BCC Minutes 07/23/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: Michael HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm calling the meeting to order this 23rd
day of July 1996. Ladies and Gentlemen, call the meeting to order,
please.
Mr. HcNees, if you could have an invocation and pledge,
please.
MR. HCNEES: Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this
day as we gather to conduct the business of the county government. We
ask a special blessing on the five commissioners as they wrestle with
the difficult decisions of the day. We thank you at this time for the
opportunity to live in such a place as we as citizens can participate
in this governmental process in a free and open manner. We ask these
things in your holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, I see we have a few changes to
the agenda this morning.
MR. HCNEES: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. The first two changes we have are continuances. The
first is Item 12(C)(6). That's being continued to the August 13th
agenda at staff's request. The next is Item 12(C)(7), which is also
being continued to August 13th, also at staff's request.
The next item that we have is an add which is a discussion of
the national resources budget based on some discussions at your prior
workshop and some discussions that have been taking place outside of
the boardroom at Commissioner Matthews' request, and we're asking that
you have that discussion immediately prior to Item 8(E)(1). I guess
we could call that 8(E)(1)(A) if we wanted to and -- because it will
potentially affect what we do in setting the millage rates which is
Item 8(E)(1).
The next change is that Items 12(C)(8) and 12(C)(9) --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me a minute. It's hard to hear with
all the chatter going on out there.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're also asking this
Item 12(C)(8) and 12(C)(9), which relate to the electric franchise fee
agreements, also be heard prior to 8(E)(1), because they also
potentially have an impact on the millage rate that you will be
talking about with 8(E)(1). We'll call that 8(E)(1)(B), and we'll
hear those two items prior to 8(E)(1).
We have a request for a time certain for Item 12(C)(4), that
that be heard either at one o'clock or immediately following your
lunch break at whatever time you might take that. That's an item
related to your personnel policies. And your human resources director
is hosting the Florida Public Personnel Association Conference on
Marco Island, and she would very much like to be here and has some
important duties on Marco and asked that you could schedule that if
you would please immediately after your lunch break so she can break
away from the conference and come up here and attend that
presentation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: And with that Mr. Weigel has a couple of items
he needs to deal with.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning. I'd like the record to note that
consent agenda Item 16(B)(4) be noted to be subject to the county
attorney review and approval prior to the chairman's signature. And
the only other thing that is significant is that we've got three items
that are connected this morning, Fiddler's Creek fezone which is
12(B)(1) and companion Items 12(C)(1) and 12(C)(2).
And the board, I think, may be aware that two parties
involved with the county in these items have come together and have a
stipulation agreement that is provided for the county to be a party
to. And Ms. Student and I have reviewed it, have spoken with the
attorneys representing the parties to the project, and this
stipulation -- I've got copies of this. The board, I think, is aware
of this -- is subject to, and the county attorney recommends that it
is legally sufficient for approval and signature by the chair --
approval by the board and signature by the chairman.
And as you may be aware what it does is it flushes out
an issue between 951 Landholdings Joint Venture and the City National
Bank of Florida concerning certain use elements within the Marco
Shores, Fiddler's Creek PUD fezone element. And we'll break that out
for discussion on another day, which it appears to be the best
procedure for the county to look toward at this time. So that all
three items 12(B)(1), (C)(1), and (C)(2) could go today in rather
unfettered form.
Additionally, the PUD amendment on today's agenda has -- will
be brought back. A portion of property that would be addressed in the
PUD amendment and would be brought back at a later time -- advertised
and brought back as part and parcel with this arrangement that is
before you today. So I would ask if you could indulge the parties and
meet this morning, that prior to getting onto the agenda that the
board would, in fact, approve the stipulation among Collier County and
951 Landholdings Joint Venture and City National Bank of Florida which
will preserve procedural rights for the City National Bank of Florida
for a later time. They will not -- I expect they will not then be
participating in the three items as they come up later on today.
If there are any questions, I will try to answer. You may
have some.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did I understand you to say that you wanted
Ms. Student to approve that before we approved the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. That will set the stage then for when you
approve the consent agenda and the agenda as before you that
everything else will follow in a natural state, and I won't have to
make any more statements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one more. Would you say again what
the note was on 16(B)(4), the first item?
MR. WEIGEL: That item has not been reviewed by the county
attorney office yet, so we just wanted to note that we wanted to
review it and make sure that it is legally sufficient. If it is, then
it would be approved and signed by the chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews, do you have
anything else?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question on this 951 City
National Bank. The only thing that is being asked is that we allow
the bank to retain its standing and to come forward at some future
date?
MR. WEIGEL: At some future date. There are a couple of
differences in land use elements that are being worked out between the
parties of interest of these lands, and if they work them out, they
will come back to the board, and this will be handled through the PUD
amendment, the slight amendment that is being broken out from today's.
If the board goes forward with today's PUD fezone amendment, there
will be a portion that will be handled at a later time, which is a
rather small element in relation to the large project that is before
you today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But at some point in time -- for the
purposes of those sitting here, that element is going to be addressed
at some point in time?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It will have to be and will be, and it is
expected that it will come back rather shortly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm confused about this. I
thought that the chamber was preserving their position. I mean, the
only avenue for appeals from here is into the court system. They'll
have to appeal on the record. I am confused about the process.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, your question is a good one, and it
looks like George is going to kind of assist me here, but what is
provided for clarification in the stipulation is that if there were to
be an appeal, it would be de novo. That means it would be to the
court system as far as that goes. And what we're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on the record and what record
will be made on this point today.
MR. VARNADOE: If I could, Mr. Weigel, maybe I can quickly do
this. I've been involved in it. Madam Mac'Kie, George Varnadoe
representing 951 Landholdings Joint Venture. Two things, number one,
there are -- because it is a DRI, there is a procedure for appeal that
isn't on the record, and what they wanted to do is just preserve their
right to challenge that as if they participated today even though
there would be no record, and that's why their request for it. In
that procedure there's a choice between de novo hearing and a hearing
on the record, and all we're doing is saying, okay, you can have a de
novo hearing.
Number two, the reason we're splitting off -- and I want
to correct Mrs. Matthews' understanding on this. We're splitting off
one small part of the PUD that we, frankly, have added for their
benefit, and that's going to be heard at a later date. Frankly, we
don't expect that ever to be heard. It involves the relationship
between the parties. We have reached agreement conceptually on all of
these things. What we're trying to do is to spare you three hours of
testimony today. And if we reach agreement, which we think we will,
95, 99 percent sure we're going to reach agreement, you'll never hear
from us again on this matter.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of tough to oppose, George
Varnadoe.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have no further changes, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to remove 16(E)(2) from
the consent agenda, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16(E) (2
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (E)(2).
MR. MCNEES: That will be item 8(E)(2).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir, nothing else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we need a --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to include the statements of the
county attorney.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next on our agenda, service awards. Who has service awards?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure today to recognize four of our employees. The first one has
been with us five years, and I'm sure I'm going to not pronounce his
name very well, but Mr. Mark C. Gedvillas. Is he here?
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Gedvillas has been with
wastewater for five years. Thank you very much. Good job.
Next today has been with the water department for ten years,
Mark Stephenson.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The next person is from wastewater,
also for ten years, is Bobby Paul.
(Applause).
It looks like Mr. Paul isn't present. We'll make sure
that he gets this.
And our fourth one today for 20 years in maintenance
services, it gives me great pleasure, Stephen Fredley.
(Applause)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Item #5C
EMPLOYEE SAFE DRIVERS' AWARDS - PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this morning we have
our employee safe driver awards, which never ceases to amaze me with
the two or three accidents I've had in my personal time usually due to
construction here in the county.
With great pleasure we again recognize our county employees
who have exercised safety and professionalism in their daily jobs by
driving hundreds of thousands of miles without causing an accident.
This is very significant because traffic accidents are disruptive to
our county operations and obviously cost the taxpayer many thousands
of dollars each year. And there's also the consideration of the lost
work time and anguish for those who are injured. By their safe
driving accomplishments, sometimes under very hazardous conditions,
these outstanding employees set the example for all to follow.
Please come forward when your name is called. Everybody will
get a kick out of the number of miles as we go along, too.
Diane Flagg, director of EHS. Diane has driven over 163,000
miles beginning June 15, 1981, accident free.
Ricardo Garcia, Lieutenant/Paramedic II, EHS, has driven over
165,000 miles beginning in April of 1981.
Hartha Ginter, also Lieutenant/Paramedic II, EHS, started
about a week after Ricardo and has driven over 165,000 miles.
David Kitchen, also with EHS beginning the same week, over
165,000. We had a good crew we brought on board in April of '81.
Deborah Lichliter, Captain/Senior Hedic, EHS, also driven
over 165,000 miles beginning in April of '81.
Tom Haguire, battalion commander from EHS, April 6, 1981,
over 165,000 miles.
James Haulden, Equipment Operator, Solid Waste Department,
driven over 166,000 miles beginning August 21st of 1989. Kind of
compacted all that into a short time.
William Peplinski, Captain/Senior Hedic, EHS, also from April
of '81, He has driven over 165,000 miles.
Gene Suttlemyre, beginning inspector -- building inspector,
beginning April 29, 1985, driven over 162,000 miles.
Paul Wilson, battalion commander, EHS, driven over 165,000
miles.
I'll ask our resident CPA. How much does that tally up to?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I don't know, a whole bunch.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A whole lot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- we have certificates for
each of you for this, and thank you and congratulations.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, are these the people the
reason that we can afford the health insurance?
MR. HCNEES: They're certainly a big part of the reason.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you all very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. Thank you.
Item #8A1
DISCUSSION OF FEES GENERATED FROM BUILDING PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW APPLICATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIORNMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION - REPORT ACCEPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(A)(1), discussion of
fees generated from building permits. Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Vince Cautero for the record, your community development and
environmental services administrator. The reason for the executive
summary on today's agenda was based on the board's request at your
workshops and wrapup discussion on June 24 in which you wanted staff
to come back with the amount of funds that were allotted in the
community developmental and environmental services division budget
from 001 and 111 accounts and try to show some rational nexus between
certain functions performed in the division to the development and
review of building permit function.
As you may recall during your budget workshops, Mr. Weigel
rendered an opinion which stated that if a rational nexus or a tie or
connection could be shown between various functions in our building
and developing permit fees, that we may be able to charge fees for
those services. As the board is aware, your development services
advisor to the ordinance states that that committee will make a
recommendation to you on any proposed fee increase or decrease, and
this item was brought to them at the July 10th meeting.
In your executive summary is a letter from the chairman, Mr.
Thomas Peek, stating the board's findings, the committee's findings.
And their recommendation was unanimous that the board not increase
fees at this time and that the current allotment was appropriate in
the community development and environmental services division.
Mr. Smykowski, the budget director, and I have worked on this
up until as late as yesterday, and that is the reason for you just
receiving the document in your hand today which is the one I would
like to focus on. The document on page one shows the various
functions that are performed in the division for these accounts 111
and 001. What we've attempted to do is perform some analysis to show
you where we believe a connection or rational nexus would take place
between the permit fees and the function that is provided.
We've cited four areas where we believe permit fees could be
applicable. They include portions of the natural resources department
functions, the affordable housing functions of housing and urban
improvements, a portion of the graphic section functions related to
develop and review, and some comprehensive planning functions.
Pages two and three breaks out the cost and if there are some
details -- questions dealing with the budget, I'll refer you to Mr.
Smykowski. The bottom line is that of $1.7 million that are allotted
or have been closely allotted to this division from 111 and 001 fees,
I can only show a rational nexus of $442,000 and change. If approved
by the board, that would equate to an approximate 10-percent increase
in fees. That is really what all the paperwork says --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm confused, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When we started this I think -- well,
I know I first became aware of it when I went to one of Mr. Dorrill's
staff budget workshops and I was, frankly, shocked to find out that
there was a million dollars of general tax revenues, not the HSTDs,
but a million dollars of general revenues in supporting development
services. As I -- I must not understand the sheet you've given us
here because under net costs, the third column over which is
appropriations less revenues, it looks like natural resources has a
$400,000 net rational nexus, and housing and urban improvement has a
$256,000 rational nexus. What am I misunderstanding, because I
thought we got here to a million three, and I was thrilled?
MR. CAUTERO: Why don't I let Mike handle the financial
portion, then I can handle the information.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget
director. Page 1, the net cost column just shows the total net
dollars or costs to both the general fund. There is a subtotal of
eight O six, six hundred and the subtotal for the unincorporated --
unincorporated area of the general fund 111 of approximately $1.8
million. Then the next columns to the right are just a simple yes or
no whether or not Mr. Cautero believed there was a rational nexus
within each of the departments identified.
Page 2 then for the four departments in which the answer was
yes for a rational nexus, the second page back identifies
programmatically what the total appropriations are for each of the
respective departments and then the potential shift from ad valorem to
building permits and/or development fees is the next column on the
right. So, for instance, within natural resources a total
appropriation of five sixty-two six, Mr. Cautero was recommending one
fifty-nine four hundred be shifted to fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this blanket rational nexus yes or
no on the front page was, yes, there might be some departments within
that section that could be rationally tied?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. On page 2 simply identifies
-- within each of those departments what the programmatic areas are
if you kind of subdivide each of the programs for those areas within
each of the respective departments and then identifies the total
dollar appropriation within that department from the program budget
summaries, and then whether or not Mr. Cautero could recommend any
rational nexus and/or shift to fees. Obviously --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see that.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Does that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Does that help you out?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand it better now. Just
looking over, for example, in the graphics program. We haven't had
any time to look at this, but just quickly why would the $50,000 to
maintain and update computer files not be something that would be
supported by permit fees instead of taxes?
MR. CAUTERO: I believe that in that particular area, their
work assignment, they're talking about working with -- and they do
work with various departments of the county, not just within the
community development and environmental services division. And I
didn't feel it was appropriate to place that burden on the development
community when it's a county-wide function.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could they -- could that be done like
Conrecode's department is, you know, where they shift it out, fee it
out?
MR. CAUTERO: Potentially, yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would make some sense. Graphic
support to other county departments, there is a separate $50,000 line
though from maintain and update computer files.
MR. CAUTERO: Right. That would be specific support for
creation of maps and other documents.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Reading along those same items,
the growth management and MPO, those both seem -- MR. CAUTERO: A portion of that, I believe -- the portions
put into growth management would be tied to the developer fee process.
Therefore, I recommended a portion of that to be -- 50 percent to be
shifted over to development fees rather than the MPO.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't think Metropolitan
Planning Organization has anything to do with growth?
MR. CAUTERO: It does, but I don't believe that that burden
should be shifted just to the development community. My professional
recommendation to you is that it should be shifted to the county-wide
tax basis, not to the development community. It is tied to growth,
yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with all respect and appreciation
for your professional opinion, because I don't question that you have
much more expertise in this than I have certainly, but I would like to
get an opinion from Mr. Weigel to supplement this opinion, that is to
what extent can we legally defend shifting more of these costs to
growth instead of with respect to your -- what you believe to be
reasonable. My question is how much can we push over into the fees
that is related to growth instead of coming out of taxes? You know,
apparently, we're not -- unless you -- unless you can give us that
opinion today -- we really need it today, so that we need to know what
we have to do with the millage rate.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if I may, I will restate a little bit of
what I had told the board several weeks ago in this regard and that
was that there may be several elements. I think Mr. Cautero has
endeavored to show you some where the call can be made fairly clearly
in regard to the legal nexus that is necessary in case an imposition
of additional fees should be challenged. And I recall I said that
perhaps of the million dollar figure, which I think was discussed
sometime ago, 20 or 30 or 40 percent may be all we can find right now,
but we probably need an expert review over some time to get it down
maybe to the edge or toward the limits.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far, when we
have public hearings we swear our staff in as experts on these very
matters. So my hope is -- when I hear that, it always raises my
antennae, and I think, oh, gosh, here comes a consultant. And it
seems to me if we're considering -- I think Vince certainly is -- and
I think several of your people are -- and I know it's a matter of
perhaps prioritizing the time they're spending. But my hope is that
in the past several weeks -- this has been an issue Commissioner
Mac'Kie and others have raised, and our experts have been doing
exactly that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that the particular expert
that I'm interested in -- you know, with all respect to you people in
your office who does what, but I know that Margie Student does a great
deal of work with development services, but as a separate -- it is a
distinct question from what is recommended as appropriate is a
different question as we all know -- I am going to get hung on this
one -- from what's legally defensible. I want to know what is legally
defensible to shift, and then we'll come back from there.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, at this point I can only speak in the
general sense that what is legally defensible is that which we can
show has a relationship, a nexus to -- in regard to expenses of
development services that are not currently captured with permit fees.
We have to determine which permits will carry such additional fees
reaching out to the different departments or expenses of development
services you have. And I don't believe we have that definition yet at
this time. I understand that this is kind of a critical -- on of the
many critical budget determination days, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say, though, that it's a big
disappointment because we talked about that, you know -- and I
appreciate, Mr. Cautero, because you did do exactly what we asked you
to do which was to make these recommendations to us. But what I'm --
I can't believe that it's not legally defensible to put half of the
computer maintenance updating in the graphics project, because I
remember when I was on development services budget, we were begging
for that graphics program. We desperately need -- at that time the
development community wanted that graphics mapping program. I know
it's a benefit to the developers, and so maybe half of each of those
two if I were willing to guess --
The demographic economic analysis is a $229,000 line
item that I know that data is to some extent used by developers to
support market demand inquiries and market analysis. That
comprehensive plan, implementation, amendments and concurrency
management, out of 288,000 you suggested 72,000 I would like to know
based on what, because that seems that could be higher because that is
the map for growth. I mean, I don't understand why a great deal of
that couldn't be shifted. I understand we're mandated to have a
program by the state but that part of it should be paid for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No one in particular raises a flag
for me. That's roughly 25 percent where you've outlined there that
you think is appropriate to shift over, and I'm curious why because
the comp plan and concurrency management are obviously growth related
and growth driven.
MR. CAUTERO: The main reason is exactly what Commissioner
Mac'Kie stated a moment ago, that they're state mandated. And when
they're state mandated -- maybe it's more of a philosophical issue, if
you will -- my belief is that if they're state mandated that a
portion of that should be borne by the development community, not a
small portion of that, not the entire cost because it is mandated by
the state.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if we were a stagnant
community, if we were experiencing little or no growth, how much time
would we spend amending the comp plan? How much time would we spend
updating it on the sixth month periods?
MR. CAUTERO: You would spend a much smaller portion of time
than you do now, and I concur with you if that's what you were
thinking in anticipation of my answer. And that is why I believe a
portion of the comprehensive planning function and the growth
management function associated with that could be borne by the
development community but not all of it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would think it was a flip. I would
think probably 25 percent which is what we would have to do if
mandated would minimally comply with the state mandate, and 75 percent
is what we do as a result of development. And I want to say this,
too. I'm a little disappointed to get development services advisory
committee's recommendation that no change be made. I know we sprung
this on quickly, and they probably need more time to study it, but I
have always noted that the development community takes great pride in
saying they are pay as you go. They pay for themselves. The
development, the building permitting, and development review process
is a self-funded. They don't come to the property taxes to support
their programs, and I'm still unhappy with a million dollars in taxes
is too much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, the last time we
discussed this, what was the amount? And Mr. Smykowski may be the
more appropriate individual to answer my first question. What was the
amount the county put into the budget that we felt confident we could
shift to fees and take out of the general fund at that time? You
know, we didn't hear any --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So everything we've talked about today
is gravy? Okay. The second part of my question, Mr. Cautero, I
appreciate hearing how we recognize you as an expert and yet
continually question the ratios that you've put forward, and I think
what I hear -- and correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing you
saying is that -- and this is a follow-up on Commissioner
Constantine's comment -- if tomorrow growth ended -- first of all this
room would erupt in applause. But if tomorrow growth ended, there
would be functions that would have to continue at minimum staffing
levels that are either state mandated or mandated by our comp plan so
forth and so on. And what you have tried to do in this summary is to
determine what the cost of providing those would be and say those are
not necessarily growth related and should be funded out of the general
fund. Is that a --
MR. CAUTERO: That's a fair assessment, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand that, and there
maybe nuances, you know, here and there that we can modify in the
coming years. But the bottom line today is we're not going to get a
legal opinion that is going to make us feel solid on dollar X or
dollar Y. I think you have taken a strong stride in that direction,
and I would like to move forward on this. And I'm not surprised at
all by the development services advisory committee recommendation that
permit fees not be raised. The thing we do have to remember, though,
is we're not raising them just on developers, we're raising them on
the people who buy the homes and the condos and the price we pay for
milk and that kind of thing, too. So it does trickle down a little
bit.
I'm comfortable with what's been presented. I don't say
-- I want to say it can't be expanded in coming years, but I don't
think we're going to reach that today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Weigel to
help us make that decision and that is should we be aggressive in this
shift today? The process would be for the permit fees to be
challenged by someone. I mean, how would we -- how would we find
ourselves defending our more aggressive position of what is a rational
nexus?
MR. WEIGEL: I think we would be in the best position if
there were to be a change or an increase from what Vince has presented
to you right now, that the record today reflect an acknowledgment of
some of the reasons why it's going up and that Vince, for instance,
with his response to Commissioner Constantine had indicated that if
you look at a certain perspective, yes, no growth or little growth,
and then these things occur. These things are helpful in creating the
record that we would have for later on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what would the challenge process
be? How would we be challenged if we were aggressive in our analysis
of what is rationally --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, aggressive analysis is okay, but there
must be an analysis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is how would we be
challenged. What's the forum? MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the process by which we would
be challenged hypothetically?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would be -- it would be in court, and
it would be -- it would be a lawsuit to claim that these were illegal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By the development community or some
individual who had to pay --
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, anyone -- anyone --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to challenge it?
MR. WEIGEL: -- anyone that had to pay or even in the pecking
order of how it has to pay, the consumer conceivably would have to --
would have standing. The developer or permit applicant, any permit
applicant or an applicant who is an agent for an owner could do so.
And just because there's lots of people out there that have the
ability to file doesn't mean that they would win on the substantive
issue. I want to assure you of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or that they, frankly, would sue? I
mean --
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe that we could be more
aggressive and, you know, be it less or unreasonable. If we're
reasonable in our position that we could withstand a challenge and
probably wouldn't get one. I want to say two things. One, I'm going
to try to go down this list and make some recommendations that I think
could be shifted.
