppose, they actively support because what he has done makes
that area more attractive than it's been. I have the pictures of it,
and you can antici -- you can imagine what it would like -- look like
without the cover and the way it looks now and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Craig, can I just ask you a
question? He's going to be able to park the vehicles in those same
exact spots. It's a question of whether they're covered or uncovered.
MR. CRAIG: No. It's also, of course, the slabs over
which -- the slabs existed, Madam Commissioner, before. The -- the
only change that was made here were posts and a -- and a rooftop
over. And so that those vehicles and those vessels were there and
would be there in any event. The difference is they're covered now.
That increases his profitability. It enables him to -- to pay that
$95,000 note. As a matter of fact, it only increases the
profitability by several thousand dollars a year, but that contributes
toward that, the payment of that note. He's a businessman in the
community. He's not hurting anybody. Everybody supports the
proposal. If he's to be -- you know, and I doubt it's the function of
the commission to punish recalcitrant people; otherwise why would your
ordinance say post-facto variance is -- is penalized in the following
amount.
But having said all that, let -- let me say that he's
not only not hurting his -- his neighbors, he has -- he has achieved
their approval. They like what he's done. If you looked at it, you'd
like what he's done. It improves the property. It improves his
profitability, and I would urge the members of the commission -- I
know I've gone very close to the time limit you allow me. Mr. Gnerre
would like to address you very briefly on the topic if you need to
hear from him. If not, I'd like to submit to you some post-facto
pictures that were taken of the property for your examination which
would demonstrate the difference between the way the property looks
now and the way it would look without the coverage. Mr. Chairman, may
I approach.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- that's fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I must not have made
myself clear before. I -- I was trying to say something supportive,
and that was that, as I understand it, the vehicles are going to be
parked there. It's a question of whether or not they're going to be
covered, and if neighbors prefer they be covered, seems to me like
this is --
MR. CRAIG: You captured the essence of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a variance I would have voted
for had it been applied for ahead of time.
MR. REISCHL: If you recall from the original petition,
there were five or six, I believe, letters of support from the
neighbors that were included in the original packet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My problem is we have had
variances where the neighbors had no objection; yet there was a
problem. I remember one in Naples Park. We made a guy saw off the
corner of a pool because the contractor made a mistake, didn't do his
slab survey, ignored the rules, came in after the fact. And we said,
you know, wait a second. You can't just ignore it and come in later
and say, Gee, it's built, you know. You have to accept it.
The problem I have with this is because of Mr. Gnerre's
actions regarding building without a permit, this board was denied the
ability to consider any site conditions. None. What we're being told
today is this is the way it is; let me have it, period. This board has
no discretion whatsoever on the location, setback, landscaping. We
can't address any of that now because it's already been decided by the
construction of those carports. The hardship is self-imposed because
Mr. Gnerre built them without the permit.
Commissioner Mac'Kie already hit on the fact that one of
these -- as I look at it, one of them -- it may extend a little long,
but there seems to be some justification for a portion of one of
them. The other one looks out of line. But, again, we are not
afforded the opportunity to review the variance in -- in relation to
the site conditions. And -- and that is -- is not a hardship that is
being imposed by the board, but a hardship that has been created by
the petitioner himself by not following the county regulations. So,
you know, the hardship argument, in my opinion, isn't even remotely
related to -- to the variance request.
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Chairman, my I respond very briefly to
the -- to the inquiry? The -- the -- the issue that you're confronted
with, Commissioner Hancock, is -- is simply -- what you're talking
about -- the -- the -- the problem that you would -- that you would
like to antici -- to participate in possibly is an area of 20 feet,
the end, and that is an overlap. There's only one. There's 20 foot
of -- of simply carport coverage that extends -- if we went from the
pole, we'd be all right. We're talking about the extension of the --
of the roofing itself, which is simply a -- a carport coverage that is
-- abuts -- comes within 10 foot of the (sic) Progress Avenue. The
other carport abuts or is -- is only a 3-foot aggression or
overextension, and that is adjacent to a landowner who applauds the
structure.
So I -- I -- I appreciate your -- your position, and we
have no intention -- we -- it was not Mr. Gnerre's intention to usurp
the function of the commission or the -- or the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gnerre came in good faith. It -- it is unfortunate, sir, but it's
true, and this commission knows it. When he came to the -- to the
authority and asked for help, the authority was in chaos. He was
jerked around unconscionably. He wound up with someone who had no
authority to answer to. This commission in its wisdom has corrected
that condition.
Mr. Gnerre never should have challenged the authority.
He is very sorry he did that. But the commission will gain nothing,
and Mr. Gnerre will lose a tremendous amount if the motion -- if this
particular petition is -- is rejected. I understand the -- the
commission's position. You can't allow -- make rules and allow them
to be flaunted. But there was a window, and -- and this commission
knows it, during which that -- that agency was in chaos, and
Mr. Gnerre had the misfortune to have a tremendous need to meet an
enormous commitment he'd made, $95,000 special assessment. His
neighbors made the same commitment, and they're paying that money back
just the way he is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Craig. You're --
you're trying to -- you're trying to justify your client's mal-action
because someone else didn't perform their duties right. And -- and
just because someone else did not perform their duties right never
excuses someone else from following the proper rules. You can't do
that.
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Gnerre is extremely sorry he did that.
He's not a brash man. He's been in this community, and he's been a
good member of this community for a long time. This was an -- an
inappropriate -- as he would tell you if you asked him. He knows it
was inappropriate. He's very sorry he took that intemperate action.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question
with some substance here because we've heard that same thing three or
four times. I'm sure you're very, very sorry at this point. MR. CRAIG: You bet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- one of the -- one of
the variances you're asking for brings the shelter to within 10 feet
of Progress Ave.; is that correct?
MR. CRAIG: Within 10 feet of the easement. Yeah,
within 10 feet of his fence.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How close or how far would it
have to be to meet code?
MR. REISCHL: Fifty feet is the front-yard setback.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and how far -- how
long is the entire cover?
MR. CRAIG: Twenty feet, twenty feet in -- in width at
that point, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A hundred feet in length.
MR. REISCHL: At about a hundred feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred feet in length. So
you would have to lose about half of the shelter in order to bring it
way into compliance.
MR. REISCHL: If I can add one other thing, too, the
side-yard setback, if he had applied before the fact, allows the board
to continue along a continuous building line. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, please.
MR. REISCHL: That -- that would have been a possibility
that the staff would have recommended -- may have recommended
approval; however, the front yard and rear yard -- still staff would
have recommended denial on those points.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No one is attempting to -- to
malign your client or -- or -- you know. But this, in essence, is
kind of being shoved down our throat. No, wait a second. It -- it's
-- it's there; it's built. It's take it. I mean, that -- that's --
that is your application, sir. Your application is, we're really,
really sorry we built it. Now just accept it. That's your
application, and that is just not -- in -- in no way, even in the far
reaches of my mind can I determine that that's appropriate for a -- a
pattern of development, regardless of whether your neighbors like it
or dislike it. That's just inappropriate, and for this board to
support that type of an approach is -- is grossly irresponsible.
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Chairman, if I -- just in -- in one
sentence, sir. Your code that you have adopted addresses the
consequences of after-the-fact variance requests. So it -- it is --
it is a fact of life that you've not only acknowledged, but you've
adopted code provisions to address.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's two sentences.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's we missed it by 6 inches
on the spot survey, not we missed it by 40 feet or 30 feet or we
didn't apply at all. The two are very, very different, and under that
I -- there's -- I just don't see any new information being presented
that shows that there was an imposed hardship that's not under the
control of the applicant. And -- and on that, I just am not
comfortable reconsidering --
MR. CRAIG: Can I have one -- make one request,
Mr. Chairman? My client is here. He wanted to address the board last
time. I'd like to ask if he may have one minute to address the board
at this point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
MR. CRAIG: Thank you, sir.
MR. GNERRE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I guess I
just want to make one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please.
MR. GNERRE: Tony Gnerre. I'm the owner of this
property. What the staff is continuously to not tell you is there's
an existing building, been there for 25 years that's been permitted
with a 10-foot setback, okay. And -- and we keep ignoring that
factor. And to put that carport 40 feet away from it just doesn't
make any economical sense and does, in fact, create a hardship on the
use of the property. And -- and I could have came in -- and I did
discuss with Fred on more than one occasions (sic), you know, because
we met with all these people. I could have come in and asked for an
addition to that existing building, and I probably could have gone out
and gone the other way. And I think that really -- yeah, I screwed
up. There's no question about it. My attorney's told you that 15
times. But the thing is perhaps it would have been approved had I
followed the procedures. Your Planning Commission said that 4 out of
5, 4 out of -- it was 4 to 3 that said they would have approved it if
I applied. And now just penalize me for not following the rules,
yeah, I already been penalized.