The other is whatever amount we decide to shift to
permit fees, what I want to see development services advisory
committee make recommendations on and what I want us to see us do is
not raise individual home building permit fees. That's not what we're
talking about. We're talking about -- I am suggesting that we talk
about PUD applications, fezone applications, not single-family home
building permits. I'm talking about large growth-related projects.
that's what I hope we're going to be able to increase.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we have any public speakers.
MR. HCNEES: No, sir, you do not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to make a couple of
comments, one in reference to your comment, Commissioner Hancock. I
certainly do recognize Mr. Cautero as an expert.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a little terse. I apologize
for that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question -- the reason I'm
questioning it is because I want to make sure I understand. I know he
does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I need to clearly understand
before I can base my decision on anything. But also as Mr. Weigel
said, I think regardless of what decision we make here, we need to
create a record in the event there is a challenge, and that's why some
of the specific questions I have had and will have.
And you're quite right that any new fees would reflect on
real people who are moving into new condos or new homes. But I also
look at a lowered ad valorem rate which would be the result of these
as reflecting on real people that already live here. So somewhere in
there there is a trade off and, hopefully, we all recognize we're
dealing with real people in the end run in both -- any of these
scenarios.
I wanted to go back just for a minute, Mr. Cantetc. I had
kind of honed in on the comp plan amendments, concurrency management
and that. And I'm curious as to how you came up with 25 percent
because obviously you're right; the state does require us to do this.
But as I said if there is no growth, if there was no growth or very
little growth, I'm going to assume we'd spend less time. And maybe
what you're telling me is we would still spend 75 percent of the time
we do. I find it hard to believe. I just need you to help me with
it.
MR. CAUTERO: Sure. I looked at the functions that they're
going to provide and that we gave you in your budget documents here as
base level one, commercial design guidelines, community planning
initiatives, and some other studies that are ongoing from previous
approvals, master plans that were approved. And my rationale was that
I didn't believe that new development would necessarily be the
appropriate source to fund those ongoing efforts that are in some
cases of a county-wide nature like design guideline and somewhat focus
the community planning initiatives that we're all taking this year and
that staff has undertaken in the past few years, most notably the
Marco Island master plan.
So a majority of the base level I services were those types
of things, and I believe that portion of that, a small portion -- and
I targeted 25 percent -- would be for those comprehensive planning
functions that the development community would or should contribute
to. I looked at all the functions there provided at the base level,
and that is where I came up with that number.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero, I really want to thank
you for spending the time in the last week or ten days that you put
into this. It looks really nice. I'm focussing in under natural
resource programs, Item A. You have what looks to be 100 percent of
the natural resource budget as a potential shift to permit fees?
MR. CAUTERO: That would represent that portion of level one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If later today when we address the
budget wrapup for NRD, we were to reinstitute that $100,000, would you
include that $100 (sic) in this shift as well?
MR. CAUTERO: I was anticipating that question. If that
amount of money is shifted to building permit fees, the board would
need to state to staff that's in addition to the money that you've
allotted which would make the issue later in the agenda moot. If it
is to defray the cost that you have allotted, then the discussion
would not be moot. For example, $120,000 and change was targeted for
elimination, as you may recall, in the natural resources budget. If
you should rule that you want $159,400 of the natural resource budget
to be shifted to fees in addition to what you have allotted, then the
item under whatever agenda item would be moot.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that $159,000 is currently the
level one NRD?
MR. CAUTERO: Correct. So a statement would have to be made
on the record that's in addition to what you've allotted or as what
you've allotted. Am I making sense? I don't think I'm --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At what point would we do that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you say if we were to shift a
hundred fifty nine four hundred into permit fees out of ad valorem,
and then we say we want to put that a hundred and twenty thousand that
was cut back in, would be we adding to the permit fees one hundred and
fifty-nine thousand or two seventy-nine? MR. CAUTERO: Just 159,400.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we would have -- but my
question is, Mr. Cautero, if this board were to reinstitute the
120,000 --
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- since you have allocated 100
percent of the current level one NRD -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- would in your mind and your
rationale, would you increase that one fifty-nine to still be 100
percent of the level one NRD? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, I would.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, when do we make that
motion because I'm going to make it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I hope to make it -- I mean, if
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, just a minute. Procedurally, let
me ask a question here. Commissioner Matthews, did you vote during
the budget hearings to eliminate that money?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, sir, I didn't. The discussion
during the budget hearings on June the 19th, and I inadvertently left
the minutes in my car. The discussion was we'll leave it at $100,000
for the time being and discuss it further in wrapup. I've been
through the wrapup minutes and that discussion did not occur. So
there was no consensus on this board to leave it that way, and that's
why I had asked to rediscuss it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me ask Mr. Weigel then a
question. Does this fall under the reconsideration ordinance,
rediscussion of this item? MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It does not? Okay. That will be fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have a problem with
that, and maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. I kind of got
lost there for a minute. But if you're just looking at increasing
fees so that we can put items back in the budget that we've cut, I
don't have any interest in that. We had a discussion. We had a
particular agreement with the majority of the board on what priority
items were this year. And if we're trying to do some shifting in fees
and all that to save the taxpayer some money, the ad valorem taxpayer
money, I am 100 percent interested in that, but I would like to do it
in a locked box concept in that when that money is saved, let's put it
in the box, give it back to the taxpayer, not find another way to
spend it. Maybe I misunderstood, but that's how it comes across.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I think what you're -- what
you're hearing me suggest is that in our June 19th meeting we did not
make a final decision. We asked Mr. Cautero to investigate some other
issues in that level one funding, and I will be glad to provide the
minutes of what we asked him to do. And that discussion in wrapup
never occurred, so there was no quote, unquote, final extension on the
removal of that level one $100,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, the item on the agenda
currently is to look at what the fees in development services and
determine whether or not we can shift ad valorem funded functions to
those fees. We have a recommendation from staff that that can be done
at a level of 442,438; is that correct? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there are no public speakers --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'd like to make some
recommendations for your consideration on increasing some of those, if
you let me, before you make a motion. A question, Mr. Cautero, on the
technical support section of the natural resources, $66,000 all of --
none of which was recommended to be shifted for development permits.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They just happened -- I don't know
what technically what they do.
MR. CAUTERO: They provide technical assistance to various
county departments or at least one, and that's OCPH. And, again, we
get back into your question about charge back, pay back, that type of
thing, and I didn't feel it was appropriate to have the development
community and people pulling building permits pick up that cost. So
that is why I recommended zero in that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's basically supporting another
county department?
MR. CAUTERO: Correct. There may be other creative ways to
achieve that funding back into the development issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question on that?
Office of capital projects does what; build our new roads, build our
new utilities, build our new things that are required by growth; is
that correct?
MR. CAUTERO: Correct, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They also build expanded -- you know,
things like if we want to use more effluent than we're using now, we
can expand effluent, so it's not a hundred percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly wouldn't say it's 100
percent. I'm saying it's not zero percent neither, and that's what's
reflected on --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to avoid us going down
the road getting a legal challenge and having to pay substantiative
legal fees on top of not getting what we wanted. I'd rather tread a
little cautiously at first and be more aggressive when our --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make the suggestion -- I agree with
your concept. Let me make the suggestion that what we do today is
consider what has been presented to us because it has been presented
to us by experts. What we can do since the experts did not have an
extended period of time to develop this, we can consider what they
have presented us today and ask them to make a more in-depth study for
our next --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For September.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For September or our next budget or
whatever.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, if we were challenged on a
fee, would we not rescind it before we went to court? Wouldn't we --
if we discovered that we are -- made an unreasonable decision and
someone came to us and made that case and proved it, we don't
necessarily have to go to court to change our minds? So --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Constantine is saying that we can do
this between now and our September final budget hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we set millage rates today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're setting the upper one, not the lower
One.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we -- if we were to add more
items that could be shifted over, that would actually lower the
millage rate. We still have that option in September, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just want to tell you my
recommendations are going to be getting in addition to what Mr.
Cautero has recommended is that some portion -- perhaps, just 20 maybe
30 percent of technical support under the NRP be shifted to fees;
that under the graphics program, the $51,000 for maintaining and
updating computer files, half of that be shifted, and I think it is
conservative. Then on the graphics support to growth management and
MPO, instead of half, that three-quarters of that be shifted because
growth management and MPO, I think, you know, provide direct services
related to growth; and then the graphics support to other county
departments, half of that also be shifted over into permits.
And my last -- no -- two more recommendations on the
comprehensive plan implementation, that the percentages be flipped;
the $72,000 stay in appropriations and 216,000 go to fees. And then
finally that a quarter of the demographic economic analysis go into
fees. And that's based on some experience representing the developers
and knowing what they --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is your suggestion to do that today or to
do that as a follow up to today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually that was a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I ask the motion maker to
include in the motion that the natural resources programs level one
services to be shifted to be whatever we determine that budget to be
later today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it then.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second the motion.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only item we're doing right
now is -- we're not doing the budget now. We're trying to determine
what we can legally and appropriately shift over. And I'm not going
to play with particular line items as part of this item. I'm not
going to support the motion if that's part of it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need to clarify that. Perhaps I
misunderstood. I thought that what Mr. Cautero already -- I'm trying
to ask this as clearly as I can, and I apologize for not being clear.
You have suggested -- you told us that level one services are
$159,400, 100 percent of which could be shifted to permit fees. As
cut, assuming -- assuming just please for a moment -- and I'm not
really assuming it -- that we did make a decision to cut $120,000 out
of that department, would that make this number 39,000?
MR. CAUTERO: No. It still would be $159,400 of which you
would ultimately approve. If I didn't explain it correctly before, I
apologize. That would be my recommendation.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: To clarify, that 120,000 that we're cutting
has already been removed from the budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not in the budget.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's not in that one fifty nine --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think we have to make that
decision right now.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: If added back, Mr. Cautero was recommending
that, yes, that could be shifted to fees as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the
question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wouldn't want to make that decision
until we get to the discussion about --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had a request to call the question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to clarify the question since
I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of the clarification, can
we get a dollar figure instead of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. Well, I'll read down what
the totals would be. The level one services is one fifty nine four;
Clam Bay NRPA, I'm not recommending a change. On technical support
under NRP, I am suggesting that $33,050 go into the shift at half of
that level. Nothing for turtle monitoring, stay where it is.
Waterways maintenance, stay where it is. I had not recommended
changes under housing and urban improvement. I did recommend under
graphics that out of the fifty-one eight twenty-five for maintaining
and updating computer files half of that go to fees. No change on
technical support. No change -- I'm sorry -- on fee graphic support
to growth management and HPO, I believe you had recommended, Mr.
Cautero, about half. I was suggesting that that should be
three-quarters. Yes, it was 75 percent in permits.
In graphic support, item D to other county departments, that
half of that should be shifted, so if somebody would do the math for
me. And under comprehensive planning programs, that implementation
item A there, out of the total 288,000 that instead of 72,000,
216,000. We would basically flip the math there, the proportions, so
that the seventy-two thousand would stay paid out of ad valorem taxes
and two sixteen would come out of permit fees.
And my last point was that the demographic economic analysis
line of $229,900, that 25 percent of that be shifted into permit fees.
So if somebody -- maybe Mr. Smykowski would add that up for me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I get about a half a million dollars
more just in quick numbers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While that number is being tallied,
can we proceed with calling the question because the numbers won't
change between now and the time the vote is taken?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might be interesting information to
have if we decide to have a vote. You're tired of this discussion and
want to move on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski is almost finished. Could
you repeat the motion, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've lost enough friends today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lost enough what?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Friends.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is like the seventh inning
stretch at Wrigley Field.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get a laptop for Mr. Smykowski
in the budget for next year?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right in front.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God. I'm sorry.
MR. MCNEES: His instincts reverted back to the
Hewlett-Packard, though. In a crunch he went back to the calculator.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A funny thing happened to me on
the way to the meeting today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I was wanting to tell you what
that -- this is on the side -- that I was in New York City for the
past four days, and somebody let me vote on buses now, because that
was the most filthy, awful --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How did it smell?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was awful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ah, the beauties of mass transit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you ask him how much it cost
the city?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, the numbers are on the record.
They can be given to us in a couple of minutes. I'm going to ask.
Can we call the question on this and at least proceed? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He'll give us a number.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four or five hundred thousand dollars
additional.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three hundred more.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Over and above the four forty-two.
So we're looking at at least three quarters of a million dollars.
MR. CAUTERO: Approximately $742,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Cautero.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye, because I really want that
$120,000 included in this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could get there, Commissioner
Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure it will now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not part of this motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it can't get there if you don't
vote for this change. Can we table this and come back to it. We just
lost --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The motion passed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The motion passed. You know, we don't have
to have a unanimous vote. Okay.
The next item, Mr. Smykowski --
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Smykowski, did you get what you need?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MR. MCNEES: I just wanted to make sure he got what he
needed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. Theoretically, we
just saved the ad valorem taxpayer three quarters of a million
dollars, and what I hope we won't do is what I call my wife's theory
of saving money and that is to say, honey, I saved $50 today. And
I'll say, gee, really? How? And she'll say, well, I bought a hundred
dollar dress, and it was on sale from a hundred and fifty. And so I
hope as we go on in the budget process, we won't say, well, we saved
that money earlier so now we can spend it on something else.
Item #8A2
PRESENTATION OF CITIZEN REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN OSPREY POLE ON COUNTY
PROPERTY LOCATED IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Moving forward, 8(A)(2) is the
Osprey pole request.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had asked this be put on the
regular agenda last week -- put it on this week from last week because
there had been some objections from some of the neighbors. I don't --
I made an effort to get ahold of them this week. I don't know if
there are any public speakers. If not, then I don't have a personal
objection. I was just doing that as a courtesy to them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve -- or motion to
approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve
the item.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Well, that was --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great presentation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a little quicker than the previous
item. Thank you very much.
Item #8A3
AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. - AGREEMENT TO BE
BROUGHT BACK TO THE HPO LEVEL AND READVERTISED AND REBID
8(A)(3) is the Transportation Disadvantaged funding
agreement.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Wayne Arnold, planning services
director. This item was brought back as continuation of discussion
from last week's agenda item on this topic. I've provided a packet of
information supplied to us by the Regional Planning Council, and I
hope that you all received that.
You should also have received a memorandum through
Mr. Cautero from Jeff Perry recapping some of the discussion items
from last week. And I guess the major point made in that memorandum
from Mr. Perry was that the contract was let to continue to the coming
year, and it was let prior to July 1, the effective date of July 1,
1996 through June 30, 1997.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the major point raised by
Commissioner Constantine is that it's in direct conflict with the
direction of the board.
MR. ARNOLD: I understand that there's some discussion
relative to the direction we received. I think it's Mr. Perry's
suggestion that we put this on the PPO agenda for the August meeting,
which I'm not sure of your date. I believe that's August 23rd or
August 30th. I'm not sure it's been established. But the state
statute does make provisions for how to rebid the process or rebid the
contract. It can be done and was recently done in another community
within the Regional Planning Council purview. And that's a matter of
taking time to rebid it and readvertise it. That's nothing we can't
do, so certainly that can be done if that's the direction. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's make a motion --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to give staff
that direction and bring it back at the HPO level as the appropriate
place to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
readvertise the rebid.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #SB1
REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF SURFACE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY STUDY
- REPORT ACCEPTED; STAFF TO COMPARE RESERVOIR VS. THE ASRAND AQUIFER
WITH REGARDS TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND WORK WITH BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD
Next item, 8(B)(1). This is the feasibility of surface water
storage study that we performed.
MR. BOLDT: For the record I'm John Boldt, your stormwater
management director. A year ago the board and the South Florida Water
Management District executed a contract with Wilson, Miller to prepare
a study on the feasibility of using above-ground storage reservoirs to
store excess discharges from the canals systems for public water use.
That study has been completed. We're here this morning to give you a
brief summary of it. I'll let Steve Means of Wilson, Miller, the
project manager, make a presentation to you, and we'll address
questions afterwards.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We are not going to take any action
today to construct the surface water management system of any kind.
We'd appreciate a nice brief overview of this study, and let's go
ahead and move on. We have a fairly lengthy agenda today.
MR. MEANS: Thank you. For the record my name is Steve Means
with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. Anticipating this I prepared
the Reader's Digest condensed version of the executive summary here,
so I'll try and go through it pretty quickly.
Worldwide reservoirs are used for the storage of water for
beneficial uses, and the concept is very simple. Water is stored in
the reservoir when the supply is plentiful, and it's used out of the
reservoir when the supply dwindles. In Collier County the reservoir
that is most used is the ground water. It's the aquifer below our
feet. And the reason for this is very simple. The ground waters
provides the most economical source of high quality water in the area.
But as those sources begin to dwindle and the aquifer
becomes stressed, it's really a challenge to try and find alternate
supplies or sources of water for storage purposes. And that's really
the reason why we looked at the feasibility of constructing an
above-ground reservoir rather than a below-ground reservoir.
We -- if you look on the second page of executive
summary, there are four or five feasibility criteria that were
identified. The four of those that are really significant are, is
there an adequate supply of water to fill a reservoir; What is the
cost of completing that reservoir; Is it permittable; and do we have
the necessary technology to construct a reservoir?
We looked at using the Golden Gate and Cocohatchee canals as
a supply of water. As we know they're very full of water especially
during the wet season. So what we wanted to do is identify that as a
source of water. We looked at the records from Big Cypress Basin's
flow over the weirs. We identified two of the lower weirs, Golden
Gate 1 and Golden Gate 2 weirs, as having excess water flowing over
those weirs from a period of about July all the way through the wet
season and well into the dry season into February, March, and April.
So we feel that we have demonstrated that there is an adequate supply
of water to fill an above-ground reservoir.
Next, we looked at three different types of reservoirs. We
looked at a fully-lined above-ground reservoir that was 15 to 20 feet
deep. We looked at taking a mining pit, an existing mining pit, and
lining it around the perimeter with a wall down into the ground and
try and prevent the seepage from leaking out. And then we also looked
at taking a degraded wetland and berming around it and trying to fill
that up for storage and for rehydration purposes.
Of those three that we identified, we found that the type 2
which was taking the mining pit and putting the perimeter slurry wall
around it was the most cost effective. We showed that we do have the
necessary construction technology to build that particular reservoir,
and we could not find any reason why it wasn't permittable.
The cost issue is really -- what it really boils down to. We
looked at a 1993 report as prepared for Collier County on stormwater
ASR where stormwater would be taken out of the canals and pumped down
into some deep aquifer several hundred feet down and then recovered
during the dry season for irrigation or potable supply. We compared
those costs together, and the ASR showed that the ASR was the most
cost effective of the two particular options.
So in summary we showed that the reservoirs were technically
feasible. We did have an adequate water supply. It was permittable,
but it was not the most cost effective of those two particular
alternatives.
The -- we do have some recommendations, though. One of
those recommendations was that either the Big Cypress Basin or Collier
County, preferably both together, look at a better cost comparison
between stormwater ASR and the reservoir system. The data that we
were using may be out of date given newer technologies for ASR. We
only based our analysis on one ASR report and a very limited scope on
trying to cost out the cost of the reservoirs. So of -- that's the
second recommendation in the report, and that's on the last page of
the summary. And that would be the one that I would really like to
see the commission consider is to look at those costs.
The third recommendation is to start a siting and pilot
project for one of these reservoirs. That maybe be a bit premature
given the second recommendation. But nevertheless I think it's worth
considering in the future.
So with that I would ask the commission to accept this report
and also to implement recommendation number two, which would be to
further the study to compare the costs of ASR and reservoir storage.
With that I'll answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One question. I got a quick
question. I've been reading commission minutes and so forth and
agreements between GAC and the county commission back in the early
'70s. And in those minutes I keep hearing references to a reservoir
in 1972, 1974, and no one seems to know where that reservoir was
planned for, and obviously it never happened. If we were to elect to
go forward, could somebody find out where that was supposed to be and
why it never happened?
MR. MEANS: That's a good question. That's the first I've
heard of that also. So I'm sure that -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's in the minutes.
MR. MEANS: I'm sure someone has some history on it. But
it's just a matter of finding that particular person.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's in the minutes of the BCC when
they're discussing taking over canals and roads from GAC, and I can't
find anything on where this is supposed to be and why it was
abandoned.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. McNees, do we have any public speakers?
MR. MCNEES: You have one, A1 Perkins.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was supposed to be in
southern --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're probably right.
MR. PERKINS: You opened up a can of worms with that one,
didn't you? Good morning, Commissioners, A1 Perkins, Belle Heade
Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Everybody has
been talking about water a long, long time. Last summer you found out
where it went. At the same time, too, you didn't realize that the
weirs were being kept closed. They were welded shut, being
deliberately flooded. It flooded out the whole area.
But this morning you're talking about ASRs. I don't know
whether or not these people even know what that is. That's a bubble
of water forced down into the ground that they can recapture at a
later date. At the present time Southern States Utility is being
financed by the Big Cypress Basin Board to try to take and create such
a situation right for the Marco Island water supply.
A reservoir for water is called a canal. And some of you
people are here this morning about filling in canals. The Big Cypress
Basin Board and South Florida Water Management want to fill in the
canals in southern Golden Gate Estates taking away the right to have
your reservoir and spending your money, of course, creating jobs. In
the process you people need to know that when you make a reservoir you
have fill dirt. That fill dirt is worth a fortune. In case you don't
know it, there is 29,000 cubic yards of fill dirt in one acre of land,
29,000. It's worth at least a buck a yard.
I want to address the tense of effluent. We have a problem
with the effluent and with the sludge, and if we can fix this problem
we can tense the water. Now, I'm talking about tensing it for
drinking water. It sounds disgusting. But if we're going to take and
go in this direction where we're not going to have water, Believe me,
you people will be down in a mud puddle trying to get a drink, and you
won't even give a damn what the hell is down there.
Pay attention. We have the ability. We have the technology,
and we have the opportunity to try to fix some of these problems that
we have the board up here. The only thing I'm going to tell you
people and the people at home, tell your employees exactly what you
want. Call them. Get on them. Hassle them. But let's try to fix
some of these problems instead of moving them around. We're spending
the money. Check your tax bill. Check it coming up next year. I
think I covered everything. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. What I would like
to see -- I agree with Mr. Means that item number two -- perhaps the
course we should take and that is just simply to compare the costs and
the technology and the permittability against an ASR. I've not in the
past been a fan of ASRs. I think there's too many unknowns out there
to be pumping that much water into the ground. And who knows what's
going to happen 50 years from now when you do that. So that's what
started this discussion in the first place, and I'd like to see us at
least compare the costs and so forth with ASR.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion if that's
what you're looking for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question first, if I may.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Means, offhand do you have any
idea what the county's existing well fields can draw a million gallons
a day without significant draw down? Has that number crossed your
desk or -- MR. MEANS: I'm sure it has. I don't recall right now.