And I guess all I'm saying is that what we have done are
just canopy metal buildings, brings in some extra revenue. One of
them lines up with an existing building, which makes economical
sense. There is an existing building there that's been permitted. And
the other -- the other carport I'm 2 feet, 3 feet away from the real
setback. I guess -- and all I'm saying is that we -- we would hope
that you would consider this thing under whatever conditions you want
to consider it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. GNERRE: Taking back two or three on the front one
satisfies the other one. Certainly the building is lined up with an
existing building. The other one we're 2 feet away. I don't know
that makes any sense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me get this straight. I --
there -- I don't have -- on the north, south, whatever. The top one
there in the top left corner, that one is the one that -- that by
current code would have to be set back 50 feet. And, again --
MR. REISCHL: Fifty feet from Progress Avenue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I would have voted, I'll tell
you right now, for an extension to that building to allow a cover for
those carports. I would have voted for that.
MR. REISCHL: And the code would allow staff to
recommend approval on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now on the second one, that
one's only 2 feet off?
MR. REISCHL: I believe it's 3 feet -- 12 feet back,
which is 3 feet from the 15-foot requirement for the rear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would have voted for those, and
I'm going to -- I'm going to rescind what I did the first time because
this is much smaller than what I thought. I thought we were talking
about 40 feet when --
MR. REISCHL: It's --
COMMISSION MAC'KIE: It is 40 feet, I understand that.
MR. REISCHL: From the front yard, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But when we have an existing
building, it's logical to extend from there. It's not logical to put
the carport in the middle of the lot.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't have voted for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you why. If I would
have -- if there were a variance being requested and I was able to
have some discussion with you about the location about what's
appropriate and what's not, which I've been denied, this board has
been denied that opportunity, I would have made the front of that
carport even with the main building, extended it along the -- the side
property line consistent with the back of the annex instead of putting
it -- jamming it back -- carport B in the back of the property, I
think it would be more appropriate, be an extension from the annex
building along that same property line. But I'm not given that
choice. Period. If you want to come back in and make that request,
then consideration is fine. But what I hear you saying is this is
what you're asking to be approved, and I'm saying I don't think it's
appropriate in the manner it's being presented. So there's no reason
to consider it because it's already built.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's -- let's close the public
hearing and see if we have a motion to see where this is going to go
then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to deny. I'll second
the motion to get it on the floor. Any discussion? No -- no
discussion.
Then I'll call the motion. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
That motion fails.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move we approve the
after-the-fact variance in accordance with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With no changes?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any to propose? I'd
entertain them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, it requires the
destruction of one of the carports, so I'm afraid they probably won't
entertain that one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't want to take those 40 feet
off at the minimum? You're just going to let him do it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're -- you're jamming a
carport right up against Progress Avenue. The reason for that
front-yard setback is not to put hard structures 10 feet from the
right-of-way. The reason for that setback is even though it's
industrial so you don't drive down a roadway and have junk crammed at
you on the edge of the property. And, you know, if he wants to store
a boat there, he can, but hard structures encroaching that far, that
close to the right-of-way, you know, I just think -- you know, his
neighbors aren't complaining but, you know, have you talked to
everyone who drives up and down Progress Avenue whether they think
that's a good idea?
MR. GNERRE: You ought to drive down Progress Avenue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, I've driven down Progress
Avenue.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not, guys. Come on. Come
MR. GNERRE: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a second for her
motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That motion passes 3 to 2.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-377, RE PETITION CU-96-6, J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE
REPRESENTING TAYLOR PROPERTIES REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 4 OF THE
"C-4" ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A BOAT DEALERSHIP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (S.R. 84), APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET
EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41 - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item is Petition CU-96-6.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is going to be a nice,
polite ahead-of-the-fact one, isn't it? We're all going to be sweet
and friendly on this one. That was not pleasant. MR. DORRILL: Go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current
planning staff, CU-96-6. Dudley Goodlette representing Taylor
Properties requesting conditional use 4, the C-4 zoning district. The
petitioner proposes to operate a boat dealership facility within the
existing C-4 strip commercial center. The site is -- consists of .52
acres and contains an existing 500 square-foot building that has exits
on Davis Boulevard. The traffic impact review indicates the project
will generate approximately a hundred trips per day which will not
exceed the significance of the test for Davis Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, I need to ask the
petitioner a question, I think. MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dudley Goodlette
with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson here on behalf of
Taylor Properties, the owner of the property.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This dealership proposal will
incorporate service as well?