Maybe some of the utility folks here might be able to tell us of the
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I was just curious because what
I had heard from hydrogeologists is that ironically for the projected
population for potable water it doesn't appear that we have a problem.
That's, you know --
MR. MEANS: It depends on which aquifer that we're talking
about. The older well fields, both the city's and the county's,
withdraw from the surfacial aquifer which is I know from our feet down
to 150 or so to 200 feet. The North Collier water plant draws from an
aquifer that was much lower. It's several hundred feet down.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that the lower Tamiami or --
MR. MEANS: No. It's through the Hawthorne, I believe,
aquifer which is a quality of water that is lesser than the surfacial
aquifer which requires a higher level of treatment and, of course,
more cost. Now, the cost of reverse osmosis, which is the treatment
process, is coming down, and it's becoming more cost effective.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MEANS: But the point is that the surfacial aquifer is
being stressed at this point and that's why they're looking for lower
aquifers for that additional water supply.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the cost associated with the
motion? How much would it cost us to do this study?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boldt can answer that, but we're
probably talking about a fairly loose item here.
MR. BOLDT: As a matter of fact, we're talking about a
cooperative effort with the Big Cypress Basin Board. Our office of
capital project management has already put in an application to do a
study in cooperation with them and got some partial funding to take a
look at particularly the ASR if we can approach them to see if we
couldn't expand it also to serve as an alternative doing -- pull it
all into one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest we give staff that
direction and ask them to come back when they have a particular price
tag, but I think we're all in agreement it's worth pursuing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to that effect?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. And I've got one more question
before we get a second. I keep hearing about another aquifer that's
kind of in the northern part of Collier County that's absolutely huge,
sweet water, and relatively untapped. In fact, some of the numbers
I'm hearing about that there's probably enough water in that aquifer
to meet our daily needs at build out.
MR. MEANS: You may be talking about the aquifer that was
originally researched, I think, four or five years ago by Collier
County. It's up where the Mill Pin quarry is above Immokalee Road --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's where I'm hearing about it.
MR. MEANS: -- east of 951. It is a very prolific aquifer
and can supply quite a large volume of water. I think -- and maybe
utilities can help -- Mike, you may remember. But the quality of that
water was not suitable for the current treatment technology that the
county was using at that time. So they went to a different aquifer to
find the water that they needed over the next five or ten planning
years.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Roll it all in. Let's --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, let's get it all in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and let's not just look at
reservoirs.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When somebody tells me an aquifer has
sweet water in it, it tells me that it needs very little treatment,
and if I'm wrong in that assumption, I certainly need to know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you incorporate the investigation
of that aquifer into your motion? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I certainly will.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second to the motion by the
way?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it to bring back a particular -- I
mean, I don't want to spend money without going into this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. The motion proposal -- the
motion is to compare -- to make a comparison on the reservoir versus
ASR and now versus this aquifer in the northern part of the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could second it was to make -- to
ask staff to develop a plan as to the feasibility of cost of that
study.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's to make a recommendation to
compare the feasibility, that we work with the Big Cypress Basin Board
who already has it in their budget to fold the reservoir portion and
now this aquifer portion into their study.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion. If
staff needs to go down a costly trail, we're going to see a budget
amendment item during that time. So, yes, I'm going to second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. MEANS: Thank you.
Item #882 - Deleted
Item #883
RESOLUTION 96-328, AUTHORIZING INTERIM COMMERCIAL PAPER BORROWING IN
ORDER TO FINANCE THE NAPLES PARK STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROJECT - ADOPTED
Our next item is 8(B)(3), interim commercial paper borrowing
in order to finance the Naples Park stormwater drainage project.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, and I may be able to
expedite some of those. Have the cost tables we've seen included the
interim financing cost we've seen here today?
MR. FINN: The cost -- I'm sorry. Edward Finn, public works
operation director. There is a table attached to this item that deals
with the total cost of the project. It is page three of this item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, the one that is bled out and can't
be read.
MR. FINN: In anticipation of that I have made some
additional copies.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I looked at the agenda over
the weekend and said, whoops, I can't read that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was your question,
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is the tables we have seen
which referred to the cost per typical lot in Naples Park, have they
included these interim financing costs, or is this going to drive the
price up from what we've seen?
MR. FINN: Commissioner, Mr. Ziev is here to discuss the
total cost. He is the county's financial advisor. I will, however,
tell you that the estimated total annual cost per average lot at this
point in time is not anticipated to be more than $100 a year for an
average residential 50-foot lot in this area
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the term length?
MR. FINN: The term length is 15 years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fifteen hundred dollars; from
seven hundred to fifteen hundred?
MR. FINN: That includes the bonding finance costs. The
project cost has not changed. The cost of interim financing for the
project area is approximately $140,000. That would be rolled into the
total project cost.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the question I had
initially. Was that $140,000 anticipated and rolled into the numbers
we had seen previously?
MR. ZIEV: Good morning. Arthur Ziev, Raymond James and
Associates. All of the numbers in the interim financing have been
included in all analyses up to date. It's not an additional cost.
It's always been incorporated in the analysis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FINN: In any event staff is requesting board approval of
the attached resolution authorizing a commercial paper loan draw not
to exceed three point seven five 0 million dollars. This step is part
of the critical path to move forward with this project and the time
line is currently in place.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consistent with past board action, I'm
ready to make a motion, but there might be public speakers.
MR. MCNEES: There are no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No public speakers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you'll make that motion, I will
second it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion that we approve
staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support it even
though I haven't been supportive of the project. But if we're going
to go ahead with the project, this is the best way to do the
financing, so I'll support this motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have motion and a second to go forward.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Motion is approved.
Item #8B4
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FOR
CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES -
APPROVED; STAFF TO RETURN ON 8/6/96 WITH A REPOT FROM THE SHERIFF
8(B)(4), interagency agreement between Collier County and the
State of Florida Department of Corrections, Hendry Correctional
Institution for continued use of inmate labor in road maintenance
activities. Is there any opposition?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just ask if we could get some
more information about what programs we have with the sheriff's
department. That is part of the reason for bringing this back. And
Mr. Archibald has an answer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just happened to have one handy.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, there is, in essence, three
different activities here in Collier County. One is promoted through
the Hendry County State Correctional Institution as part of your
agreement package today. The second is through the Copeland prison
site. They also provide over 25 inmates daily. And third is the
activity of the sheriff's office. In the report that's been provided
to you is one that has been submitted to my office by the sheriff's
finance director, and it outlines their activities to include
approximately $700,000 in services. Unfortunately, Captain Smith
that's in charge of that program, he's out of the county this week.
And as outlined in the agenda, he will be more than willing, from what
I have been told, to make a presentation to the board to discuss the
agenda item at a later date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly want to approve what we
have. But just from the math that is in this memo you just gave us,
if there are an estimated 67 inmates eligible for work because only 15
percent of the sentenced prisoners can work, 43 are required for jail
duties, so there's 24 available to do some work at the county, so I
would like to see that budget line item reduction for that 24 --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One thing that's like you said, 85
percent of the inmates in the jail are unsentenced and cannot be
required to work, but quite a few of them do volunteer to work. So
there is a difference obviously between required and volunteer. But I
understand quite a few of the unsentenced inmates also volunteer to
work.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we could put the item on
our August 6th agenda when Captain Smith is back and go over some of
the details with him.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, because it sounds like we'd be
discussing a policy decision that the sheriff would need to agree to,
so I would like to have the benefit of his input.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any reason why this needs to --
why this couldn't wait until August the 6th, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No time restraint?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to make a motion to
continue to August the 6th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to continue until August
6th and a second.
All those in favor --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To point out -- actually we
already had a motion and a second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I had a motion to approve. I
will withdraw my motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to continue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question as far as -- do we
want to slow down the Hendry Correctional Institute item, or do we
want to approve that and then have the sheriff bring back as a
separate item --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, thank you. The two are
separate. I mean, what the local policy is versus our agreement with
Hendry are two separate items, so --
MR. ARCHIBALD: Staff would request that the board go ahead
and take action on the Hendry County State Correctional agreement
because they, in fact, are waiting for that at this time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll repeat my earlier motion to
approve the item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I withdraw the motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We are now back to a motion to
approve this item with the second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, of course, direction to staff to
request the sheriff's office back at the August -- the first
appropriate meeting in August to discuss policy with Mr. Smith.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Archibald.
Item #885
REPORT OF CURRENT STATUS AND RECOHMENDATION TO EXPAND THE GOLDN GATE
CITY ALLEYWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM - PROGRAM APPROVED AND MILLAGE FOR
HSTD TO BE INCREASED TO .3294
Next item is 8(B)(5), current status of the Golden Gate City
alleyway construction program.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board Members, this agenda item involves an
alleyway improvement program for Golden Gate City. But more
importantly it addresses a roadway condition that we have on the major
roadways that are in and around Golden Gate City, primarily Santa
Barbara, Golden Gate Parkway, and also 951. And the problem that we
have is both the safety and an aesthetic one. In many of the areas --
and very good examples are along Santa Barbara -- we have multifamily
units that front right on the major roadway on the four lanes of Santa
Barbara.
Those multifamily units require services. And those services
right now are being provided off of the existing roadway. So in many
cases whether it has to do with solid waste pickup or whether it has
to do with utility services or whether it's just simply material
delivery, all those activities are occurring in most cases on a thru
lane of Santa Barbara. So from the standpoint of safety and
aesthetics and as a result of both board action and support of the
civic association, Golden Gate and also the beautification committee,
the staff has developed a program of improving alleyways where we can
shift those activities that are occurring on the roadway -- shift
those activities to an alleyway that would be at the rear of both the
multifamily lots that have frontage and also the rear of commercial
lots that have frontage. Again, that would be safety and a value
aesthetic improvement.
The program itself is outlined in the agenda. It involves 14
segments of alleyway, and what would be involved is the clearing, the
construction of the base, and paving of those alleyways so that they
could, in fact, function and our procedures for those service related
activities could then be dictated to the rear of those properties.
The total cost of the program is outlined as $285,000. And
as a result staff has looked at a program over a period of years to
implement those improvements through a combination of in-house efforts
and also contractual activities. Now, the first activity we would
like to start, as outlined on the agenda, is on Santa Barbara
alignment and starting that work very late in this year and hopefully
continuing that into next year.
For the activities that start in the current year, we would
end up using the existing funds in the HSTD. There is an existing
municipal service taxing district that includes Golden Gate City, and
that district would be the source of those materials that your road
and bridge forces would use to build the base and also is a source of
funding for contractual services to pave those alleyways.
We perceive going ahead and moving around our priorities in
the current year. Our concern and the real requirement of the agenda
is to be brought to you today results in the program that we're
recommending for next year, and it's going to cost in the neighborhood
of $165,000. And we're recommending that the board consider funding
that, again, through the HSTD, the Municipal Services Taxing District,
includes Golden Gate City because, in fact, the people within that
area will benefit from this improvement.
The concern is, of course, adding those amount of dollars to
the existing MSTD. Not only would that increase the total expenditure
budget for what we call fund 104, but it would also result in an
increase in ad valorem tax. All the MSTDs are driven primarily by ad
valorem tax.
In terms of millage if the board elected to go ahead and
increase that MSTD for the purposes of setting your millage for the
tentative action today, the current millage is approximately a quarter
of a mill, exactly .2281 mill. If we added $165,300 to that budget,
your millage would increase -- the total both on the expenditure and
ad valorem side would increase, and youwre still talking about a
little more than a quarter of a mill, .2753 mills.
So your staff is recommending today that you consider the
alleyway improvement, you consider taking action today. If you
approve that alleyway improvement which staff recommends, then we
would also request that for the tentative millage you consider
increasing that particular fund millage which gives you the ability to
reconsider that during the final budget hearings.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very simply this is an opportunity
for the Golden Gate community to pay for improving itself. You have a
number of multifamily units that are on the main thoroughfares, Golden
Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara, where most of the traffic goes by. At
least two days a week youwve got piles of garbage out there right now.
From an aesthetics standpoint it would get those off the main
thoroughfares. Welcome to the community; herews our trash, will no
longer be the idea.
Also from the standpoint of EMS, fire, and sheriff it gives
them another access not only to those residential units but in
particular to the commercial units where from time to time we have law
enforcement difficulties, and it just makes the patrol of the area
easier for them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is to be funded through the
MSTD and not through general gas taxes or general fund revenues. This
is just the MSTD for the area covered?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Excuse me. Mike just corrected my millage
numbers. Hews just advised me of the correction.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was for road district three which is
actually our fund 104. The proposed millage was .2665 mills or $26.65
per hundred thousand of value, and that would increase to .3294 mills,
approximately six dollars, six and a half dollars to fund the alleyway
program per hundred thousand dollars. And if you would approve that as
part as of the -- I mean, discussion of millages we would obviously
incorporate that into that discussion and/or the findings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I assume the
community has been supportive of this concept?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. This is another -- couple
of folks. This is the Golden Gate Civic Association and the volunteer
code enforcement. All those folks are behind it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Iwve got one question. District 104,
how large is it?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Iwve got a map. It includes not only Golden
Gate City and some of the areas to the west, but it also includes a
large portion of the Golden Gate Estates and along the boulevard
itself. If you would like a map I can provide you one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So Golden Gate Estates, it includes
that area out along the boulevard as far east as Wilson? Everglades
Boulevard? What?
MR. ARCHIBALD: As far as DeSoto.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As far -- okay. All the way out.
And they don't get any benefit from this except when they go into the
city to -- and I'm not saying that we don't need to handle the
aesthetic part, certainly. I'm just making a point -- and I don't
personally object to citizens helping pay for other citizens' problems
and getting them taken care of. I just want to point out that Golden
Gate Estates is very much a part of the project in the city.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Good point. And
realistically I think there is some benefit just by having the overall
area improved.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, certainly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the
item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to approve. All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed.
That passes.
We'll take a short break. We've got a busy agenda.
Please come back in five minutes.
(A short break was taken.)
Item #SE(1)A
DISCUSSION OF WRAP-UP RE NATURAL RESOURCES FY 97 BUDGET - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and Gentlemen, we would reconvene
the meeting. If I could have your attention, please. Hello. Hello.
We're ready for our add-on item, Item 8(E)(A)
MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir. These are the discussions of the
natural resources budgeting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That will be the discussion of the natural
resources budgeting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess I put it on the agenda to
discuss it, so I guess I'll get started with it. A couple of things I
have become aware of in the last two weeks on this, not only a
memorandum from Mr. Lorenz to Mr. Cautero on exactly what programs
will be cut or changed, but in talking with Mr. Smykowski after
reading the minutes from the 19th and the discussion revolving around
our request and wrapup for some definitive material which did not
materialize. Why that happened I have no idea, but I suspect part of
it is a result of -- I believe Mr. Lorenz was away at the time or not
in the building or on vacation or something or other, and as normally
happens with our budget workshops, if you don't have somebody
baby-sitting a specific issue, it doesn't get baby sat. As a result
the item never came back in our wrapup.
What my discussions with Mr. Smykowski have determined is
that the $259,000 that we we're initially talking about in level one
services, much of our discussion that day dealt around whether we were
talking $50,000 per FTE or $30,000 per FTE. And Mr. Smykowski assures
me that of the 259,000, 221,000 of that money is devoted to FTEs.
the $50,000 number is more accurate. The remaining $38,000 is
essentially office supplies, electricity, space maintenance, et
cetera, et cetera, that except for the office supplies you really
don't get rid of it. You're going to continue to air condition the
air space that these people are currently using or the programs are
currently using.
So what I would like the commission to listen to today, if
they would bear with us and go through a budget wrapup as to the
justification for level one services, and then make whatever
appropriate decision we're going to make. Mr. Chairman, if you would
allow Mr. Lorenz to proceed, I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
natural resources director. The result of the $120,000 in our cuts as
Commissioner Matthews had indicated, one of the specific questions was
of that $259,000 how much of that general fund level, how much was
salaries, and it's pretty close to $220,000 is in salaries. Most of
our operating expenses or most of our expenses for the department are
in salaries. There was very minimal operating expenses. The greatest
line item in the last year's budget of operating expenses was the
$45,000 for Clam Bay exotic removal.
Probably the easiest way to go through and look at the
results of the cuts is when we made the $120,800 cut, we did cut the
two staff members. That's roughly $96,000 with salaries and benefits.
We took eighty-nine hundred dollars out of our operating budget
which took some money out of just general operational areas. We
shifted $13,000 of the $38,000 that was proposed for the waterways
maintenance budget and recognized that $13,000 of that needs to be
part of salaries. So that was one component.
And then there's $3,000 that's for the Clam Bay monitoring
for the purchase of equipment, and what we recommended there was since
this year we're not going to spend that full $45,000, we can spend
$3,000 of that in some monitoring equipment for sediment monitoring
that was recommended by the panel of experts; take that out of this
year's budget as opposed to next year's budget.
So we made up most of the cuts in terms of next year's budget
in terms of the level one program. About $16,000 left we had to pull
out in some of those other programs that I just mentioned, waterways
budget and the Clam Bay budget. The effect of that, as I said, was to
eliminate two FTE, two permanent positions in the staff, that
represents about 30 percent of our permanent staff members. If you
excluded the department director and the secretary, you're really
talking about 40 percent reduction, if you will, in front line staff
members.
The effect on programs, the board direction was to reduce the
level one program effort and also to reduce the lighting compliance
for the sea turtle program. The two staff members that were cut
worked a majority of their time in the level one programs. However,
because we're limited in staff, we don't have these individuals solely
dedicated to those programs. They work in other programs such as
technical support, the Clam Bay NRPA as well. So when we had to be
able to make up the total budget costs, that was the way we had to be
able to shift the resources around.
The effect of the cuts will be specifically on the NRPA
program. The board -- in the EAR report that we took to the board
back in March, the board did give us direction to continue with the
NRPA program. And that direction was to focus on county-owned
or county-controlled areas. Our first effort was going to be looking
at the Lely Barefoot Beach park and the surrounding area because of
it's unique characteristics. The result of the two reductions in the
program will be that we will probably -- the probability is not very
good that by next year, the end of next year, we'll be able to develop
a management plan for that area and bring it back to the board.
that effort will be very much stalled in terms of developing that
particular management plan for the NRPA.
We have been working on compiling information from various
federal and state documents for listed species, endangered and
threatened species in terms of recommendations for development in the
county. That effort basically will be put on hold completely.
I know there is some discussion about our estuary
management program. We have, if you will, a draft estuary management
plan that was developed several years ago. We put it on hold as a
result of the basin studies and the drainage element that had been put
on -- that the board put on hold because part of the recommendations
of that was to continue with the basin studies.
Given the board's EAR report discussion this past year, we
were -- that policy was left in the plan to continue with the
estuarian management program. Our shift for the estuarian management
program was to look at our total estuaries in the county, look for
opportunity for remedial projects. An example of this, for instance,
is in Vanderbilt Lagoon where we had proposed some grant money forcing
us to merge with aquatic habitats.
There are a variety of areas in Collier County estuaries
that we would like to be able to look at and develop some remediation
projects either being able to accomplish it with our existing
resources or to go through grants and be able to prioritize some of
these project areas. In addition to that assessment, to simply
keeping tabs on the water quality data that the pollution control
department was developing, we could look at more of a comprehensive
approach for our estuarian systems which are very important to, I
think, to the health and vitality of Collier County.
The public information work that we do will be very much
limited with regard to developing any formal educational brochures
that we like to be able to develop. We do participate in a number of
community events with staff members developing presentations or
displays that we were able to work there. We'll just simply have to
put that on the back burner. There are a critical few.
I think a very important component of what we do, which
doesn't also translate into actual results that you can see other than
sometimes when we're tasked to develop the EAR report and provide a
summary and condition, for instance, of the natural resources, of
gathering, collecting, analyzing environmental data. I think this is
somewhat akin to basic research in a private corporation that you have
to fund at a particular level. Sometimes it's very hard to quantify
exactly what you get out of it. But a lot of the information that
we're getting for environmental data collection and management is what
we use to make our assessments on staff as to what problems are there
in the county generally or approach specific problems such as the Clam
Bay issue is that as we gather information around the county on a
variety of parameters such as listed species, habitats, presence and
location of exotic species, the water quality information. All that
information is synthesized by our professional staff so that when
there is a problem that exists, and we're called on to give
information to the manager's office or to the Board of County
Commissioners either individually or as part of a regular agenda item,
our staff is able to work from that information, develop our technical
assessment, and make good recommendations to the board and to other
parties.
This particular effort is something that we do with the
number of staff that we have. Cutting 30 percent of the staff could
be very difficult for us to continue to keep our hands, if you will,
or our fingers on the pulse of Collier County's natural resources.
One effort that I would really like to see us move into is to
accelerate that effort and really have a very good comprehensive
database, indeed, a collector of the information for Collier County.
We have some minimal databases in terms of a minimal GIS system, but
it is very difficult for us to add to it. It will be virtually
impossible to add to it with the cut in personnel.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Lorenz, during the budget
workshops when we talked about those monitoring functions, we made
some jokes about, you know, how do we notify the manatees and how do
we get the results of the studies to the sea turtles. And I apologize
for being flippant, but what happens with this data? Perhaps I need
educating. Why do we need to collect data and have it in a computer
somewhere?
MR. LORENZ: For the simple reason as problems start to
emerge, we can -- as staff we assess those problems, and then we can
advise the board that, yes, we need -- we're seeing some disturbing
trend in this particular area or that particular area. An example --
and I don't want to be too melodramatic, but if you look at the
Everglades system in Viscayne Bay, some of the information there is
very akin to what we're starting to see in our estuarian system with
regard to seagrass protection. Seagrass has become an indicator of
development and disturbance of the natural system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we --
MR. LORENZ: If we don't have baseline data to be able to
check periodically against to see whether we have an improving trend
or a deteriorating trend, we can't initiate programs or make
recommendations to the board to protect our natural resource assets.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a follow up to Commissioner
Hac'Kie's question, I mean, during this year's budget hearings -- and
I've done this in the past -- is I've asked our staff members to step
me through the process, and they will tell me they go out and
physically get in a boat, and they drive out, and they get their
samples, and they come back, and they test them in the lab, and they
get the results. And that's where it always ends. What do you do
with those results, and what I hear you saying is when a problem
arises, we'll have something there. But that is probably more
properly said if a problem arises we'll have that.