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes. A modest amount of service, as I
understand it, from talking with Mr. Taylor. It's his stepson who's
actually going to be conducting the business.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- the -- what I'm getting
at is the operation and servicing of -- of outboard motors, in
particular out of water, creates a lot of noise. They're very noisy
when you run them out of -- out of a water tank. Now --
MR. GOODLETTE: I believe this is principally the sale
of new and used boats without the service component, Mr. Chairman.
Frankly, I don't want to say there's no service there, but I don't
think that there's going to be a service department there. I -- I
may need to verify that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, in order to get my
support, I need to answer that question.
MR. GOODLETTE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you prepared to answer that
question today?
MR. GOODLETTE: If I could make a quick -- I would -- I
would prefer to make a quick call. That's an answer I really can't --
I don't have an answer to that question, but I can --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you'd make the call while
Mr. Bellows is -- would that give you enough time while Mr. Bellows
completes his presentation?
MR. GOODLETTE: I'll do that right now. Yes, I will.
Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask Mr. Bellows -- the --
Go ahead, Mr. Goodlette.
This is going to be forming a request, which I feel
stupid doing after what I just witnessed, but what is the landscaping
on Davis Boulevard, the requirement for trees along that area?
MR. BELLOWS: Staff is recommending that a landscape
strip be provided around the perimeter of the building and around the
-- all four sides of the building and around the -- the sign -- the
signage -- entry signage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're asking for like an 8- to
10-foot tree 30 feet on center? Is that it? Here's my thing, and
I've been wrestling with car dealerships and boat dealerships in
commercial application. And the problem is if you put a hedge in, the
cars disappear and the boats disappear. So, you know, the hedges are
kept real low -- cut real low, so you're never going to get lush
landscaping in front of an auto dealership.
What I'm considering is increasing the number of canopy
trees which don't block the line of sight because -- mitigating for
the fact that that hedge is always kept real low and never allowed to
grow and be lush and that kind of thing. So when Mr. Goodlette comes
back from his phone conversation, I may request that those trees --
that there be a higher number of canopy trees placed at a -- a closer
center along the front of the property to kind of make up for the fact
that you're never going to get lush landscaping in front of an auto or
-- or boat dealership.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was also hoping, Commissioner
Hancock, you'd have some suggestions similar to the -- the one with
Mr. Sheehan about the -- some sort of a roof line or some sort of a
finish, because this is such an important -- I mean, we're hoping to
see some serious improvement in this Davis corridor.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Particularly with all the work
going on the Davis Boulevard corridor. I -- I'd hate to see us do
something that takes away from that, but that discussion would
probably require Mr. Goodlette. And if he's out in the hallway -- ask
him that, too, Dudley, about a roof treatment.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to point out that the Planning
Commission reviewed this on July 18th, and they recommended approval
by a 6-0 vote. No letters for or against have been received.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a little one, like 500
square feet. It's a little dot on the center of your plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's real small.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all you need.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to table the item
until Mr. Goodlette returns, or we can do the other two --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to table. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The respective commissioners responded.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move to --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Point of order. I don't think
we can table. There's no motion to table, but I know what you're
trying to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then -- then would it be a motion
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why can't we table it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There was no motion to table.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He just made a motion to table.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, no, no. There was no motion
on the floor to make a motion to table.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Okay. I see your
point. Yes. Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I understand what we're
trying to do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just probably the Robert's Rules
of Order police will come in here and arrest us if we --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You never know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we keep the discussion up,
we won't have to continue it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the pending
stipulations.
Item #13A6 - Continued to 9/3/96
Item #13A7
RESOLUTION 96-375, RE PETITION V-95-30, PATRICK H. NEALE, PRESIDENT OF
IHMOKALEE FRIENDSHIP HOUSE, INC., REQUESTING A 14 FOOT VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 1 FOOT AND AND 11.4 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK WHEN ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL TO
13.6 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NW CORNER OF MAIN STREET (S.R.