And I'm wondering -- you know, there are all kinds of
things we can do in case hypothetically something happened in the
future. And some of those are environmental issues. Some of those
are growth issues. Some of those are fiscal issues. But we can't do
that for everything. At some point you go what's the return on it.
And I have been very, very frustrated because every single time I've
asked -- there has been at least a half a dozen times -- our staff can
very carefully walk me through the collection process but has never
been able to tell me when or how they've used that information. It
goes on a shelf somewhere.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the information is very easily -- for
instance, in the Clam Bay NRPA, we can look at the data that's
collected within that NRPA and then compare it against elsewhere in
the county. And so when we compare that information, let's say for
nutrients, elsewhere in the other esturarian systems, that becomes a
reference point for us. Without that other information we can't tell
you in the context of Clam Bay how it compares with other county
systems.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So once we knew that -- once -- say
you gave us a report that system X compared to the Clam Bay NRPA base
point doesn't look so hot, what permit applications or what decisions
does this board have to make in which it would utilize the information
that you have available? Because we don't do -- I mean, the state
does that permitting on those systems. Why do I need it? Why do I
need the information?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why doesn't the state --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's still there.
MR. LORENZ: As we go through the growth management plan, you
will see a number of policies and objectives that have been developed
throughout the years. Those policies and objectives in terms of
recommending certain programs such as, for instance, the neighborhood
yards program which is in a past EAR report, that's indicative of the
fact that in some of the data that we've seen indicates an increasing
trend of nutrient concentrations in our estuarian systems.
That's a program that we want to be able to recommend to the board
that becomes initiated, and we raised that -- and as we look at it, we
raise that level of awareness to the board through a variety of
different mechanisms, whether it's a particular problem that comes in
front of the board or even in the growth management plan.
You probably recall in the EAR report that we developed
a condition and summary of the natural resources. The information
there that we gathered in the past is helpful for us to engage in
dialogue with some of the citizens groups or on the citizens advisory
committees to say we either -- we think that we need to go further in
these particular programs or we're okay. We'll come up with
information, for instance, on the habitat protection standards that
we're currently developing. The board gave us direction to do a
voluntary incentive-based effort. We've been working through the data
gathering effort of habitat loss in the county. Now, that information
is probably going to show that we're doing a fair job in protecting
some of the more sensitive habitats.
You may say that, well, if we're doing a fair job, why do we
need to collect that information. And I'd argue that gives you
information to be able to feel confident when you make a decision that
there is not a problem and you have a good data baseline. So it works
both ways. And the database that we're collecting -- Commissioner
Constantine said, you know, what's the point of return? That is a
very tough decision that staff makes many times administratively. How
much resources of our budget do we spend, if you will, on basic data
research? And there is an assessment that I will make that would be
different from what somebody else will make. But I guess what I'm
saying, my professional judgment is that we're not doing enough of
that as it stands to build a very good database for the county to look
at in the future. And we need to at least maintain our existing
resources, staff resources, to be able to provide that information so
that the board has good information to make good judgements and
decisions on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lorenz, I said many times that we
are stewards of our residents' tax dollars. And we're faced every
year with hundreds and thousands of good ideas that will go unfunded
because there simply isn't enough tax money nor should there be to
fund every good idea that comes down the pike. I share Commissioner
Constantine's and Commissioner Mac'Kie's frustration with the
start-to-finish concept of funding any idea. You have said the word
program about a dozen times. If there's one thing that good
republicans these days fear is the word program, much less the word
new program.
Do we need medical attention for somebody in the audience?
I'll give you an example of where. It's not -- and
understand -- and the Clam Bay NRPA I worked very closely with your
staff, and I have nothing but the highest regard for Mac Hatchet and
Dick Hartwell and yourself. You guys do a fantastic job. I found it
unusual, though, that when they assembled our own staff in a room to
address an environmental issue that the citizenry required that we go
out and get other experts. Yet -- we couldn't use our county staff
for the function that you had asked us to fund which is as a source, a
resource of experts. You know, I look at Mac Hatchet and his
qualifications yet every time he said something it was refuted by
someone in, you know, the environmental area. And I'm thinking why
are we spending tax dollars to pay a man whose qualifications are
excessive for this level of determination, yet we can't listen to him?
So that's the situation like it or not. And the examples
that I come up with are when the bottom samples of the canal sediments
showed levels that were unusual and extremely high, it wasn't this
board that stepped up and said there's an environmental problem;
We're going to spend tax dollars to fix it. More sampling was done by
the state. This board took no action nor do I think needed to or
should have.
Clam Bay, the NRPA, the idea of the NRPA is to give
individual attention to areas of unique environmental character and to
take action that protects those areas. Like it or not, depending on
which side of the fence you sit regarding Clam Bay or the NRPA in
total, it's not happening. So the idea of producing more natural
resource protection areas when we have a difficult time funding the
one that we have is not something that sways me.
The bottom line is that if we see an environmental trend and
a problem, it's not this board's role traditionally to step in and use
county tax dollars to fix every single environmental problem that
comes down the pike. It is our job, however, to determine if possible
what the source is and to seek remedy from that source. So when it
goes on the shelf -- that's all it's done in the past. And even when
there's been a problem, this board has not stepped up traditionally
nor will it in the future, my guess would be, to be the champion of
every environmental problem that occurs in Collier County.
So the argument of continuing staffing at a level so we can
continue to gather information that in the past we haven't used just
doesn't work. And it's not your fault or the fault of the individuals
in your department. It's just the way the relationship works.
There are -- I have specific questions on specific areas in
this presentation, and I would like to hit on a couple of those if I
may. Number four, the estuarian management program where -- and it
says here, you wrote, "We planned on updating and completing the
estuarian management plan," in other words a plan that is incomplete
that has not been finished; is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: It's pretty much finished with the exception of
this -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We were going to update it and
pursue grants to do that? That's kind of an expansion on what we've
done in the past, so we're taking an expansion and calling it a cut.
What it is is an elimination of an expanded concept. So I don't see
that as a cut. We're just not going do something that you had
intended on doing with grant funds.
Number five, public information. As far as public
presentations other than what I've seen at Coastland Hall, which again
was a great display, and your staff put a lot of time into, can you
give me a couple of examples? Where have we been in the last 12
months publicly to reach a lot of people and do a lot of good in the
environmental arena?
MR. LORENZ: We were part of the Bay Day's clean up. We had
a number of individuals that put on presentations and took part in
that. The Conservancy's Eco Expo Week we consistently worked with
that, the state's fair. We worked on during the fall the Coastal
Cleanup Days.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said the state fair that's held in
MR. LORENZ: I mean, excuse me, the Collier County Fair.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The county fair.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lorenz, the Bay Days or the
Coastal Cleanup, those are volunteer activities. I mean, a budget cut
isn't going to cut into doing Bay Days. We -- you know -- we get the
word out but that's all public service announcements that are provided
free on radio and television and newspaper.
MR. LORENZ: We have our staff working, you know, plus they
do a good average of 24 to 40 hours for that particular effort in
making preparation, doing coordination work, working with the
citizens, working with the other agencies that are putting it on.
we're actively involved in that kind of effort.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've served the purpose of giving me
examples, and I question the specific role of our natural resources
department as being a lead group in some of those, and particularly
Bay Days is a chamber function if I'm not mistaken. Again, I don't
question the involvement, but if the money is not there, that's not
something that is going to, you know, terribly constrain or alter
Collier County.
Number six, environmental data collection and analysis. You
said staff will not be able to adequately collect, analyze, and
present natural resources information. You know, we kind of talked
about that. So far we've collected and we've presented, but we have
yet to act on. So the collection and presentation seems to be moot if
there's no following action on those.
Special projects, our ability to provide support for special
projects will be extremely limited. You mention an exotics management
study. We have an ordinance for exotics removal. Why are we doing an
exotics management study if we already have an ordinance that says if
you develop you've got to remove them? You know, can you help me with
that?
MR. LORENZ: There is a -- it's two phased. One is looking
at the exotics that are on, if you will, publicly-owned land and how
much it contributes to the problem in Collier County. Secondly, there
are some areas for improvement even at the regulatory, permitting, and
the compliance process for exotics -- requiring exotics removal in the
county. This is something being identified by a subcommittee of
EPTAB, and we're providing support to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a couple of others in here,
but I guess what I'm getting is that when we wake up the morning after
the budget is approved and for six months thereafter, I don't think
there will be a noticeable change in the way in which operations occur
throughout Collier County nor an impact -- a significant impact on the
environment, because although your department has done monitoring,
there's really not been county action that follows that monitoring of
any substance. So the real impact doesn't seem to be there. And
although we have experts on staff, our own citizens won't count them
as experts and use them as they should be used.
So in a year where we have gone to the length of making
a $500,000 reduction in the Collier County public health unit budget,
to turn around and reinstate $120,000 into the natural resources
department and leave that budget the way it is, to me would be a
priority decision that I'm not willing to make today. I am more than
happy to hear from the public speakers, but I think it's important
that they at least know where I stand going into that discussion.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got -- before we go to public
speakers, could I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. HCNEES: You have five.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd just like to say one quick thing.
Commissioner Hancock, you're absolutely right. We are the stewards
of the public taxpayers' dollars, but we are also the stewards of the
natural resources that this county has and the environment. And it's
the very natural resources and the environmental situation that we
have in Collier County; the birds, the flowers, the trees, the very
beautiful surroundings that we have that makes the quality of life we
have here what it is.
Now, in my experience just in the last three or four months
in dealing with the Lake Trafford fish kill, the primary source of
data that we've been able to use in determining the degradation that
has occurred in that lake has come from our own natural resource
department because they collected this data. It's data that we can go
back and historically look at what was happening at given points of
time when algae blooms of larger proportion than normal happened and
what were the readings subsequent to that. I mean, we are using the
data. It may sit on a shelf, yes, until it's needed, but when it's
needed it's there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Matthews, I really and
genuinely am trying to understand this. And there's a practical
example that you have experience with. But once you examined that
data, what would this county -- what jurisdiction do we have to do
anything with it? We don't do those -- we don't make those decisions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- I'm sorry, but I disagree. We
may not make the decision in the end to spend nine or ten million
dollars to demuck Lake Trafford. That may be true, but the data that
has been gathered over the last many years regarding that lake will be
used to justify seeking federal and state grants to demuck that lake
and clean it up and restore the bass in that lake that died. I mean,
tens of thousands of fish -- you guys saw them. And one of the
primary sources of data that the restoration committee is using is the
very information Mr. Lorenz is talking about. On the estuary, and
he's talking about salt water. The lake happens to be fresh water. I
mean -- but the data is being used.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, please.
MR. HCNEES: The first would be Judy Leinweber.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We would like to remind our public speakers
who possibly may not have appeared before us before that we ask that
you keep your comments to five minutes, please.
MS. LEINWEBER: I always do. Judy Leinweber. We're talking
about the exotics, and its public land. I hope this is a red light to
our county commissioners. Butt Saunders and his green space, he wanted
to buy up more land for -- state land for the county. If we're
arguing about the exotics now and who is going to pay for them and
they're tapping our county commissioners for money now, what's going
to happen when we get thousands upon thousands more acres, and we have
more melaleucas and exotics that we have to take care of? This is
only the beginning. This is going to be a money pit that our county
commissioners are going to be putting our taxpayers' money into.
We have public land already now that we can't even take care
of. Now, Butt Saunders wants to do green space and get more public
lands. Pretty soon we're going to have to be putting more money into
taking out the exotics than we are anything else in Collier County.
That's all I have to say. It's a money pit.
MR. HCNEES: Bradley Cornell followed by Michael Simonik.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell,
and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I need
to tell you that Collier County Audubon Society is opposed to any
budget reductions which would reduce the ability of Collier County to
implement its growth management plan through the natural resources
department and the pollution control department. The county has not
been successful in implementing some of the most important programs
for natural resource protection. With the present budget any
reduction certainly will be even more detrimental.
Regarding what actions should be taken by the Board of County
Commissioners in response to deteriorating data trends, Commissioner
Hancock implies that the state and other agencies are the people we
should look to for those solutions. Well, I personally would like to
see our local government leaders take a much more proactive role in
caring for our tremendous local natural resources. There is nothing
that prevents us from being better stewards than the state. Thank you
very much.
MR. HCNEES: Michael Simonik.
MR. SIHONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My
name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy coordinator for
the Conservancy. I'm here speaking on behalf of our 5,300 members that
have increased by 400 members in the last of couple months our 400
volunteers, and our 30 member board of directors. Obviously, we
oppose the cuts in the natural resources budget as well as the
pollution control.
Bradley stated some of the things that I wanted to talk
about. I guess bottom line is -- you're all talking about the bottom
line. The bottom line is does this county want to protect its
environmental resources? Do we want to monitor the resources that we
have? It was just out in the paper today that we're one of the
fastest growing counties in the state. That's development in this
county. And the reason we have to monitor the natural resources is
because we developed. If nobody lived here we wouldn't need to
monitor the resources.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, again, this is a genuine
question, and we're seeking an answer. What do we do once we have the
data? Where --
MR. SIHONIK: The data serves as either, hey, we're okay.
Nothing is going wrong. We're going good. We can allow development.
We're doing it the right way. We're developing it in a proper way so
that we're not impacting those natural resources. What we're looking
for is a red flag. Whoa, why did that nutrient shoot up? What's
going on there? Do we need to look at it more? That's the issue.
It's a red flag that we're looking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then --
MR. SIMONIK: If there are no red flags, we all should be
happy that those things are shelved. We should be very glad that
we're putting those reports on the shelf and not opening them up and
saying, look what we're doing to our environment. That's the whole
point. It's a red flag.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if the flag were waved, what this
county commission could do would be not -- would be what?
MR. SIMONIK: Would you support the remediation of a problem
-- at least support protecting the environment to try to get support
from the state agencies, federal governments, grants and that kind of
thing? I mean --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just point out how
effective our monitoring has been. Lake Trafford we've been
monitoring, you tell me, for years. We didn't notice anything until
thousands of fish died. Pelican Bay we've been monitoring for years.
We didn't notice anything until the mangroves died. And so our
monitoring is not doing what you're saying it's doing. We're spending
money. We're putting it on a shelf, and we're not doing anything with
it.
MR. SIMONIK: Maybe we're not doing enough monitoring to find
out. That's the point. If anything we urge that there be more
programs to monitor what's in the environment and going on in the
environment, and then we could catch them before hand. If anything
we'd like to urge to increase what the budget has been instead of cut
back in half or 40 percent. The bottom line is -- you know, is this
commission willing to protect this county's natural resources. And as
my mom taught me, if there's a will there's a way, and I just urge
this commission to find a way to protect our natural resources.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Glad you said that because what I'm hearing
here today is something that doesn't logically follow and that is that
everybody is making the case that the ability of our natural resources
department to adequately fulfill its mission is directly related to
the dollars, and that's what we're disagreeing with you on. I think
we're all interested in our natural environment, the protection
thereof, and if we get the job done to the standards that we want it
done, then it's up to the county commission to decide how many dollars
we should expend doing that. But you, in particular, and some of the
other people as well have made the case that it's directly related to
the dollar. And I'm saying that's probably not the case, because we
will get the job done one way or the other, and it's up to this
commission to decide how it gets done.
MR. SIMONIK: I would agree with you that it's not connected
to the dollar, and if that's the point -- it's not the point that
we're losing personnel and staff. It's the point that programs are
going to be diminishing -- the protection of the environment is going
to be diminished by losing those dollars. If that's not the case,
then that's great. But we don't believe that that's the case that
we're not going to lose some part of environmental protection by
cutting those dollars.
And can we hold you to that that it's going to be protected,
that you think that the funding level that you're using is adequate
protection and monitoring and data analysis and public information
about what is going on and when we find out? So that's what we want
to know. And you're saying it's adequate. Can we hold you to that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Simonik, what is the annual budget
for the Conservancy?
MS. LEINWEBER: Federal money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Leinweber, I'm going to have to
ask you to please keep your comments to yourself.
MR. SIHONIK: I'd like to answer the public response. We do
not accept any federal money, state tax dollars, and we do get, I
think, a mere eighty-five hundred dollars for the turtle monitoring
which somehow pays for four interns and one full-time staff. Our
budget is just over $2 million with 30 full-time staff and about 20
interns.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I fully understand. When we were
discussing environmental issues, the Conservancy brings to bear
everything it has, all of its members and all of its issues and so
forth because that is your main priority. That is your focus.
However, Collier County government looks at our natural resources
department and sees although an important function, a small facet of
an overall greater responsibility. And how it integrates into what
action this board can take and must take is an important decision for
us to make. It's not simply expending enough money or not spending
enough money. We could restore this budget, and two months from now
there will be a public comment by the Conservancy that we're not doing
enough. No matter what we do it's not enough for the Conservancy.
it's difficult to put that in perspective in your comments today
particularly in light of your annual budget versus ours for natural
resources.
MR. SIHONIK: Five thousand three hundred family members
believe that what the county -- is not enough. We exist because not
enough is being done. If there was everything being done we wouldn't
have 5,300 family members, well over 10,000 people, agreeing that not
enough is being done. That's what they pay us to do with their own
individual monies out of their pocket. It's all private donations,
because they don't believe enough is being done. That's the point.
Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Sewell Corkran
MR. CORKRAN: For the record I'm Sewell Corkran from Olde
Naples. I am speaking for myself. But for a number of years in the
1970s I was the president of the Collier County Audubon Society, and I
spent a great many years on what was then called the Collier County
Coastal Planning Commission and I was an officer on that commission.
I do have some interest and some expertise in these matters. And I
also have some interest and expertise in the state laws, and I am
going to give you some specifics on things you have to do. You have
been after the speakers prior to me and Mr. Lorenz. You make surveys
and studies, and they go on the shelf.
It's astounding to me that you can take this position
and within another hour you are going to vote to reinstate the
agricultural exception in the area of critical concern lands that are
lands that are in private hands not for sale to the public. These
lands are 18,460 acres. To give you and the public some idea of the
area, that is twice the size of the land area of the City of Naples.
It is eight times the size of Pelican Bay.
The minute you reinstate and it's approved by the DCA -- and
it will be; I know the law -- what you are doing is you upgraded the
county laws on the environment and so forth, and now you're falling
back to the state's standards. You're entitled to that. But here are
the consequences for the natural resources department. They are real.
They are every day.
Without the agriculture exception only eighteen hundred acres
can be cleared in that area. With the agriculture exception there are
18,460 acres that are possibly to be cleared. That won't happen. It
may be 80 percent of them. I'm holding in my hand -- and I'm going to
give Mr. McNees or the manager -- the state and county regulations.
These are eight pages of small print of the duties of Collier County
in examining the land before clearing, examining the land during
clearing, examining the land after, monitoring that land. It is a
monumental job, and it will require expertise in many areas; water,
habitat and so forth. There's an awful good reasons for beefing up,
not cutting back on natural resources if you really have the intention
to carry out the law in the area of critical concern.
And I want to conclude by telling you that I'm not a
member of a focus group but I followed their efforts, and I have
attended their meetings, and their really number one priority
expressed by the people of this community is that the environment be
protected. And it's all well and good, and I commend you for saving
taxpayers' dollars, but I think to say we're really here. In fact,
they would tell you that they would be glad to pay a little more to
get the protection. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Corkran, and maybe it's a question
for Mr. Lorenz, but there's nothing on Mr. Lorenz' what-will-be-cut
sheet that relates to the area of critical state concern. It doesn't
appear from the cuts that he has proposed in response to our budget
reduction that he has recommended any changes in that area.
MR. CORKRAN: It is very obvious that it is not possible to
monitor and comply with the state law and to comply with the county
code without having a larger force with more expertise than you have.
Who is going out in November to check 5,000 acres that are going to be
cleared under 40 different codes of the county and be cross checked
with 30 from the state under the law 27F37
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that that's code enforcement
department and the permitting review department. I don't think those
are related. And just for what it's worth, I think there are other
employees of the county who do that work.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Corkran.
MR. CORKRAN: I'd like to find them.
MR. MCNEES: The next speaker would be Peace Leilani Maluhia.
Ms. Maluhia.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just impressed you got through
that one, Mr. McNees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a pretty name.
MR. MCNEES: I don't know if I did it right. Peace Leilani
Maluhia.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please speak on the microphone and identify
yourself.
MS. MALUHIA: I don't need a microphone.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, you do. You need to be on the
microphone for the record.
MS. MALUHIA: Oh, I'm being recorded, is that it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself?
MS. MALUHIA: Native American people don't need things to
make them stronger. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a racial comment?
MS. HALUHIA: That's a positive statement that native
American people don't need anything to make themselves stronger.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Everyone else does, but you don't? Please
identify yourself for the record.
MS. HALUHIA: Okay. My name is Peace Lelani Haluhia de Lapas
(phonetic). I was born here in south Florida. I live here in Collier
County in Immokalee. I've read this information here, and I notice
that none of you were born here in south Florida, so I come here to
educate you people who have chose to live in my home paradise. I also
see that your background -- none of your background is in environment
or organic farming, that you come from missile guidance and political
science and urban planning and law and real property. So these are
areas that you have more expertise than me, and I'll be glad when it's
appropriate to learn from you.
Stop raping my mother, my mother, Mother Nature. Stop
violating the laws of Mother Earth. I speak for the flora and the
fauna, the sea turtles and the dolphin, the crocodile and the blue
heron, the egret and the pelican, the osprey and the Florida panther
and the Florida deer and the manatee and the mangroves. I speak for
all our children, the winged ones and the four-footers and the
two-footers, human beings. For their rights, children born or who
will be born. I speak for the clean air that they need to breathe and
the pure water that they need to drink and the healthy topsoil in
which we need to grow their food.
I bless and forgive anybody for their ignorance, the naive
and the innocents, but we are violating what is known as Turtle
Island. Amongst the aborigine people of the world, this part of the
earth that is from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean is called
Turtle Island. And the reason that is is because turtles come on the
Pacific Ocean, what is now known as California and Oregon and
Washington coast and Baja California, and over here what is now known
as Florida, the east coast and the gulf coast, and the turtles deliver
their eggs there.
I understand that you folks don't remember the '50s, the
early '50s and the '60s because you weren't here. But I remember, and
I remember hundreds of dolphins in the coast here. And I remember
thousands of blue heron and egrets in the sky. I remember this, and
this is true. And I remember that we didn't put out the fires and so
there was green shoots for the white tipped tail to eat and that the
panthers were there. And now I don't see deer, and I don't see
panthers when I come back and forth between Corkscrew and here and
between Corkscrew and Immokalee and up and down the Everglades.
So if I was to come to where you live which you mentioned,
Madam Commissioner, that you were in New York and that New York was
horrid smells I think you said. Well, New York used to be a forest,
and I don't want to go to where you're from and try to change that. I
would come here and listen to what the people here say. Now, in
Immokalee Madam Commissioner Matthews has been very supportive, and I
see you all as angels, and you represent all of us. And we're all
children of the same earth.
So in Hawaii where I lived for 15 years to study from my
Hawaiian relatives, there is more than 50 percent extinction of
endangered species, plant and animal life, fifty percent of these
animals, certain species of owls and fish and kinds of dolphins that
will no longer ever live on the planet. For me, as a native American
person, a developer is a person who wants to live only 50, 60, 70
years. My teachers live 150, 175 years. They don't shave. They
don't wear unnatural garments. I myself, you know, live a certain
lifestyle where I grow my own food, and I have never gotten gray hair,
and I'm older than all of you. And I've never had a wrinkle or cavity
or glasses, and I choose to live this lifestyle.
We are in this artificial building with artificial air and
artificial lights. Now, some day we will all have to live like this,
and we will have no other choice unless we allow paradise to be as it
was. So I invite you to get away from your microwaves and your
florescent lights and your televisions and your fear and learn from
the people who are here. Thank you. Is that a timer? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MALUHIA: Okay. Thank you. I'm listed as Peace de Lapas
in the phone book if anybody wants to learn the way Florida was and
could be.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Eddie Filet.
MR. FILER: My name is Eddie Filet. I want to thank you for
letting me be here. First of all, I want to say I'm not very smart
when it comes to how government works, but it seems to me like cutting
the budget to preserve the environment is wrong. We have -- it
doesn't make any sense to me to cut the budget. I read in the paper
every day about all of the terrible things that are happening in this
county. The mangroves are dying, and the Everglades are dying, and it
seems to me like that if -- we should be spending more money on the
environment instead of less.
There are more people coming into Collier County every day,
and these people bring more money with them, and this money goes into
the county coffers. It seems to me like we should have more money to
preserve the environment instead less of it. We need money to test
our water, the air, and monitor the soil. Every -- all around us we
have poisons that seep into our land and into our waters.
I'm not a politician, but it seems to me like the trend has
been in recent years to cut costs to all the things that are essential
to our survival. Our land is being taken over by developers, and many
times they don't even care what they're doing. They don't care
whether we have a quality of life or not. The main thing seems to be
to make more money. I don't want to be political, but in the last two
years it seems like the enemies of justice for the environment are
getting away with murder. They are murdering Mother Earth and our
future generations.
I don't mind paying a few extra dollars to pay for the
environment, and I shouldn't think that anyone else would mind paying
a few extra dollars. After all what is money for anyway? We can't
take it with us when we die. I have a dollar in my hand right now.
If every homeowner in the county would contribute a dollar, we would
soon have a $120,000 to preserve the environment.
All around us there are poisons. And it doesn't -- don't the
people in this county care what's going on? Our stores are full of
pesticides and chemicals, and these poisons, they end up everywhere in
our environment. Our landfills are overflowing with junk and, human
beings must not even care what they are doing to our surroundings.
Everywhere you look we see a golf course which is responsible for much
pollution. At one time these golf courses were beautiful forests, and
they were homes to animals and birds. And now people go out on these
golf courses which are kept green by chemicals.
I don't like to spend a lot of money to clean up the mess
that other selfish people cause either, but somebody has to do it.
And we should all do what we can to make this a better world by stop
using all these poisons and chemicals. If we stop using them, we
wouldn't have to have meetings like this. We wouldn't have to spend
money to keep the environment pure and clean. It's everyone's
responsibility to do something. In your own private lives you can do a
lot. You can stop using poisons and chemicals and pesticides. I've
lived on my land for ten years, and I've never used one chemical on
it, and everybody that comes to see me say that I have a paradise
where I live.
We usually think of taxes in millions and billions of
dollars. What is $120,000. It's nothing but chicken feed compared to
what we spend on other things. There's lots of things that we spend
money on in our county that are unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned,
preserving the environment is not wasting money, because we are
wasting money if we don't do anything. Well, I just want to say thank
you, and we should all do what we can to save the environment. MR. MCNEES: Your last speaker is Mary Chenery.
MS. CHENERY: I'm Mary Chenery, and I don't -- I'm not here
to change your mind. I don't believe I could. But you did ask a
question what is done by the information that's gathered. I monitor
the EPTAB meetings, and one EPTAB meeting when the Clam Bay was hit in
the papers and everybody was concerned, and I believe Mr. Hancock was
the one that came up with an appropriation of 45,000 to do something
with the situation. And at that EPTAB meeting, several of them made
recommendations of things that could be done and should be done. And
Bill Lorenz got all excited and said but we can't. We have $45,000.
That's all we have and so all we can do is work on the exotics. So I
just thought you might want to know. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: No more speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I find it unfortunate that so many
speakers have said I'd gladly pay to protect the environment as if
reinstating $120,000 will make the trees grow taller or the water
cleaner or that there are material affects that are going to be
directly correlated to what is going to be affected here, and I just
-- it's unfortunate that those statements are being made because
they're erroneous.
The trees are no better off. The water is no cleaner because of the
testing and monitoring we have done. The isolated cases in which we
can find a use for that information has not been something that the
Board of County Commissioners upheld or had jurisdiction over and, you
know, I just don't understand how the direct correlation of money and
a better environment is the only relationship that's be counted here.
The relationship should be to focus on those areas that are under the
jurisdiction of county government that this board can have a material
affect on and so address ourselves specifically to those areas, not to
take a shotgun approach and pretend that we are, in fact, the stewards
of every living thing in Collier County, because we're not. We
weren't elected to run out and test every gallon of water and every
acre of land to make sure that things are okay. That's not a function
of county government.
Ma'am, you've had your chance to speak, and I'm sorry.
Ma'am, due to decorum everyone is allowed five minutes.
MS. MALUHIA: But --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ma'am, I'm sorry. Everyone has had
their five minutes, please.
MS. HALUHIA: But where do I go? That's what I want to know.
Who do I go to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you keep that up probably out in
the hall. Everyone has had their five minutes, please.
So I just don't see the correlation of dollars to Collier
County to being better next year. If we're going to focus our
resources on something, let's do it where we can have an impact, and I
don't see the areas that are being affected as those areas that have
had a significant beneficial impact to the environment. Therefore, I
don't find that removal of most of these to have any material effect,
and I'm going to support the continuation of what was recommended in
the budget discussions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Lorenz a question here. We
seem to have gotten a lot of comments of -- even though it was denied
by one the speakers, it seems to be that the feeling is that the
dollars are directly related to the protection of the environment.
But, you know, Mr. Lorenz, we have great faith in you as an
administrator of your department, and the bottom line question is
would you be able to do a responsible job? Are you going to do a
responsible job of protecting Collier County's environment with the
funds as proposed for your department?
MR. LORENZ: We have very good staff. Well, certainly the
staff members that would be left over will be doing just as good of a
job, I think, as they have done in the past which I commend them for.
I think they've done a very good job. I think that the department --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we agree with you by the way on that.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you. I believe the budget cut does reduce
our ability to provide information to the board to take actions in the
future that will have a benefit effect, whether those actions are
under your direct jurisdiction or whether those actions are to direct
staff to move in this direction to look for private or state grants or
something like that. I think that that particular effort is
jeopardized.
One of the speakers mentioned that we don't have staff that
are out doing enforcement or compliance. That's not our task in the
natural resources department. However, that is a task that is funded
through the development services or planning services department, and
we recognize that one of the problem areas -- and that's why we've got
the exotic management study -- is to some degree compliance is the
problem. I know the administrator, Mr. Cautero, has been looking at
some other types of direction for the department. He may want to
speak to you about some direction that does have more of a direct
benefit within your jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. My point is that I think all of the
board members, assuredly, as well as most of the public are what we're
really interested in is the responsible protection of our environment
in Collier County. We're unique here. We have a very diverse
environment, and we're all concerned with the protection of that. The
issue is not raw numbers of dollars. The issue is the responsible
protection of our environment, and that's what the Board of
Commissioners is left to deal with.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess it just boils down --
I agree in general terms with most of what Commissioner Hancock has
said. Almost every single speaker prefaced or somewhere in their
comments asked the questions do you want to protect our environment?
And I think all five of us will say, yes. And the point is quite
simply that this money isn't the difference between protecting or not
protecting the environment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Lorenz or Mr. Cautero, whoever is
appropriate, my -- I agree with what has been said here, because I am
unable to see -- we keep drawing that rational nexus every time I see
you, Mr. Cautero -- but to see a nexus between the expenditure of
dollars and the results in our environment. And what I would ask you
to do is to bring forward programs that require -- if budget
amendments are necessary that they be included in what you proposed to
us, but that you propose a program that we're going to monitor this
area for this reason to do this. Bring it to us. I'll be supportive
when what you bring is something that has an actual translation for
expenditure of dollars results in positive protection or enhancement
of the natural resources of Collier County. If you'll propose those,
I'll support them. I just can't support this general.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excellent comment.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. I appreciate the remarks
that Commissioner Hac'Kie just made and the Commissioner's concerns in
general. I've talked to Bill about this at great length and the
members of the environmental community, if you will, as a broad term,
and I've issued staff a challenge. I've kind of taken things from a
little different tactic or reviewed them a little differently and that
is I want to be able to show you the connection between the natural
resource protection efforts and how it affects growth management,
economic development, and those types of things.
And our economic development plan consultants that you're
going to be hearing from in the coming months have talked about this
at great length with us. They want to be able to show people how they
can sell Collier County, the greater Naples area, if you will, what a
good place it is to come and do business and why businesses should
stay here, and that's one of the components that they want to use, the
environment, the natural resource protection, if you will. So the
challenge is how does the natural resource protection efforts increase
property values in Collier County. How does it affect the average
homeowner? How does it affect business? And that's one of the
challenges I've given them to come back for you for next year. I want
to be able to quantify it. You have a lot of unanswered questions.
Not to belabor the issue, but that's the effort that we're heading in.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I think that's what the board would
like to hear back from you at a future date, Mr. Cautero. In the
meantime, Commissioner Matthews, I think you have some more comments,
and we'd like to wrap this up.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'd like to wrap it up also and
especially based on what Mr. Cautero just said in working with the
development community and so forth to find ways to show that
environmental issues and the natural resource department can work and
will work hand in hand with the development groups in the county. I am
truly endorsing what he's saying. And in order to give him the
resources that he needs to make that happen as soon as he can make it
happen and as soon as the staff can meet the challenge that he's
posed, I am going to make a motion that we do restore the $100,000 to
the natural resource department and that we direct Mr. Cautero to
include that in the rational nexus where he proposes that all level
one funding can come from the permit process.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for that motion?
That motion fails for lack of a second. Is there a
substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, without further board action I
believe the -- what has been presented to us stands. So I'm not sure
unless there is something other than what has been presented --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're correct, but I just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if it's a form of a
motion, but I just think if we want to ratify what Mr. Cautero just
said he'd like to go and do, I think that's a good idea. The
direction he has set is a good one, and if staff can go and do that
and bring back the connection, then we all benefit.
I think as Commissioner Mac'Kie said if he can bring back
some things that can rationally be explained out, and we can see the
benefit -- you know, we're trying to protect the environment. We're
trying to protect the pocketbook, and if we can connect the two, I
think the whole board will support it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That burden hasn't been met up
today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We will come back then at one
o'clock. We have a time certain for Item 12(C)(4), and we'll take a
lunch break until then.
(A lunch break was taken from 12:01 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.)
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 96-40, RESCINDING ORDINANCE 83-7 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND TO
APPROVE A NEW ORDINANCE, THE "COLLIER COUNTY PERSONNEL ORDINANCE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will reconvene the county
commission meeting. We had a request to have a time certain for item
12(C)(4), a recommendation to rescind ordinance 83-7, the Collier
County personnel ordinance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just one other
agenda note. I think almost everybody that is still here is going to
be here on the Livingston Road item, and I wondered if we might
perhaps touch on that prior to getting into the millage rate and the
billing tax and all that stuff because I think those may be a
protracted debate. Just as a courtesy to the public, if we might do
those after the staff items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll certainly take that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine idea.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- under consideration. If we could
start on this item, please.
(Commissioner Hac'Kie entered the board room.)
MR. HCNEES: Miss Edwards.
MS. EDWARDS: For the record, my name is Jennifer
Edwards. I'm your human resources director. As you will recall in
March when we brought the pay plan item to you, Chairman Norris
initiated a discussion regarding our personnel policies and the
administration of those policies. At that time, you directed staff to
prepare an item to repeal ordinance 83-7 and to develop a new
ordinance which states that policy is the responsibility of the board,
and administration of that policy is the responsibility of the county
manager. My staff, along with the county attorney staff, has worked
over the last few months to develop this new ordinance, and I'm here
today to ask you to approve it and to rescind ordinance 83-7. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. EDWARDS: Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tell me what the -- Can you point out
for the record here, what is the substantive -- substantive
differences between the two?
MS. EDWARDS: Broad brush. The old ordinance speaks
specifically to the administration of the policies and specific
methodologies of administration. What our new ordinance does is speak
to the policy statements only, and it specifically states that the
manager is responsible for the administration, and that if there are
any changes to the policies, those changes will come back to you for
approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions for Miss Edwards?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Just a thank you for
following through and a motion -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there -- Are there speakers,
Mr. Chairman?
MR. MCNEES: There are no speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- If there's no speakers, why
did we wait until a time certain on this? Wasn't there a lady coming
to --
MR. MCNEES: Ms. Edwards was coming.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Edwards.
MS. EDWARDS: I asked for that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, Miss Edwards was coming. Oh,
okay, Miss Edwards. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's been hosting the --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
MS. EDWARDS: I'm hosting a conference, Florida Public
Personnel Association conference at the Marco Hilton -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: -- and this just helped me in order to
perform both tasks. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And on her behalf, she's not any
more tan than she was yesterday, so she must be working.
MS. EDWARDS: I'm working.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing then.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That carries. Thank you --
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- Miss Edwards.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION RE LIVINGSTON ROAD - NO ACTION
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe it was Commissioner
Constantine had requested instead of going to items 8(E)(1)(B) and
(1), [sic] that we might be able to satisfy the concerns of a lot of
people here by moving on to the Livingston Road project and be done
with it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any objection to that from
the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None from me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any objection.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I put this item on the
agenda, and -- and the reason is fairly simple. I think all of you
are familiar with it. The -- Livingston Road has been planned and has
had different scenarios along the way for when it was going to happen,
how it was going to happen. A couple of months ago Commissioner
Hancock suggested that we limit from six lanes down to four lanes,
that we -- we make that smaller, and -- and we justified that, and I
think the MPO went along with that. I've been working with some of
the residents, and I'm sure all of you have gotten letters and calls
and so on. But I've been working with some of the residents and their
attorney and -- and their engineer. They have taken the county's
numbers, our own statistics and run them through the computer model
and think that there may be an ample -- at the very least a delay in
the necessity for the road and perhaps a substantial delay for that.
So I just thought if we're looking -- I hate to go out and spend
$9 million on a road if it doesn't need to be built yet. We've been
struggling with how much the gas tax collects and how much it needs
and when on the calendar all that falls, and so I'd like to go through
the presentation on this. This is a fairly substantial road network,
impacts a lot of people, and I thought we ought to -- rather than
float around on the issue, we ought to have some sort of definitive
direction, and -- and today's an opportunity to do that. Rich
Yovanovich is the attorney who's been representing the homeowners and
I think who has worked with the engineers on this, and he can probably
do a better introduction than I can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask -- Mr. McNees, is --
is Mr. Perry going to be here, or is he in the room and I just haven't
spotted him?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't seen him.
MR. MCNEES: I just put the word out that this has been
advanced and for him to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We will need from our
staff, you know, some -- somebody available, and I assume he's the
right person.
MR. MCNEES: Adolfo Gonzalez is here, and I think he can
probably help with some of the questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I just didn't know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And just to hopefully put things
in perspective, there are really two matters here, and the one before
us today really is the timing of this roadway. The second matter
which is something unfortunately due to the Sunshine law I couldn't
walk into Commissioner Constantine's office and say, where are you,
how are you doing, what are you doing on this. And we relied on some
little birdies.
So I -- I understood that you were working on this
particular concept. In the meantime, I've been working on the actual
cross-section of the roadway with our office of capital projects
management, and many of you folks at Wyndemere have received copies of
what's been produced with the six-lane cross-section which was
originally produced was some 15 feet from the property line of the
western edge of the Wyndemere properties. By reducing to a four-lane
facility as the -- the HPO did and doing some other changes, we are
now some 50 feet from the property line at four-lane buildout and
that -- those -- Those economies can probably be increased to at least
increase the distance.
It appears today from the reports we received what we're
talking about is what year is this roadway needed and that we should
build it obviously when it's needed but not necessarily before that
time frame, and it may do us well to -- to, at least for today's
discussion purposes, focus on those aspects, and I -- I believe that's
the nexus of what Mr. Yovanovich is -- is presenting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Word of the day, "nexus."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Best word of the '90s.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the American version of
the Lexus, "nexus."
(Phone rings.)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ahh, there's Mr. Perry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe it's Jeff.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ask him to please come.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess maybe we can -- well --
Staff has seen your report.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I
-- just so you're clear, I've had this discussion with Jeff Perry for
at least the last 45 days, so this is not news to him. Nothing's
being -- nothing -- There's no surprise here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- And we have provided Mr. Perry
with a copy of our report and our backup data. I guess for the
record, Rich Yovanovich with Roetzel and Andtess. I'm not sure
everybody made it back from this morning, but as you can see, there's
a good majority of the people out in the audience that are from
Wyndemere and Briarwood and other neighborhoods that have an interest
in this and are glad to see the commission taking an opportunity to
discuss this. They're not going to speak on the issue. They just
would like -- If you would just allow them to raise their hands to
point out who's here to -- to address Livingston Road, and basically I
-- I think I can say that they're all here to say to the commission,
when you need Livingston Road, go ahead and build it, but at this
point we don't think you need it, so please slow down and let's look
at all the different issues that affect these different neighborhoods.
A lot of the concern has to do with how the project was
originally described to the residents and now how it's -- it's going
to be now. Originally we were told it was going to be a six-lane
roadway that was going to be a major thoroughfare through their
development and through Briarwood. We were happy to find out that the
commission is able to reduce the roadway to basically four lanes for
as long as that will hold out and if some day we -- Hopefully we'll
never have to do it, but if it has to go to six lanes, it will go to
six lanes.
We are not traffic engineers. I'm not a traffic
engineer, and I don't want to tell you how to operate your system.
what we did is we hired a traffic engineering firm to analyze and run
the county's model using the county's numbers because we did not want
to manufacture numbers so we could find out an answer we wanted to
hear. We wanted to know the truth. We wanted to know is Livingston
Road needed in 1997 as it was currently scheduled in the CIE and --
What -- What I'm handing out -- What I put together for
you is just a -- and for the record, Mike -- is a small packet,
including Barr, Dunlop's credentials. As traffic engineers, they have
a tremendous amount of experience in modeling traffic and analyzing
the traffic needs and flows.
I've also given you a copy of their report to the
Wyndemere residents. A copy of a recent article in the -- in the
paper dealing with one of the reasons for the franchise fees is to
help out with the roadway system.
And, finally, some scenarios that Barr, Dunlop ran to
determine whether or not Livingston Road is needed.
Barr, Dunlop will take you through -- Jack Barr with the
firm will take you through those different scenarios and share with
you the impact of not building Airport Road or building it in sections
so we can have some more information.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you mean to say Livingston Road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Livingston Road. What did I say?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Airport Road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Airport. Sorry. What we have been
told is that the whole reason to build Livingston Road is to relieve
this apparent failure of Airport Road. In brief summary of what our
report says is that there is a segment of Airport Road that will need
some relief in the year 2000, and that segment is from Radio Road to
Golden Gate Parkway. It will need some relief in the year 2000. The
remainder of Airport Road north to Immokalee Road will not need relief
until roughly the year 2020.
Now, Jack will take you through the scenarios, but
that's the bottom-line figures. From Golden Gate Parkway north to
Immokalee Road, you will not need any relief to Airport Road in order
to relieve a level of service deficiency in Collier County. Airport
Road will function fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Until 2020 on that northern
section?
MR. YOVANOVICH: On that northern section from Golden
Gate Parkway north.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And on the southern section, the
year was?
MR. YOVANOVICH: 2000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So four years?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Four years. The county's current comp
plan basically provides that when the road goes deficient, you will
start the actual construction. Up to that point, you will plan for
the road, you will design the road, and then when you go deficient,
you will actually build the road.
What we would like the county commission to do is follow
its currently adopted comp plan. Design the road for -- and start
constructing it when the roadway system goes deficient. In the
meantime, we have at least four years to address the one segment that
needs to be addressed. At that point, we can address the impact of
Livingston Road on existing neighborhoods and see how we can lessen
that impact on those neighborhoods and see what other alternatives are
out there.
So that's what we're here to ask you to do today, and --
and Mr. Barr will take you through the actual study and how he did the
study.
When we talked to Jeff Perry about our study, he was a
little concerned about the impact on Santa Barbara and also concerned
about the impact at the intersection of Radio Road and Airport Road.
Barr, Dunlop has gone back and addressed Mr. Perry's concern and has
looked at those -- that intersection as well as the impact on Santa
Barbara. And by postponing Livingston Road until it is actually
needed, there will not be a problem at that intersection or with Santa
Barbara meeting their adopted level of services.