29) AND 6TH STREET NORTH (602 WEST MAIN STREET), IHMOKALEE, FLORIDA
(COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 13A8) - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move forward for the
moment then to Petition V-95-30 and its companion, CU-96-9. Mr. Neale
is not here to represent that item. What are we going to do?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are we going to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This gentleman is.
MR. DORRILL: This gentleman is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Patterson is here. He's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's the next best.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a companion item
separate?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is there an order
that we should take these in?
MR. WEIGEL: First one first.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: First on first? Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current
planning staff representing Petition V-95-30 and conditional use
96-9. They're both related to the Immokalee Friendship House.
Petitioner's requesting conditional use 9 of the C-4 zoning district
to allow for additions to the existing homeless shelter. The existing
shelter contains 4,805 square feet. The proposed addition of 1,963
square feet will bring -- raise the total to 6,768 square feet. It
should be noted that no increase in beds is proposed or capacity. The
facility currently serves 40 persons, 20 beds allocated for families
while the remaining 20 beds are for single persons. In addition, the
Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition for variance
and recommended approval. And then they also recommended approval of
the -- of the conditional use by unanimous vote.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, you
don't know of any objection in the community on this?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've heard nothing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What does that -- it abuts at one
side, or the variance is to 1 foot, and what abuts it there?
MR. BELLOWS: This is the addition out to the west, and
that's commercial zoning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commercial zoning. Is there anything
on that property at the moment?
MR. BELLOWS: Let me check.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In any case, they don't -- they don't
object.
MR. BELLOWS: It's a gasoline station.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. We'll close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. This is for V-95-307
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A8
RESOLUTION 96-376, RE PETITION CU-96-9, PATRICK H. NEALE, REPRESENTING
IHMOKALEE FRIENDSHIP HOUSE, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "9" OF THE
"C-4" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
620 MAIN STREET, IHMOKALEE, FLORIDA, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 23 AND
24, BLOCK 5, HILLER'S PARK, CONSISTING OF .34+ ACRES - ADOPTED
On CU-96-97
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve CU-96-9.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(The respective commissioners responded.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that presentation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great job.
MR. PATTERSON: Hay I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MR. PATTERSON: What about -- since there is no fiscal
cost to the county, how will that affect at impact fee?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It won't affect it at all.
MR. PATTERSON: It won't affect it at all?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll be glad to hear that it won't
affect it at all.
MR. PATTERSON: I will be very happy to hear that.
Well, for a full day I said a lot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think you said enough to
hear.
MR. PATTERSON: Thank you very much.
CONTINUATION OF ITEH #13A5
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're quite welcome. Okay. Let's
have a motion to uncontinue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Down here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here.
MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I -- I
appreciate your indulgence and I apologize.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The respective commissioners responded.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Goodlette.
MR. GOODLETTE: Again, for at record, Dudley Goodlette.
I did check with Mr. Taylor. There's -- there's no intention to
service engines at all. There is a need, perhaps, when you sell a new
boat or used boat to show someone that the engine is running, but that
would be done in water. That would not be done in the open air.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Done in a test tank?
MR. GOODLETTE: In a test tank.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have that as a firm commitment
then?
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we -- do you mind committing to
that firmly? We don't want motors run in the open air, so -- MR. GOODLETTE: I have my client's authorization to --
to make that a condition of the approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and we don't care if you
service them as long as you're doing it in a test tank because they're
nice and quiet.
MR. GOODLETTE: He understands that and there's no
problem with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me hit you with my
litany. Today's -- today's top ten list of -- of commercial
applications.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All truth.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Five thousand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing is we're discussing --
and I don't know if you heard out in the hallway -- the fact that car
dealerships and boat dealerships -- you need that visual level so the
hedges are always about this high (indicating) and kept that high.
What I'd like to see is an increase in the number of canopy trees
which don't block that visual area on -- on this corridor. If there's
-- right now schedule it 30-foot centers. I'd like to see the
correct number at 15-foot centers so --
MR. BELLOWS: Hove it to 157
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. So it would be roughly
twice the number of canopy trees.