What it all kind of boils down to is you could build --
Livingston Road is currently scheduled to be, you know, roughly 32, 36
lane miles of a roadway. You can build those 36 mile -- lane miles to
relieve that small section of Airport Road that will be deficient in
the year 2000, or you can build just roughly four lane miles in the
southern section of Livingston Road and in the year 2020 build another
roughly four lane miles on Airport Road, and you come to the same
place. You relieve any deficiency you have on Airport Road which,
again, is what we have been told is the issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Tell me what --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- four lane miles on Airport you're
referring to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The four lane miles you would need on
Airport would be from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. You
already are planning to six-lane up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. So you
would need a six-lane from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee which is
roughly, you know, four lane miles.
So that's where we stand right now in brief summary.
Jack will take you through the details of how he compared the county's
model, how he ran it in the different scenarios to show you what I
basically just told you in summary. If you have any questions for me
or for Jack, please feel free to answer [sic] them. Again, the people
from Wyndemere will not get up and repeat. Their basic premise is
when you need the road, build the road. Build it in the segments you
need them, and we believe that's consistent with the county's comp
plan and philosophy of building this roadway network to this point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As Mr. Dunlop's coming up, who --
who from our staff could tell me -- when we -- When we had these
approvals at HPO, when we analyzed this, we must have had some
studies. We must have had some recommendations from staff. I'd like
to know to what is Mr. Barr responding. What is -- What was the
premise of the county that now Mr. Barr has reexamined?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And why is there a 15-year
disparity in the need?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From what I've been told --
and you can either confirm this or not but -- is that a model wasn't
done without Livingston Road in there, and I think that's the
difference but -- Adolfo.
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with your capital
projects management office. I can't tell you what the assumptions
were, but as part of the MPO process in adopting your long-range or
financially feasible plan, there was, as I understand, a model
developed with different scenarios, widening this road, widening that
road, not do this road, not do that road, a series of combinations.
And if you go look at the financial -- the 2010 findings, you'll see
all those different scenarios worked out, and then the technical
advisory committee recommended the most -- the financially feasible
one which is the one you adopted. So as -- as I understand, on a --
on a macro level, it was based on some type -- some level of analysis
to say that, yes, this network -- this entire network arose -- needs
to be approved in these areas to make the entire network within the
county meet the concurrency needs, and then you said about adopting
that in your 2010 plan and then recently in your 2020 plan.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Adolfo, what -- what is the
trigger? When we look at a model and we push it out to a certain
year, does our road -- do we notice our roadway failing by segments?
In other words, I'm looking for the trigger. If we're pushing the
number up -- We're going along the curve, growth curve and all of a
sudden we have a failure. Does the model show that failure as a
failure of road X between roads Y and Z as a segment failure and then
we put the appropriate band-aid on to avoid that and then push the
model again? Is that the operation, or are you familiar enough with
it to answer that for me?
MR. GONZALEZ: You're pushing my levels of expertise in
this matter, but generally what they are looking for is how our
network performs within links of a highway corridor, and two
indicators would be the link itself from point A to point B and then
how it performs at those points, a point being an intersection. So I
-- Whether it -- the trigger is we have not met our level of service
at an intersection or we have not met our level of service between the
two links, I could not tell you that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's not just the road
segment, but an intersection can fail, and sometimes we have to -- we
may have to build road segments to keep intersections from failing?
Is that --
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. We have done that in the past,
Commissioner, and some of the analysis that the MPO has done for us
for Livingston Road prior to even starting the design portion of this
project was to show us that -- that if we need -- we may need the road
to alleviate traffic on other parallel corridors. It may be between
the link, or in the case of Airport Road, it also had to do with the
intersections of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport and Pine Ridge and
Airport as Mr. Yovanovich explained to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how many
alternative models were done without using the Livingston Road
corridor?
MR. GONZALEZ: No, I don't. I can get you an answer on
that though.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That's -- I think
that's an important point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is Mr. Perry on his way?
MR. MCNEES: We've put out a call for Mr. Archibald who
is filling in for Jeff today. Mr. Perry is on vacation, and Mr.
Archibald, I'm told, is on his way.
MR. GILLIS: Mr. Chairman, my name is Mark Gillis with
David Plummet and Associates. As you can recall, we're your general
traffic consultant, and we are the consultant on behalf of the Florida
DOT and the MPO on the 2020 plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is anybody -- Are you
representing anybody else on this issue as well?
MR. GILLIS: We are -- We did an analysis of the
Livingston Road issue -- two analyses. One, we reviewed Mr. Barr's
report.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. No. No. No. I don't
want to get into that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The simple question was, are
you representing anyone else in this particular issue today?
MR. GILLIS: Yes. Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. GILLIS: If you'd like, maybe I can provide a little
more information on what was done as part of the 2020 transportation
plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, we should probably hear
that from Mr. Archibald. I think that would be more appropriate
since --
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my vote. And then my
other question, Mr. Weigel, I guess, is assuming we've got information
today that would cause us to want to modify our 2010 or 2020
financially feasible plan, we do that here, or is it something to take
back to MPO? What -- If we should want to change the timing, are we
in the right forum?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're in the right forum to start
the process '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and I -- and I think that the decisions
or direction that you may give staff in regard to how to bring
something back through, whether the MPO has to be involved or not -- I
suspect it will -- you can give that direction today, but I -- I -- I
would expect that you probably don't make any ultimate substantive
determinative decision today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Let me -- Let me make a comment to '-
Thank you for that one, Mr. Weigel. Our -- Our resident expert on
this matter is Mr. Perry, and Mr. Perry is on vacation, and without
his input I'm certainly not going to feel comfortable making any kind
of decision today. If -- If we want --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy to hear the report.
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Well, I'd be glad to have some
discussion, but I don't think it's appropriate at all to try to make
any kind of decision today without Mr. Perry's input because he's the
one charged in the county with the responsibility for this long-range
planning.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I brought the item forward,
and all I expected was to have some sort of direction. This -- The
report that was passed on to me raised a question in my mind whether
or not the road corridor is necessary now. It likely will be at some
point. It raised a question now. I thought we needed to get that
forward to the board. It was in June when I put this on today's
agenda. We've awaited this time frame. I think we ought to hear the
report, and then if you're in agreement that it does raise a red flag
and maybe there's a question there, then we can give staff direction,
and I assume Jeff will be back in a week's time, and they can follow
that direction upon his return, but I don't want to stop hearing the
report or stop the process today.
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Okay. Well -- Well, that's fine
but '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I expected to get
out of today's hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My point is -- My point is that we're
only going to hear one side of it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- because the only person who really
can -- can substantiate or -- or refute what we're going to hear today
is Mr. Perry. He's the only one in that position. So without him
we're only going to hear one side of the story today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which I'm happy to hear for my
vote --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but I'm not going to be able
to have enough information to give staff direction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's my point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest that rather than
talking about talking about it, we go ahead and listen to what Mr.
Barr has to present. I do have some questions on -- on his report
that I can maybe get those answered, and I'm sure he'd be glad to
return it at a later date in -- in the forum that's necessary if we
need to make changes in the -- the scheduling. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Barr, please.
MR. BARR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners,
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is
Jack Barr of Barr, Dunlop and Associates. I want to clarify as I did
for Rich Yovanovich and -- and our clients that my position here today
and in dealing with this -- these issues is not to be an advocate for
delaying Livingston Road, nor is it to be an advocate for going ahead
with the development plans, construction plan for Livingston Road.
Rather, it is to provide you with information that's pertinent to your
decision on the -- on that and to provide information that resulted
from analysis work that we have done.
The reason we undertook the analysis work was because
Mr. Yovanovich and others with the Wyndemere group have asked us
certain questions as to what if there were a delay in Livingston Road
what would happen, what if a portion of it were built but not all of
that which is presently being proposed to be built under the first
stage of the project. And in order to ask -- answer such what-if
questions, the best way we found and -- and determined was to start
applying the Naples area transportation model with the various
scenarios that would help us to answer those questions in analysis.
You have a handout that one of those several things that
Rich Yovanovich gave you with a bunch of little maps attached to it,
and I think that will keep me on track and time as short as possible
to tell you just what we did and what the results were for your
information.
Throughout all of our work, we utilized the present,
most current edition of the HPO transportation model. It was provided
to us by the HPO staff. We've been in -- in conversation a number of
times with Jeff Perry and with other members of his staff, and they
have been most cooperative, and I want to take this opportunity to
express my appreciation to them for their cooperation in helping us
get the latest model information. We also utilized the HPO
projections of growth to the year 2000 and to the year 2020, the
traffic analysis zoned growth projections that they have been
utilizing, the most current versions of those growth projections.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Barr, most current as a
couple of weeks ago? MR. BARR: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because we recently adopted --
MR. BARR: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- new ones. Thank you.
MR. BARR: Just within -- within the -- the last two
weeks I think was the -- the latest information, and we have utilized
what they have told us is the most recent version of that -- those
growth projections.
We've utilized the networks that they have been
utilizing currently in their model analysis. For the year 2000, the
network was what is called the existing-plus committed network. Those
are the things that are presently programmed to -- to go into effect
over the next few years between now and the year 2000 to be in place.
And in the -- our projections to the year 2020, we
utilized the financially feasible network, the adopted network for
year 2020, and we made some adjustments to those networks in order to
explore these what-if scenarios. The basis for this analysis was peak
season, daily traffic volumes compared with peak season capacities or
service volumes, the standard service volumes that have been developed
and -- and are being applied as the level -- level -- level of service
standards for Collier County.
If you go to scenario one, the little map labeled
"Scenario One," this was a -- a -- the -- the conditions on the
development of projects that are in the existing and committed network
to be done by the year 2000 but without any of Livingston Road being
developed. The main conclusion that we found from examining the year
2000 scenario one situation was that without some part of Livingston
Road being developed, there will be a deficiency somewhere around the
year 2000 in that lower segment of Airport Road, the Golden Gate
Parkway south to Radio Road segment particularly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for interrupting
quickly, but as you go through segment failures, could you also tell
me where you found intersection failures? Were they a part of your
study?
MR. BARR: They were a part of our study just from the
standpoint -- We did not examine the operational analysis of -- of the
intersections. We examined the total links feeding into each
intersection and looked at the levels of service on those individual
links.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if our staff says, "Under this
scenario, this intersection will fail," you're not able to refute that
today?
MR. BARR: We have -- We have asked staff for such
operational analyses and were told that there are not any that were
available to us. So we have not looked at those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARR: If -- If they do, in fact, exist. I have not
seen them. I was given to understand that there have not been those
kind of analyses projected to the year 2000 and to the year 2020.
It's a bit unusual to get into an intersection analysis of that
detailed projecting ahead to the year 2020.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. BARR: But there may be some for 2000 that we just
have not seen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BARR: We do have the projections. Incidentally,
the -- the county's -- county MPO database -- the Collier County
database also projects that there will be a deficiency occur on
Airport Road to -- to achieve its standard level of service. That
capacity at its standard level of service D will be reached about the
year 2000. The latest statement is that it will be in the year 2000
when that becomes deficient. There have been in -- The last peak
season was considerably lower than the 1995 peak season in the counts
in that area, and the projections are such now that the deficiency
will not be in the next year or two as expected but perhaps around the
year 2000.
Going on to scenario two, this is the same thing but
with the south segment of Livingston Road added to the system. This
was found that it did relieve -- by constructing at least two lanes in
that south segment by the year 2000, that it would relieve in that
year the segment of Airport Road south of Golden Gate Parkway which
would otherwise be deficient in the year 2000. It -- With that, there
would still be considerable -- considerable amount of reserve capacity
on all other parts of Airport Road with that south segment added.
Going on to scenario three, again, we're working with
the year 2000 here. This would be the project of Livingston Road as
now proposed with six lanes in the lower segment, four lanes from
Golden Gate Parkway extending to a point north of Pine Ridge Road.
This would indeed shift a lot of traffic off of Airport Road. Some
8.7 -- 6.4 -- 6,400 vehicles a day to 8,700 vehicles a day would be
shifted off of Airport Road, achieving level of service B on Airport
Road. There would be plenty of reserve capacity. Scenario three,
however, does not eliminate any deficiencies that scenario two would
not have eliminated just building the south segment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you, Mr. Barr --
MR. BARR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- on -- on that particular point,
that exact point there, you say it results in no deficiency
correction. Is that simply a play on words from the fact that there
would not be a deficiency technically at that point; so, therefore,
there can't be a deficiency correction?
MR. BARR: That's -- It's not exactly a play on words.
What we're saying is that if you construct scenario three, all of --
both of the lower parts of the Livingston Road, there would be no --
no deficiencies but also -- on Airport Road, but also under --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because there weren't any to begin
with.
MR. BARR: Under scenario two, just constructing the
lower segment, there would be no -- no deficiencies either.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine, but that's my point.
There never was a deficiency, so you can't correct it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, if you did
nothing, there would be a deficiency on Airport Road. MR. BARR: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you do just the southern
portion, you correct the deficiency. MR. BARR: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you do the whole thing,
you correct the same deficiency. Why -- Why then would you want to do
the whole thing if you don't need to?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you again, related, does
the scenario three relieve traffic from Airport and also from Santa
Barbara?
MR. BARR: Scenario three, as I stated, would shift a
considerable amount of traffic off of Airport Road. It would --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about Santa Barbara --
MR. BARR: It would improve its level of service to B.
From Santa Barbara -- I do not have a comparison on scenario two of
what the Santa Barbara traffic volumes would be; however, the Santa
Barbara traffic under scenario three, not comparing it with scenario
two, but with -- with scenario three would operate at -- from 36 to 55
percent of its capacity north of Golden Gate Boulevard. It would
still under scenario three have a great deal of -- of reserve, extra
capacity.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what about scenario two which
is really the one that your point is advocating?
MR. BARR: Scenario two -- It would probably have -- and
I'm speculating at this point because we did not look at the Santa
Barbara under scenario two, but it would have less reserve capacity,
I'm sure. But we did find, as I recall, that there was nothing
deficient, or we would have put the numbers down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please continue.
MR. BARR: Okay. Going on to scenario four, we're
projecting on out in the remaining three scenarios that we examined to
the year 2020, far into the future. And in the year 2020, we ran with
the -- again, with the HPO projections of growth to the year 2020.
And using the financially feasible network that's been adopted for
development in the year 2020 but with the exception that in scenario
four, instead of a large portion of Livingston Road, just the south
portion would be built, the portion from Radio Road to Golden Gate
Parkway. We found at that point that all parts of Airport Road will
be operating satisfactorily even in the year 2020 with just the south
segment done, and this really answers your question. Even though we
didn't look at it in the year 2000, it does look at it in the year
2020 with just the south segment done.
Santa Barbara with just the south segment done in the
year 2020 will operate satisfactorily without a deficiency assuming
that the portions in the financially feasible plan to be six-laned
will be six-laned in the year 2020; that is, the portion south of
Golden Gate Parkway. The portion north of Golden Gate Parkway will
operate satisfactorily in the year 2020 under this scenario with a
four-lane arterial facility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Barr, how have --
MR. BARR: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- these factored in, if at all,
an interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway? Have you factored
that in, and at what year are you anticipating completion of that --
that element?
MR. BARR: Yes, sir. That is factored in, or that was a
part of the financially feasible plan which has been adopted to be
developed by the year 2020. That interchange is in place in the year
2020 in all assumptions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think best case scenario, the
earliest it could be built according to the FDOT is 2008, 2010, but
it's not funded. It's just on the -- on the books right now so to
speak but that's -- FDOT would control that. The county can't just
tell the FDOT, "Go build it. We need it now." It's really an FDOT
project; is that correct?
MR. BARR: The interchange?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. BARR: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I had
that conversation with Norm Feder from state DOT this past week when
Commissioner Norris and I were at the regional planning council. I
pulled him aside. I don't know that it will be built. He tells me
realistically the earliest is probably 2005. It probably won't happen
by then but theoretically could. However, he said the impacts on this
are really nonexistent whether you have the interchange or not. There
is some relief there, but it's minimal so as not to throw off your
things regardless of which year in there that happens.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that consistent with your --
your models?
MR. BARR: Yes. We barely looked at the year 2020.
That was the -- one of the threshold benchmarks where the HPO provided
traffic projections. I mean, the traffic zone growth projections was
the year 2020. That also is the year of the adopted financially
feasible plan which does include that interchange to be in place in
the year 2020.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARR: And that was the basis of our assumption. At
that time, with just the south segment of Livingston Road operating,
Santa Barbara Boulevard and all of Airport Road can and will be
operating at a satisfactory level of service without deficiencies.
The levels of service on Airport Road, assuming six-laning is done as
it is proposed to be done in the financially feasible plan, six-laning
of Airport Road on north to Immokalee Road at approximately the year
2020, the entire stretch of Airport Road would be operating from level
of service A, B, and in one segment C, all well under or considerably
better than its standard level of service without deficiency.
Going on to scenario five, this is the comparative
picture. Everything's the same with the exception that Livingston
Road here is shown to be developed all the way from Radio Road to Pine
Ridge Road but with a four-lane section and a two-lane section instead
of the six-lane section and four-lane section as now being proposed.
This, again, resulted in no additional deficiencies
being corrected, because there weren't any under scenario four, and a
considerably -- considerable amount of reserve capacity on all roads
in that -- in that segment. The entire corridor of Airport Road would
be operating at A, B, and C levels of service. Santa Barbara would be
operating at level C and D with the six-laning assumed in the
financially feasible plan to extend as far north as Pine Ridge Road
with four lanes on up to Immokalee Road.
In scenario six -- This is the last one. Scenario six
is -- is the financially feasible plan, and we looked at that for
basis of comparison with the other alternative what-if scenarios that
we looked at. Livingston Road under the financially feasible plan is
completed all the way from north of Bonita Beach Road in Lee County
down to a point south of Radio Road where it would connect over to
North Road and into the proposed future Gordon River Bridge crossing.
That is in your adopted financially feasible plan.
The main conclusions that we found from that are that
Livingston Road will -- when it is built with that -- with all through
connections, will become the major surface arterial carrying traffic
between Collier County and Lee County. Crossing the county line is
projected to have even more traffic than would 1-75 in the year 2020.
That -- In other words, when you build it as through major boulevard
arterial facility, it becomes the major facility. You build it, and
they will come. That is the concept we presume of the proposed
financially feasible plan to ultimately develop Livingston Road as the
major arterial connecting the two counties on the surface.
The other thing that we looked at was the volumes at the
south end of that facility. It could no longer, of course, and it's
not proposed that it would be tied into Radio Road with the T
intersection that it would initially have but would have to be
extended somewhere to connect to the south or to the southwest from
that point with a good operationally feasible system. To the best of
our knowledge and in discussing it with George Archibald and Jeff
Perry, we understand that that has not been subjected to the kind of
operational feasibility analysis that it will need to be at some point
in order to make the whole corridor become a feasible facility as it
is proposed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Barr, I'd like to clarify
something that just scared about 100 people in this room. You said
Livingston Road when it's completed will have more traffic on it than
1-757
MR. BARR: In one segment, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In one segment. Which segment is
that?
MR. BARR: The -- The segment that crosses the county
line.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's important to know.
The balance of it, however, 1-75 is still going to carry the bulk of
through traffic? People aren't going to use Livingston Road with five
stoplights or seven stoplights instead of an interstate to get through
Collier County? You're not telling us that that's the case, are you?
MR. BARR: Well, on the segment between Pine Ridge Road
and Golden Gate Parkway, the interstate -- the model results showed
that the interstate would be carrying about 45,000 vehicles a day
between the new interchange and the existing one at Pine Ridge Road
and Livingston Road. In the year 2020, it would be carrying just
about the same amount of traffic, 45,000 vehicles per day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless it's a four-lane,
limited-access facility and has been restricted previously; right? MR. BARR: I beg your pardon?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless it's a four-lane,
limited-access facility and has been restricted as such. Then it
can't carry that, can it?
MR. BARR: It -- At four lanes, it would -- that would
be too heavy a load. It would be a six-lane facility when it is
carrying that -- that much volume, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or it wouldn't carry that volume?
MR. BARR: Yes. It would be suppressed and be very
congested.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Find an easier way to go.
MR. BARR: The -- The final overall conclusions are
summarized back on the front page of your little handout, and I'll
quickly summarize these, and that will be the end of my presentation.
Some relief to Airport Road south of Golden Gate Parkway
will be needed around the year 2000. A parallel road will suffice
with at least two lanes initially. It will need four-laning within
eight or nine years; in other words, by the year 2004 or 2005.
Alternatives within the corridor have not been fully explored.
Studies are going on, and the county is working on alternative
locations within the corridor.
The second summary point after this south segment is
four-laned north as far as Golden Gate Parkway and assuming that
Airport Road six-laning is extended to Immokalee Road around 2020 when
it will be needed, the extension of Livingston Road north to Pine
Ridge Road can be postponed until 2020, until after 2020 without
creating any deficiencies anywhere.
And, finally, the adopted long-range finally --
financially feasible plan which calls for Livingston Road to become
the major arterial connecting Lee and Collier counties -- its
operational feasibility at the south terminus has not yet been
determined. Without good connection south of Radio Road, its high
volumes would not allow those T intersections at Livingston and Radio
and at Radio and Airport Road to work properly, and the feasibility of
developing the whole corridor is dependent on the operational
feasibility at that south end.
That concludes my -- my comments. Incidentally, I make
-- make one other point. With that fully operated -- With the
financially feasible plan scenario six fully constructed in the year
2020, all facilities will be operating at level of service A, B, or C
with -- with plenty of reserve capacity in the year 2020 based on the
growth projections.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said that was -- I'm sorry --
scenario six?
MR. BARR: Scenario six with the financially feasible
plan completed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is not what your report is
advocating. Your report is saying by the year 2020, we will only need
the segment between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway? You're saying that
that's a possibility? Do I understand you correctly?
MR. BARR: In the year 2020 -- About the year 2020, the
segment on up to Pine Ridge Road should be developed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If -- Assuming that and
not the entire corridor as presented in scenario six, but assuming
that we do have the segment between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway and
Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road completed, will all roads be
operating at an A, B, or C level of service under that scenario?
MR. BARR: Yes. Santa Barbara Boulevard will be between
C and D, but all others are indicated in the -- in the model
projections to year 2020 as being A, B, and C. One segment of Santa
Barbara may drop to D.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question because I
thought you had said one thing earlier, and now I thought you said
something different. The segment between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine
Ridge Road is necessary or not necessary by 2000?