MR. GOODLETTE: I heard that, and he -- and I indicated
-- he indicated that's not a problem either.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, because that's one
stipulation. The second stipulation -- well, that's the second
stipulation. The third is the building, although very small, we have
some -- some treatments we discussed earlier such as a -- a finished
structure, not plain block or ribbed concrete, something such as
stucco with a roof treatment, whether it be barrel tile or flat tile
so that it's not just a little box building. If you would agree to
some type of -- of eave or roof treatment and a -- a finish treatment
on the building, that's really about all the things that I -- MR. GOODLETTE: If that's the condition of your
approval, I'm -- I'm sure that would be acceptable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be for my support.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And mine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the item with
stipulations presented in the last five minutes, including staff's
stipulations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Staff stipulations plus the
stipulation that any operation of motors will be done in a test tank
to address the noise issue. The second will be along Davis Boulevard,
the 15-foot centers on canopy trees. And the third one would be some
sort of an architectural finish on the building plus a roof -- an
architectural roof treatment of some sort on the little building as
well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there -- it probably already
is in code, but what's -- how tall do the trees have to be?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight to ten feet at planting,
Mr. Bellows?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I mean, if you're going to
double the trees, to then raise the height would be kind of a double
whammy. So you have to be a little -- and if he wants a great view,
he can get 12- and 15-foot trees. I'll leave that up to them.
MR. GOODLETTE: And that will all be part of either the
site development plan or the building permit process, as I understand
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. That's when
these stipulations will be enforced.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you for your indulgence,
Mr. Chairman.
Items #13A9 - #13All - Continued to 9/3/96
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That seems to bring us to the end of
our afternoon agenda. Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Communications, nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just really like working with
you guys.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson.
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-343, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60409-037; OWNER OF RECORD - OSCAR LAUPERT, STEVE LAUPERT
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-344, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
50829-043; OWNER OF RECORD - RUTH G. VALDEZ, ELIAZAR VALDEZ
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-345, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS.
60118-044 AND 60308-164; OWNER OF RECORD - THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-346, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60123-171; OWNER OF RECORD - GAlL K. BREHH
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-347, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60215-028; OWNER OF RECORD - QUALITY PROPERTIES S W FL, INC.
See Pages
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-348, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60308-121; OWNER OF RECORD - FULVIO AVA SALVADOR
See Pages
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-349, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60318-073; OWNER OF RECORD - JOHN C. GARRISON, JR., VIRGINIA GARRISON
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-350, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60318-084; OWNER OF RECORD - LEONARD WISNIEWSKI
See Pages
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 96-351, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60401-123; OWNER OF RECORD - AJUAD ABOU ASALI
See Pages
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 96-352, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60401-124; OWNER OF RECORD - BARBARA K. HAMORY
See Pages
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 96-353, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60402-044; OWNER OF RECORD - LEONARD J. BUBRI, NICHOLAS KARALIS
See Pages
Item #16A12
AWARD ANNUAL BID #96-2543, WATERWAY MAINTENANCE CONTRACT TO NAPLES DOCK
& MARINE SERVICES, INC.
Item #16A13
APPROVAL OF EXCAVATION PERMIT #59.575, FOR THE "VILLAS OF CAPRI APTS.",
LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, GENERALLY
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY C.R. 846 (RADIO ROAD) ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY
THE PLANTATION PUD, AND ON THE WEST BY LAND ZONED RMF-6 (SANTA BARBARA
LANDINGS - WITH STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A14
APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE REGENCY VILLAGE PUD
FOR A PRELIMINARY WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR CLEARING AND GOLF COURSE
CONSTRUCTION - WITH STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A15
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WILSHIRE LAKES, PHASE
TWO" - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 96-354 RE THE AUTHORIZATION TO WAIVE THE 100% ROAD, LIBRARY
SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
SYSTEM, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A FOUR
BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY ROBIN STORTER AT 790 7TH STREET S.W.,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, SAID IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND (191)
See Pages
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 96-355 RE THE DEFERRAL OF 100% OF THE IMPACT FEES FOR 235
UNITS OF A 235 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY EASTRIDGE
PARTNERS LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FROM LIBRARY SYSTEMS IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL IMPACT
FEES, WATER IMPACT FEES, SEWER IMPACT FEES, AND EDUCATION FACILITIES
IMPACT FEES FOR VILLAS OF CAPRI AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS AND
SUBORDINATION OF LIEN
See Pages
Item #16A18
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR TOYS "R" US - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT
& STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O.R. Book Pages
See Pages
Item #16A19
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR MANORS AT REGAL LAKE, PHASE III -
WITH CASH BOND & STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A20
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR LELY HIGH SCHOOL - LETTER OF WAIVER
& STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A21
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR VICTORIA LAKES CONDOHINIUH - WITH
STIPULATIONS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A22
APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS" - WITH
LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS
LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16B1
AWARD BID #96-2549 TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2)
FIFTEEN (15) CY REPLACEMENT DUMP TRUCKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,555.54
Item #1682 - This item has been deleted
Item #1683
AWARD FOUR (4) ANNUAL BIDS, NOS. 96-2538, 96-2540, 96-2541 AND 96-2542
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97, TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #1684
AUTHORIZATION TO WAIVE COMPETITIVE BID POLICY AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
SOLICIT QUOTES AND AWARD PREPARATORY SITE WORK CONTRACTS FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS COMPETITION TO BE HELD AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK
Item #1685
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 10 TO THE CONSULTING LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE
LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U.