MR. BARR: Not necessary by 2000. Probably necessary
around 2020.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So 24 years out --
MR. BARR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is -- is when you think it
should be looking -- MR. BARR: That's when it will be needed to correct
deficiencies that would otherwise occur.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And by that time, you say Santa
Barbara -- a segment of Santa Barbara will be at level C or D?
MR. BARR: C or D in that middle segment between Golden
Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Is it possible that it
could fall to F?
MR. BARR: Beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it possible that it might
fall to F, level of service F, Santa Barbara?
MR. BARR: Not if the projections are correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Everything presumes that
the projections --
MR. BARR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- are correct.
MR. BARR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, your projections
are based on the county statistics? That's not just --
MR. BARR: The cou -- The county model and the county
projections of growth in all of these tiny little traffic analysis
zones all over the county were used in all of our analysis work, yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more question.
Excuse me. The -- The population models that you were using, recently
the county, I believe, reduced its population from 500 and something
to 400 and something. Which one did you use?
MR. BARR: We were informed that that reduced projection
of population was reflected in the latest traffic zone growth
projections that they gave us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that -- and -- And the
reduced one, the 400,000 do -- 400,000 population one is the one that
you used for this?
MR. BARR: Whichever -- They said it was the reduced
one. I don't know the -- the number that it was reduced to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We went from five eighty-three
ninety-three if I remember correctly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I -- I'm just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ball park.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just wanting to know if --
if this is done with the 500,000 population, then certainly 400,000 is
going to make this look even better.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- we're -- We're sitting
here faced with a disparity of numbers, and although the -- a
representative from David Plummet is here today, I've heard
Commissioner Norris state that without Mr. Perry here, it's going to
be difficult to resolve that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express my frustration
with that too because the 18th of June -- Today is the 23rd of July.
The 18th of June is when we picked today's date to put this on the
agenda, and why we did it a month in advance was so that our staff
could work with these folks and go back and compare some of those
numbers, and Jeff was aware of that, and the county manager was aware
of that, and I just hate to think that we can't operate when one
person isn't here. If Jeff should take ill or should win the lottery
tomorrow and decide to leave, does that mean we can't do any more
transportation planning until we replace him? I hope not. And so I'm
-- For me it's very frustrating to have planned this a month in
advance and today here while Jeff's on vacation we can't hear it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again -- and I understand
Commissioner Norris's statement. I -- I share a little bit of that in
that our staff knew that Mr. Perry wasn't going to be here, and our
staff has had this report in hand for a certain period of time. I
would like to address the disparity issue, and if it cannot be
addressed adequately, there may be a reason for continuing the item.
But if it can be addressed, if we can find out why is there a 15-year
difference in need between two professional engineers that -- that
have traffic backgrounds and we do have -- Whether Grey Oaks hired him
for a purpose or not at a given point, we do have the gentleman from
David Plummet here who is one of the authors of -- I mean, they are
the county's consultant on this. So it seems to me as much as I don't
want to get into a battle of engineers, Lord knows, there's --
there's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can Hr. Archibald help us
with -- with this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, someone -- someone's
got to be able to at least answer for me why is there such a
significant disparity in the numbers we're seeing from the county's
projection -- what we call the county's projection and what Mr. Barr
has presented to us because that's disturbing to me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question before Hr.
Archibald starts. Who is the client for this report, David Plummer's
report, Corridor Study, Livingston Road dated July 19, 1996.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that Grey Oaks?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that Grey Oaks, or is it the
county?
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Plummer's here.
MR. GILLIS: Hark Gillis with David Plummet and
Associates. The client on that report was Grey Oaks. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, I need to apologize to the board
because I haven't been privy to all of the information that has been
presented today or the prior reports, but I would like to indicate to
the board that the AUIR or the annual updated inventory report which
can, in fact, not only address the issues that Mr. Barr has brought
up, but will give the board another look at this network and how that
network is going to be developed and as part of that presentation to
the board can include any analysis that you may direct staff to make.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When will the AUIR be up for
review next?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Let me ask the planning staff, if I can.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The purpose of my asking
that question is that, first of all, the fact that Mr. Archibald has
not been copied on what was sent to Mr. Perry, and Mr. Perry knowing
he would be absent causes me --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Distress.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let's just say I'm a little
ticked off about it, but I expected to -- for staff, with the kind of
lead time they had, to have some answers today. And, Mr. HcNees, I
personally would like to have that addressed in some form in the next
week or two. I'm just a little upset that staff is not prepared to
respond to this report today.
And the answer for the AUIR, Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Is in August. So a relatively short
period of time the board will be given the updated analysis, and that
will, in fact, be an analysis very similar to what Mr. Barr has
presented to you today. And keep in mind what we're doing is we're
going from the 1994 traffic data to 1995 traffic data and including
the 1996 peak traffic information. So very appropriate that the staff
bring you the AUIR that would indicate those deficiencies and, in
fact, compare those with those being presented by Mr. Barr.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like today that the
only sufficient direction would be to take the Barr, Dunlop study,
direct staff to incorporate it and provide answers on the differences
between it and the AUIR for an August meeting. The setting of the
AUIR is what will dictate our capital improvement element and our
project schedule. Today I don't think we can alter that schedule
definitively without going through the AUIR process if I -- if my comp
plan memory is correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if we could hear whether
as a consultant to another -- I mean, obviously Mr. Barr is a
qualified consultant representing the Wyndemere group. There is
another qualified consultant here who's been hired by another property
owner, but I would -- I'd like to hear both sides. I mean, I'd like
to have as much information as I can get today while still holding
back on needing to know what the county staff's position is before we
take any direction. I don't have a problem hearing from the gentleman
from David Plummet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have one request. I don't mind
him speaking either, but I'm assuming he can't represent Collier
County and represent Grey Oaks. He's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not paying him today.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I know, but he's prepared
information that's been shared with the commission, and we would just
request that whatever information is given to the commission is given
to us. We're giving all our information up, and we would like to be
able to just look at it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's public -- It's public data.
You know that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- better than anybody.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I would hope that I could get it in
advance of a meeting instead of waiting until the meeting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I ask.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would -- I also would
like to hear from the representative from David Plummet,
understanding, again, that I think -- and as Mr. Archibald correctly
cited, the AUIR is the -- the final decision on -- on volumes and
scheduling but let's -- I'd like to hear from the representative just
the same.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think it's just
interesting -- and as you go through your presentation, you can touch
on these but -- and I just received this, so I'm reading it as quickly
as I can. But the section between Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road
in particular may -- underlined the word "may .... be needed as early
as the year 2000. It doesn't say it is necessary. It doesn't say it
will be necessary. Again, if we're looking at starting construction
in '97 and we have two engineers now saying 2000 at the soonest, that
tells me immediately we've got a problem here. So I'm going to be
very interested -- again, frustrated we don't have our own people here
to confirm that.
MR. GILLIS: For the record, Hark Gillis with David
Plummet and Associates. We conducted the original DRI traffic study
for Grey Oaks, and the Grey Oaks development asked us to take another
look at the Livingston Road issue as it came up just recently. They
asked us to take a look at the Livingston Road issue because as part
of the DRI traffic study Livingston Road was identified to be a very
important roadway for concurrency purposes in the county and also for
overall traffic circulation in the county.
The importance of Livingston Road as we discovered in
the Grey Oaks traffic study is also borne out in the long-range
transportation studies that have been conducted for the county since
1989 and -- and possibly earlier. But they asked us to take a look at
-- at three things: Number one, the need for Livingston Road; number
two, the ultimate number of lanes that would likely be needed on
Livingston Road; and, third, the timing.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the need for
Livingston Road because I think we all recognize the need ultimately
for Livingston Road. It serves the traffic within Collier County and
also provides traffic circulation between Collier and Lee County. And
the reason why we get such large volumes on Livingston Road, for
example, up in the north portion of the county, except between U.S. 41
and 1-75, there's no road providing continuity to and from Lee and
Collier County. So you have U.S. 41 and 1-75 that have to carry all
the traffic. So that's why you get very high loadings on Livingston,
in addition to the fact that Livingston has always been looked at as a
limited-access arterial road providing a reliever to Airport Road just
as Goodlette-Frank Road provides a reliever to U.S. 41 and also
provides the service to and from Lee and Collier County.
In terms of its ultimate number of lanes, we believe
that an ultimate six lanes are needed on Livingston Road, and we
believe that that's been borne out by the prior transportation studies
and all the model runs. Six lanes is -- is probably needed by the
year 2020.
In terms of the timing of Livingston Road, we're --
we're very concerned about the timing of Livingston. We have to
recognize that a lot of these traffic forecasts are projections, and
they're based on assumptions, and they're also based on the capacity
of the roadways. Just as the county has been looking at and adjusting
the socioeconomic data and the population forecast for the county, the
Florida DOT is also looking at the service volumes or the capacities
for various roadways. And just as the -- the long-range plan update
reflected a lowering in the population forecast, the Florida DOT is
now looking at a lowering of the capacities of certain types of
roadways throughout the state and also throughout the county. So that
may be one reason why there's -- there's emerging some discrepancies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Just a real quick
question. Did you do a model in any of the different scenarios over,
say, 2000 or 2020 that completely excluded Livingston Road? MR. GILLIS: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I don't find that in
here, and maybe you can direct me to it. I don't find that in your
report.
MR. GILLIS: Well, the -- the first -- the first thing
we did in terms of discussing the need for Livingston Road starting on
page 2 -- What we basically did was we took the 2020 financially
feasible plan and took out Livingston Road and ran the model to see
what effect that would have, and we have an exhibit in our report -- I
believe it's Exhibit 2 or 3 -- where we tried to plot -- it's Exhibit
2 -- where we tried to plot the increase in daily volumes on some of
the adjacent nearby roadways.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that take into account,
as the other engineer had suggested, the added four lane miles on
Airport Road?
MR. GILLIS: The 2020 run that we did is based on the
county's 2020 financially feasible plan which reflects Airport Road as
six lanes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All the way?
MR. GILLIS: All the way. Yes. The only thing we did
was we took out Livingston Road simply to see where the volumes would
go because if there's -- if there's forty or 50,000 vehicles per day
on Livingston Road, they have to go somewhere.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When -- When did you plug the
numbers in? When did you run these models?
MR. GILLIS: I think we did that last week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you used the new step
back --
MR. GILLIS: Yes. Yes. And we -- we used the new --
the Florida -- The service volumes are capacities that the Florida
Department of Transportation is now saying should be used which are
somewhat different than what was used in the plan update.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you also use the new
county projections?
MR. GILLIS: Oh, yes. Yes. Exhibit 2 shows for -- not
for all of the roads but for the -- the close-in roads the volume
increases, and we -- we showed them by thousands. And as one would
certainly expect, road segments along Airport Road is showing
increases of 10,000 or more. 1-75, portions of Santa Barbara, and
then we've got U.S. 41, Goodlette-Frank, and portions of Santa Barbara
showing 5,000 or more.
But in -- in -- in terms of the timing of the need for
Livingston, we -- we believe that Livingston from Radio Road to Golden
Gate Parkway is certainly needed by the year 2000. In fact, we
believe that level of service problems will -- will -- will probably
start emerging on Airport Road south of Golden Gate before 2000. The
most current AUR [sic] says 1997, and we certainly believe that on or
before the year 2000 level of service problems will start emerging on
Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you gave some illusion
earlier to -- that -- and I, frankly, didn't quite follow it -- that
this may be why there's a discrepancy between these two engineering
firms, but can you give a plainer answer about why your numbers say
1997 and Mr. Barr's numbers say 2000?
MR. GILLIS: Well, I haven't had the opportunity to
review Mr. Barr's report, his final report. So I -- I -- I don't
exactly know. I suspect that one cause for -- that would lead to some
conclusions would be the service volumes that are being used.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, in fact, the two
reports, as I'm looking at the actual numbers here, are reconciled
with the year 2000. Even the -- the David Plummet report shows that
the year 2000 with no Livingston Road, no segment at all built,
there's one segment reaching level of service F, and it's the segment
between Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road. MR. GILLIS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barr, Dunlop inserted at the year
2000 that segment. The difference is when you go to 2010 in the
Plummet report, that segment that was inserted by Barr, Dunlop has not
been inserted by Plummet. So what we have then is we have four
sections of Airport Road that reach level of service F. What the
Plummet report doesn't review that Barr, Dunlop did review, right,
wrong, or otherwise, is that one small segment that is included in the
year 2000 and how that may impact the balance of the segments on
Airport Road in the year 2010.
What this is all building up to is we have at least I
would say today before us two transportation engineers that agree that
in all likelihood one segment of Livingston Road is going to be needed
by the year 2000. It's the segment between Golden Gate Parkway and
Radio. After that, it's a turkey shoot. You know, after that, there
are -- there are some comparisons being made that we need more
information on because I don't think David Plummet made the same
comparisons that Barr, Dunlop did, and that's where the AUIR comes in
where we need to reconcile --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- go away and come back in
August for the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in the effort --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a shame.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there are a lot of people
here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and a lot of people interested
in this, and Briarwood and Wyndemere and -- and people that live on
the north part of the corridor that need to understand that it seems
that already we have a -- a -- a slight movement in the need of the
road by a couple of years, but it's not needed until 2000 or 2001.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought Mr. Plummet said'97.
MR. GILLIS: Well, let -- let -- let me make a couple --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Not Mr. Plummet.
MR. GILLIS: -- of points clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying in your report
that it's not needed until 2000 and 2005 according to your report.
MR. GILLIS: The segment from Golden Gate to Radio Road
we're saying is needed by or before the year 2000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I read it -- and this is
word for word. The section between Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road
in particular may be needed as early as the year 2000. MR. GILLIS: That's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's your report --
MR. GILLIS: That's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- word for word --
MR. GILLIS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: .... may," not "will be." Hay
be needed by 2000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As early as the year 2000 --
MR. GILLIS: Well, we --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and that's different from
1997.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's different from
saying it is necessary in 2000. What you just said and what your
report said are two different things.
MR. GILLIS: Well, let me -- let me clarify. We believe
that the road is going to be needed by the year 2000 or sooner based
on level of service difficulties --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why isn't that what it says
in your report that you've printed and given to us?
MR. GILLIS: Well, the -- the report, I believe, says
that it may be needed by the year 2000, and -- and we believe that it
will be needed by the year 2000 or sooner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that certainly clears
it right up.
MR. GILLIS: Well, Commissioner -- Commissioner, let me
-- let me -- let me --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, I have a
question. Between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge, what is the
current level of service on Airport Road; do you know?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I didn't bring that chart with me. I
apologize.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to assume since we
just completed six-laning, that it's fairly low.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's got to be a B.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's probably B. Is that --
MR. ARCHIBALD: I would say somewhere low B, high C.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea what
rough -- roughly what numbers those are? I won't hold you to them
because I know you don't have it in front of you but what kind of
number that constitutes.
MR. ARCHIBALD: In the neighborhood of twenty-five to
30,000 trips, recognizing the peak for that is probably in the
mid-thirties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To -- To be at level of
service F for that segment of roadway, how many vehicles would that
have to carry, ball park? Again, I'm not going to hold you to it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've heard that one before.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I -- I think we're way above 45,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask is -- because if
we're at twenty or twenty-five now and it takes that much --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's doubling it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I -- I'm reading,
again, another item on page 6, and it says referring to Livingston
Road between Pine Ridge and Parkway which is currently scheduled '97,
'98 shouldn't be deferred because without this improvement the
corresponding section of Airport, Parkway to Pine Ridge, will soon
become congested and probably fall to level of service F by 2001 or
two. I just find it hard to believe that we're going to have double
the number of vehicles on Airport Road in the next four and a half
years or five years.
MR. GILLIS: Well, we -- we based this on -- on looking
at the travel model, looking at historic growth trends, and historic
traffic volumes, and there's significant traffic volume increases on
the county's road network. The -- The network in the north-south and
east-west direction is rather limited, as we all know, in Collier
County, and a road like Airport Road has to carry the bulk of the
traffic. So the traffic volume forecasts are quite -- quite large.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I -- I -- I'm very
sorry our staff isn't here because I'm 99 percent sure that would not
jive with the numbers we have but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'd like to
ask one question of Mr. Archibald.
When -- When a road segment reaches level of service F,
how long once we determine that's happened do we have to improve that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In order to avoid a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. I -- I think it's three
years, but I want him to tell me that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Could I ask why you're picking level of
service F rather than D or E?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Be -- Because --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't our general policy when
it becomes deficient, then we give ourselves about a two-year window
in which to get back out of deficiency?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I think it's a three-year
window but --
MR. ARCHIBALD: As -- As a general rule, our concurrency
requirements are level of service D in a three-year window. The board
has that option of lowering that level of service. If that's why the
board is -- is talking about a lower level, E or F, then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But realistically we don't
let them get to F.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. Okay. Then -- Then
that -- that answers my question from you for --
The second question, sir, to you, in level of service
under the year 2000, you have the segment from Golden Gate Parkway to
Radio Road being at level of service F which means we must do
something or there will be a moratorium. Did you do something about
that level of service, meaning putting that segment of Livingston Road
into your model before you ran the 2005 model?
MR. GILLIS: We did not include all of the scenarios
that Mr. Barr ran, nor did we include a scenario of just Radio Road to
Golden Gate Parkway because I think when you look at roadway
improvements, you're looking at corridors, and you're looking at
logical points. The logical point, in my opinion, would be going
Radio Road to Pine Ridge Road. And why is that logical? Because you
get continuity in the road network. You get up to Pine Ridge Road
which would access to the west over to U.S. 41, to the east -- east of
1-75 and the Vineyards area. And, most importantly, you'd be
accessing the 1-75 interchange of Pine Ridge Road. That's a logical
segment, and I think we -- we need to look at continuity. When --
When the county goes back and reruns the models, you need to look at
continuity because just putting in one small segment, I think what
you'll have is emerging level of service problems on Airport Road from
Golden Gate to Pine Ridge, and you'll have a segment of Livingston
Road from Golden Gate down to Radio that will be underutilized.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's what Mr.
Barr's numbers show, but obviously you're entitled to your opinion on
that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, we seem to be talking
about when it gets to F. We need to be very clear. If we do our jobs
correctly, roadways in this county will not --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They don't get there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- get to F. We can't allow
roadways to get to -- Level of service of F means what used to be a
five-minute trip is a 30-minute trip. And when you talk about a
community and quality, regardless of where you live, what community,
what part of the community, roadways that cease to function are not
sound planning. It's something that I don't think we should even be
discussing. When roadways hit level of service D, that's our red
flag. That's our get your backside in gear and get it built point.
What we have here, we have two opinions. One is a very
conservative opinion. Plummet and Associates has been hired by the
county as their consultant, and my guess is the last thing they would
want to do is tell us something that we hit a point of failure prior
to their recommended construction schedule. On the other hand, Barr,
Dunlop has been hired to answer the questions what if, and those are
very definitive. Mr. P1 -- or -- or -- I'm sure Plummet and
Associates is trying to develop a road system and network that works
well. So there's a disparity in the two goals, to be quite honest.
At a minimum, I think we've seen that there are possibly some
short-term things that can be done that will serve to maybe delay a
section of Livingston Road so that we can determine how best to
squeeze that corridor to the west to get it away from existing
neighborhoods, to move water management, to move other areas
associated with the roadway so that we reduce the impact on -- whether
it be Briarwood or Wyndemere or any other community along that
corridor. That, quite simply, is my goal because we -- we can't
eliminate the road, but we can build it in accordance with its need.
We're not going to answer that need question today. I think we all
have more questions now than we came in with, but the AUIR in August
is a point at which all of those questions will have to be answered
because we will have to make these scheduled decisions at that time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The interesting thing is both
these reports indicate the southernmost portion probably not necessary
until 2000 or beyond, and as you've just said, there's no sense for us
to build it three or four years early when there are other things
going on. So if we can -- If our report in August shows that that's
accurate, then -- then we may very well see the delay, and that will
allow us to solve some of those problems you've outlined at that time.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- That's fine. Let's -- We need
to wrap this up.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject. You --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hold on just a second. Let me make
one comment here. The problem -- I have a concern with the way the
discussion has gone today because simply we are -- You know,
understanding the -- the desires of the neighborhoods to not build
roads next to them, which is certainly one of the county commission's
goals if we can do it, but the problem with our discussion that has
been aimed at revising the way we plan roads and waiting until a road
segment is deficient before we take any action which deficient
actually means failure, and that's not really responsible planning.
And, you know, if we're going to be asked to modify our whole
direction and wait until roads go deficient, I think we're going to
have a lot of upset citizens in other areas so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me just correct
something because deficient and failure aren't the same thing in
Collier County. Level of D -- level -- Level of service D is
considered deficient here so we never get to failure, and -- and
that's the point. If -- If we're not even going to get to level of
service D until 2000 or beyond, we don't need to be spending the money
and the time to build something in 1997 if it's not due until 2002
before it even reaches what we consider deficient. We should never
reach failure. I agree with you. But Collier County's comp plan
doesn't ever contemplate getting to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, thank you for the semantics, but
if it goes beyond level of service D and we call for level of service
D in our Growth Management Plan, then that's a failure as far as I'm
concerned.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please don't '-
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, the technical word for it may be
something else, but that's failure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please don't misunderstand my
comments. This road will be built in a form when it's needed. What's
been presented today is the question, is it needed, and information
has been presented that we don't have the numbers --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's a legitimate question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we will get that answered.
But if that need is pushed back a year, two years, or three years and
allows us to solve neighborhood-related concerns and problems specific
to existing communities, that's a benefit to everyone. If that's the
result in August, I think that -- that that would be a wise move, but
we need to get the questions answered on when the roadway is truly
needed, and I would expect that to come before us in August and -- and
that we will make the decisions that -- that are consistent with what
everyone is saying at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I also just think in the
interest of fairness, you know, people who are here and care about
this issue leave understanding that the road is going to be built.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if it's built in '97, that's enough
time. It's going to be built with as many concessions and as much
concession to the -- to the existing residential neighborhoods as is
legally feasible, but I also don't want people leaving here with a
great expectation that we can put this road in the FPL easement or we
can put it -- we cannot build it -- You know, it's coming, and you
have to know it, and you should have been told it, you know, when you
bought your property, and all of those are different stories, but it's
coming.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we at least assure the
public we won't build the road before it's needed? That's not
semantics. That's trying to do public service.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consistent with the board
policies to have the road in -- in service prior to failure of another
corridor? Yes. I think -- I think that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all we're asking.