See Pages
Item #1686
RESOLUTION 96-356 RE THE AUTHORIZATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK
UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT, CIE NO. 33
See Pages
Item #1687
APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLUB AT PELICAN BAY, INC.
See Pages
Item #1688
AWARD ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR BIDS NUMBERED 96-2539, ROADWAY PAINTING AND
THERHOPLASTIC MARKING AND 96-2537, TRAFFIC SIGN MATERIALS TO VARIOUS
VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #1689 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B10
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $12,070.00, TO
OBTAIN A LONG-TERM PERMIT FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF CLAM PASS
See Pages
Item #16C1
APPROVAL OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND GULF COAST
ROWING ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR UTILIZATION OF FLOATING BOAT DOCKS AT
CAXAMBAS PASS PARK
See Pages
Item #16C2 - This item has been deleted
Item #16C3
APPROVAL OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC., WORKING THROUGH
THE CHILD PROTECTION TEAM (CPT)
See Pages
Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16C5 - Continued to 9/3/96
Item #16C6
AWARD AN AGREEMENT FOR THE TENNIS FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AT
PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY PARK (RFP #96-2489) TO LEWIS TENNIS INC.
See Pages
Item #16D1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16D2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16D3
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND
AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16D4
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND
AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-358 RE THE ADDITION OF UNITS TO THE 1996 COLLIER COUNTY
MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION CORRESPONDING TO
THIS RESOLUTION
See Pages
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 96-358; CWS-96-9; MWS-96-2 & GWD-96-2 APPROVING SEWER
ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR 1996
See Pages
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 96-498, 96-499, 96-525, 96-534, 96-535 AND 96-538
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 96-360 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO FLORIDA CITIES
WATER COMPANY FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO ITS WASTEWATER
SERVICE AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
See Pages
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 96-361 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO FLORIDA CITIES
WATER COMPANY FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE TO ITS GOLDEN GATE
SERVICE AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
See Pages
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 96-362 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO NORTH MARCO
UTILITY COMPANY, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE IN
SPECIFIC UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY, CONSISTENT WITH THE
CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
See Pages
Item #16E5
RESOLUTION 96-363 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO GOODLAND ISLES,
INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO ITS ESTABLISHED SERVICE
AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
See Pages
Item #16E6 - Moved to Item #8E6
Item #16E7
APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR $20,000 FOR EDITING AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
FROM THE OFFICE OF FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION
Item #16E8
AUTHORIZATION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER TO APPROVE EMERGENCY/CONSENT ITEMS
DURING THE BOARD'S RECESS
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1992 TAX ROLL
No. Date
216 7/29/96
1994 TAX ROLL
205 7/25/96
1995 TAX ROLL
246 7/12/96
247 7/12/96
249 7/25/96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
72 7/15/96
Item #1662
HISCELLANEOUS 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 #16H1
ENDORSEMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION
FOR FUNDING FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COHMUNITY
ORIENTED POLICY SERVICES PROBLEM-SOLVING PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
See Pages
Item #1611
SATISFACTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR EXTENDED PAYMENT OF TRINITY PLACE
PAVING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:35 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN L. 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: Helissa Hilligan