That's all we're asking.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, is it possible we
could give staff direction to take these two reports that we now have
and try to reconcile them and find out why they are different?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think that's exactly what we need to
do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have that ready for the same
discussion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For the AUIR discussion --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: AUIR discussion, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- because obviously these --
these two engineering firms -- and they're excellent firms, both of
them -- are obviously disagreeing, and we need to know why.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Archibald. Okay.
Let's see.
MR. HCNEES: You had a couple of public speakers,
Mr. Chairman, on that item. I don't know if you still want to hear
them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. How many public speakers do we
have?
MR. HCNEES: Two more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two more? Let's go to those speakers.
MR. HCNEES: One is A1 Perkins.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to tie this
into the Belle Heade?
MR. PERKINS: No. Good afternoon.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hurricane evacuation.
MR. PERKINS: No. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hurricane evacuation?
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, concerned citizen and resident
of the area. There's only two things that -- Mr. Barr covered most
everything that I was going to take and even bring up. The only thing
-- The two things that I wanted to bring up -- 951 was not discussed,
and according to Dufresne, Henry and CHH2 Hill, in the year 2020 the
center of activity will be Pine Ridge Road and 951. Where are we
going to be there? That's all I have. Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: And Pablo Veintimilla.
MR. VEINTIHILLA: I'll be very brief. My name is Pablo
Veintimilla. I'm a resident of Briarwood off of Radio Road.
Basically we've met with all the residents to get their input
regarding Livingston Road. We've met with our neighbors at Wyndemere,
and I can hardly add anything that has been said today; however, I do
want to mention our residents' concerns, and those are drainage from
the road. Also the -- the way the road is proposed currently, it does
abut up to the property lines at Briarwood, and there is no buffer.
Additionally, I hate to open a can of worms right now,
but everything indicates that the strain is from Radio Road to Golden
Gate Parkway. If we kind of use a little bit of our common sense,
what's happening is that the strain is due to a lack of an east-west
corridor, not necessarily a new north-south corridor because if you
look at all the traffic and you look at the traffic counts -- and I've
studied those -- Davis and Golden Gate Parkway is where everything
levels off. It's because -- think about it -- an east-west corridor.
All right. Now, one -- one last question for everybody
to think about. Would you traveling north or south on Airport Road
make a several-mile detour to get on Livingston Road to later again go
back onto Airport Road 3 miles later? I doubt you will. And if you
go out there and drive yourself around and use your common sense a
little bit without looking at the -- to be able to interpret all these
studies, you will be able to arrive at a conclusion that maybe you
don't think you can. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: And Mr. Corkran has registered to speak.
Mr. Corkran.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Corkran, we're waiting for you,
sir.
MR. CORKRAN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As he's coming up, Mr. Hancock, I
know you've looked at this --
MR. CORKRAN: For the record, Sewell Corkran, Naples.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll wait until after.
MR. CORKRAN: I can clear up the difference between the
2000 dilemma and 1997. As a retiree, I've got time to spend more time
looking at records than Jeff Perry and Archibald combined. Your
capacity on Airport Road and the segment from Radio Road up to Golden
Gate Parkway is about 58,800, and the traffic a year ago was very
close to that, within 800 trips. And at that time Jeff Perry, in
making out the AUIR which is the 1985 AUIR, indicated on year expected
deficient 1997. In 1995 Golden Gate Parkway was six-laned, and there
was traffic problems there. So people, instead of going up Airport
Road, went up U.S. 41, and they had a traffic drop this season so that
instead of having just 800 trips different at the peak, meaning within
-- by 1997 it would be deficient, it dropped it back, and I'll bet my
house that when the county AUIR comes out, you'll find the number
2000, and that may be correct or not, depending upon how the traffic
adjusts after Golden Gate. It's fixed now so -- but there's a
rationale to make a difference.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, you had a comment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a -- Just a question. And I
haven't looked at these road segments and design possibilities and
don't have the expertise you have anyway, but I do have friends who
live in Pelican Bay right backing up to U.S. 41 that have lovely,
expensive, high-value property homes that don't have the problems that
I see these people fearing. Is that not a possible scenario with that
kind of berming and buffering to --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- And that was the initial
problem that I -- I attacked, is when Livingston Road was originally
planned, the corridor appeared to be a capacity for a four-lane road,
and it was going to be at a certain -- Well, when all of a sudden it
became a six-lane road, the back of curb got so close to the property
line that there was no room for buffering, no room for really
anything, and that was the first problem we attacked, was how can we
limit this corridor and provide distance for buffering and berming and
landscaping and so forth, and that's how the MPO ended up with a
four-lane, limited-access facility, is to give the minimum difference
to allow for that kind of buffering. So that's been one of the
approaches. And, again, our staff hasn't spent extensive time on it
because we haven't finalized the cross-section yet, and we won't for a
little bit. But that combined with other things like trying to move
water management into the FPL easement with agreements there and so
forth are always of increasing that distance between the roadway when
it is built and the communities of Wyndemere, and I assume Briarwood
to the south is -- is the exact same approach. If you limit it, they
benefit also. So I think we're going to have to look at those things,
and -- and we -- we are, but, you know, there are obviously other
things to address too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you gentlemen for coming. I'm
sure we'll see you in August.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #12C8
RECOMHENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE GRANTING TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AN ELECTRIC
FRANCHISE FOR THIRTY YEARS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND RELOCATE
ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE FEE OF THREE
PERCENT OF REVENUES FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS - DENIED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item I think we can take
together, at least for discussion purposes, 12(C)(8) and (9) which
concern the utility fee proposals.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask a quick
question here? And I know you wanted some more information in
particular, Commissioner Hancock. Before we spend an hour debating
the issue, I wondered if you're still looking for information, or I
know there's -- from the newspapers now, there are at least two
commissioners who are having trouble with this. I just don't want to
spend an hour if there are three people who are going to say --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good suggestion so --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I haven't changed my mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your mind?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the utility? No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. What are you --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm opposed to it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're definitely opposed. Is there
anyone else that's definitely opposed?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm definitely in favor.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're definitely opposed?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we -- we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about -- I heard a radio
report -- I'm sorry, but I just want to try. I heard on the radio
that you might be willing to live with it on a limited two years
try-it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I have -- I have kind of
been stuck in the middle because there are positive arguments on both
sides of the issue. The tax equity issue regarding those who don't
pay very much or anything in ad valorem taxes is a consistent one, but
my problem is that these are all traditionally services we have funded
through ad valorem taxes, and the fact that we have a year where
there's a big bump in the sheriff's office and other small areas that
accumulatively are causing the potential for an increase, I still have
a problem with us using a franchise fee to subsidize ad valorem. If
we're going to use a franchise fee, the -- the -- the source needs to
be dedicated for a specific purpose, and just throwing it into the
general fund all but ensures that that thing is just going to rotate
year in and year out and if we --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It will also get bigger.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And if we ever need to use
that franchise fee for something related to burial of utility lines or
relocation of -- of utility areas and so forth, it's not going to be
available and that that -- Because of that concern and because this
would not leave that option open in any way for me, I think that we
need to -- to deal straight with -- with the public on this year's --
your budget issues and -- and, you know, we're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Raise their millage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we're going to get abused
for it, but we're going to get abused either way.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think obviously the
preference is to do neither but if -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you are going to have to
do one or the other, I see the ad valorem as a more straightforward
way of doing it. They understand they're being taxed. They
understand how much they're being taxed. For that matter, they can at
the very least deduct it from their income tax. I -- I just -- If
government creates a new tax, they'll find a way to spend it even if
they don't need it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- The one bit of information
that I hadn't heard in front of this board yet that I mentioned to
staff but, frankly, didn't give them enough lead time to get an answer
probably is, as we were going through the budget discussions, one of
the interesting things that I learned is, for example, agricultural
land, even though it's valued at a low-dollar amount and, therefore,
pays less taxes, it only uses 37 cents -- it only gets services equal
to 37 cents for every dollar it pays.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's 25 cents -- 27 cents now.
I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The fund report is out.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's corrected. My question is
for commercial properties and businesses that are rented and operated.
I would love to know if they are draining or are contributing to
property tax to -- to the -- to the system.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The commercial industrial in the
same report is 25 cents per dollar.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So commercial property only uses
25 cents worth of services for every dollar it pays?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When you -- Yes. And when you
combine residential with commercial industrial, the difference is
still -- it's a $1.11 in services for every dollar paid.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So residential and commercial
together --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Don't offset each other, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hmmm.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I -- I can
count to three, and hopefully we won't have a long debate then with
those three votes, but Mr. Erlichman couldn't stay this afternoon and
wanted to introduce this for the record. So I'll give this important
copy for the record. And rather than read all three pages, I'll just
read the final comment, and that is, "A tax enacted is a tax
protracted. Gil Erlichman. July 1996." But we will make that part
of the record.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So the -- the consensus of the
board then is to add $4.2 million to the ad valorem roll?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The consensus of the board
is -- on my opinion anyway, is not to create a new utility tax.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. HCNEES: You have a handful of speakers. Mr.
Erlichman apparently is not here. Mr. William Allen -- who's also
apparently not here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. He's here.
MR. HCNEES: Oh. There he is.
MR. ALLEN: My notes say, "Good morning, Commissioners,"
but I'll have to change that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Terribly optimistic, sir.
MR. ALLEN: My name's Bill Allen, and, Commissioners,
I've been here all day, and standing and sitting and paying attention
is so exhausting. I can understand what you go through. It must be
frightening. I'm glad I don't have to do it.
My wife and I have lived in Collier County since 1981,
became voting residents in 1983, and I have worked many years at the
voting polls under Mary Morgan as a deputy under Sheriff Aubrey Rogers
and Sheriff Don Hunter. My wife is a volunteer at Youth Haven. Last
week I sat home and watched your meeting on television, and it
occurred to me that my two cents' worth might be of assistance to you
when it -- and when you consider electric bills versus property tax as
a way to collect money.
In the top corner -- This is just a little thing, but it
might be a big thing. In the top corner of the electric bill is a
section where you may elect to donate money to help those in need.
Some of us do that. I wonder if some of us would continue to do this
if we had an extra charge attached. As an example, my last bill was
for $75, and a 3 percent charge would have cost me two dollars and a
quarter. And simply the more electric you use, the more you pay. On
the other hand, a percent on the property tax simply means, the more
valuable the property is, the more you pay. That's a pretty simple
fact, I think.
Now, last week I also heard mobile homes mentioned, and
you did too. So I have -- I have a page of information for you I'd
like to distribute, if I may. There are six copies there.
As a member of the Federation of Mobile Homeowners of
Florida and as a volunteer park representative, I became alert. It
lists -- This list -- page I gave you, it lists Collier County mobile
homes you'll notice by park name, type -- The types means a whole lot
to me. I don't know how many people realize that there are rental
parks, there are subdivisions, there are co-ops, and there are condos
coming under various Florida Statutes. There are a number of homes,
and my example here lists for Collier County 5,857, and they are
separated for tax purposes as well as for older persons' parks. We do
have older persons' parks, and I'm eligible for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You weren't when you got here
this morning, though, were you?
MR. ALLEN: Oh, my. Under the column of own your house,
rent your ground, your ground tax is paid to the owner, and he then
pays it to the county. Attachments are assessed as an ad valorem tax,
personal property. It's the way it is on -- I have one right here.
And what does that amount to? That's the porch, the carport, the
shed, added rooms, and improvements. If you look at these mobile
homes, you'll find many of them with an added room on the carport side
which gets taxed more than it was just an empty carport and so on.
And, boy, a lot of them got flooded last year too. They sure did.
The next column is where you own -- Well, first on that
column, I want to point out that there are 2,825 homes, rental, that
when you rent the ground.
Now, under the next column, it's own house and pay
ground and pay real property -- you own the house and ground and pay
real property tax. You do that. Because -- Why? You're in a condo,
a co-op, and so on. And there are 3,032 in my list here. And this
consists of 24 -- the data from 24 mobile home parks. You'll see a
bunch of yeses over here under older persons. Excuse me. I guess I'm
finished.
Well, if you have any questions, the above record is as
accurate as I could gather by phone and personal visit. If you have
any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Otherwise, I hope that
this will be of some assistance to you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Allen. You did a lot
of work getting this report together. We appreciate it.
Once again, before we call the next public speaker,
there's -- a majority of the board has indicated that we are not going
forward with this fee. If you still feel compelled to -- to speak,
please come forward and do so.
MR. HCNEES: I have Mr. Dudley Goodlette registered. I
assume he's not interested in speaking.
MR. GOODLETTE: (Shook head.)
MR. HCNEES: And then Bonnie MacKenzie is the only other
registered speaker.
MS. MACKENZIE: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm
Bonnie MacKenzie, member of Naples City Council. I'm sorry that y'all
have decided to vote the way that you have. The city certainly
supports the proposal by the county manager and the professional
staff, that all three of the options and the initiatives that were
considered be still considered. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. That's it?
Okay. I'll close the public hearing, and I -- I suspect
that Mr. Weigel would like us to take an official vote to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: An official --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- deny it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: An official vote.
I'd like to make -- make a motion, and if -- if --
You've closed the public hearing; correct? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I did.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
we not enact the utility fee --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- with Florida Power and Light.
That's item 12(C)(8).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, we
need to say with electric utilities as opposed to FPL because it would
have also encompassed Lee County Co-op.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two separate items.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Separate item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One for each.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This one's FPL.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Terribly sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's quite all right.
Okay. This one is for Florida Power and Light to not go
forward with the franchise fee. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
Item #12C9
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AN
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FOR THIRTY YEARS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND
RELOCATE ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER FACILITIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR REVENUES FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND
SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT THEREAFTER - DENIED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next one is --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- for Lee County --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the public hearing on
12(C)(9) --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is closed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
the Board of County Commission not go forward with a recommended
franchise fee with Lee Co-op.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Those are both successful motions.
Our next -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that a three-to-two vote or a
four-to-one vote?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three-to-two.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, they were three to --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mark it up here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- three-to-two votes. They were both
three to two.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #8E(1)B
RESOLUTION 96-329, PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE FOR THE FY 97 COLLIER COUNTY
BUDGET - ADOPTED WITH TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE OF 3.8424
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is the recommendation to
adopt the proposed millage rates for the fiscal year '97 Collier
County budget.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now is the unhappy part.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, before Mr.
Smykowski gets started, we -- we were -- we had a suggestion from Miss
MacKenzie regarding the interim government service fee, and we've not
decided what to do and what not to do with that yet, but I do have to
say I've got a concern about -- and I think Mr. Smykowski has
addressed it in the executive summary but of -- about that
$1.7 million that we've built our budget upon. And while I'm more
than happy to listen to the arguments in favor of an interim service
fee, we've had a lot of legal opinion that that may not be the proper
thing to do and myself -- Before we set the millage rate, I think I
would like to -- like the board to consider making sure there are
adequate reserves if for some reason we are not able to collect this
fee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- In looking at that
whole thing, I have a problem with stepping forward on a $1.7 million
item where the legal ground is shaky at best as described by our
county attorney. To then tax and place in reserves that amount so
that we can charge a fee causes the ad valorem rate to be adjusted the
same as if we had -- had not taxed for it in the first place. The
difference is, if the -- the legal case works out on our end, maybe we
can lower the rate next year. That's the only difference in the two.
I just -- I don't think the legal action that's been taken on this to
date gives us sure footing to count on these dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess the -- Mr.
Weigel --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to reserve them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and Mr. Smykowski can give
us this word today, but I haven't heard a, "No. This is something you
shouldn't be doing." I -- I think we've heard the word that someone
may challenge it. You may have a court case, and anything can happen
and --
I mean, going a step further too, as far as reserves,
we're reserving just over $5 million, if what we were told just a
couple of weeks ago is accurate anyway. And we were also told a
couple of weeks ago that normally we don't even use a million dollars
in a year. I mean, in my mind that is what the reserves are for, so
that in the event we have an unfortunate situation, someone pursues
litigation and we lose, we have those reserves there. Frankly, if
there is litigation, I would be shocked if it were all resolved in the
next 12 months anyway --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the problem --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and so I -- I don't feel
comfortable adding an additional 1.7 on over and above.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the -- the problem that I
-- that I'm foreseeing and -- and having no assurances whether
someone is going to challenge it or not if we do enact it is that the
likelihood that as well as challenging it, they'll get an injunction
prohibiting us from either, one, collecting it or either, two, using
it similar to what happened with the tourist development tax. We had
to put it into an escrow account and could not use it until it -- it
was finally settled some three or four years later. And I -- I just
have a little -- little bit of -- not a little bit. I have a lot of
concern about building our budget on $1.7 million where the legal
ground is a little bit shaky, maybe a whole lot shaky. I don't -- I
don't know.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How shaky is it, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Beg your pardon?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How shaky is it?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you remember the tourist tax we
collected and had to put aside for a few years? I think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- that -- I think it's -- you know, the
potential is very similar here and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, you mean that money we
got to keep?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We couldn't use it.
MR. WEIGEL: But it took -- it took legislative help to
assist us there, and so far the legislature hasn't been helping the
counties in this regard. And Nabors, Giblin gave us a new opinion in
1996 which just further strengthen their opinion from 1994, and
they're proactive on the home rule county front, but they -- they feel
it -- it's fraught with legal difficulty. But at the same time, Palm
Beach County enacted something like this, and it didn't get
challenged, but it didn't get fully enacted because they -- they -- it
almost made it, and it didn't. They passed the ordinance, but it
didn't -- it didn't finish their qualifications to put it on line.
So there's been nothing in place by any county to make
this work. Many municipalities have, in fact, done this, and for some
reason it has not been challenged. We don't know. But the advice
that we have and the advice that I give is that the decision is yours,
and the risks are there, and -- and we will from the legal standpoint
defend it to the utmost.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much do we have in reserves,
Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 5.7 million.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 5.7 million. So if all failed
and we lost the 1.7, we'd still have 4 million for a hurricane? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. HCNEES: And there's one other purpose of those
reserves, obviously for catastrophic expense which is what you're
talking about, but also that reserve funds your general government
operation in the months before the ad valorem taxes start to pour in
in December and January so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And how -- what's the lowest that
gets during that period, or typically what would you expect? MR. HCNEES: It can get very low.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: This year we came very close to running
out of cash in -- we have -- Ad valorem, typically we get our first
distribution about November 15. That -- There's about a two-week
period before that where we run very tight. And next year we may, in
fact, be borrowing against pooled cash --
MR. HCNEES: Commissioners --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and paying interest back.
MR. HCNEES: -- it gets to the point where you're
looking at things like, can we transfer the indirect service charge
monies from the enterprise funds all at once instead of waiting, you
know --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Of day one of the year.
MR. HCNEES: -- monthly or semiannually so that we can
have that money. It -- It's very close.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's the magic of the
county. And on -- If you spend November 30 down in Guy Carlton's
office, he brings in thirty-five or 40 million -- maybe it's more than
that now -- but $40 million that day alone, people trying to get that
ultimate discount on the last day of November. And so if we're
looking at the period between November 15, which is what I heard you
say, to November 30, that doesn't scare me. I mean, if it's a
six-month period or a four-month period or something, that would
really ring some bells.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we're looking at 15 days
before suddenly we have the -- the bulk come through --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have -- We have never had to borrow
against pooled cash, though, to meet cash-flow needs in that -- in
that period. Now --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much did we budget for
reserves last year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 5.8 million.
MR. HCNEES: I'd make one other point, Commissioner.
You do have the option -- as you know, you're only setting the
tentative millage rate today -- to set the millage rate in such a
manner as to fund the 1.7 million while the attorney's office and the
DOR staff continue to do their homework on this fee and then cut the
millage in September if we feel better about the -- the probability.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me -- let me just
point one thing out here. The -- the -- What we've budgeted in
reserve for this year is almost identical to what was budgeted and
reserved for last year. That's taking into account that "X" number of
dollars we think under this fee would be collected, 1.7 million,
during the course of the year. November 15, which is when the problem
I heard you say is, is only six weeks into the year. So it's not as
though we would have to take a huge dip. Even if there was litigation
and all of that was put on hold, we wouldn't have to remove the entire
1.7 million on November 15. We'd only be six weeks into the budget
year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And there's something else too. If
worst came to worst and we were in a cash shortage, that's why we have
rotating lines of credit and short-term funding that we can --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Checks don't bounce.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The window --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So that the checks don't bounce.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The window is very short where cash in
the general fund is strapped.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In terms of the reserves, though, just
so we're clear, last year the reserve numbers are about equal. Last
year you -- you will recall, though, we budgeted slightly over
$900,000 for sheriff's attrition. That's the reason the FY '96
reserves are -- are high and actually relatively close to this year's.
We have opted not to do this in FY '97 as part of our budget
discussion, and the sheriff has already alluded to the fact that if
the 4 percent attrition that he has budgeted does not materialize, he
will be back for another million dollars.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was my next -- next point,
was that there's about 1.4 million there that in our discussions with
the sheriff he said he may have to come back and ask for that money.
If he comes back and asks for any part of that money, it's reserves
that it's going to come from because the money is not budgeted
anywhere else.
So I -- I really am concerned about, number one, the
reserves being only $5.7 million this year. The potential that we are
going to use those reserves based on some decisions that we've already
made -- if we use those reserves in order to pump them up again next
year, we're -- we're just doing the same thing next year that we're
doing now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, I -- I hope the
sheriff doesn't need to come back, but I'm relatively sure he won't
come back requesting reserves in the first six weeks of the fiscal
year, and we've just been told it's a very, very short window.
Mr. Chairman, I might suggest you pall the board. I --
I don't have any interest in adding the 1.7 million to the general
fund or the ad valarem tax because I think we're just hitting the
taxpayer that much harder, and it's not necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question before I could
cast my vote on that pall.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I -- I don't have any -- any
desire to add that 1.7 either just for reserves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask my question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. The -- The concern
that I have is with -- is in the details of this -- of this ordinance.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On the interim service fee?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. On the interim service fee
and the impacts that it would have on those people I made mad this
morning, the developers who will have inventory units that they're
carrying. I haven't seen what it would look like. I don't yet know
if I can -- The concept I think is great, but I think there's some
real detailed analysis that's necessary. When are we going to do
that?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. Staff currently has
Tischler and Associates on their contract doing a -- a preliminary
study which begins this week, and they'll have their preliminary
report --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let me ask this question.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- about early August, and that would
kind of provide the road map to implementation of what steps need to
be taken in the interim to get that ordinance in place.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of the things I'm worried
about is the assumption that this interim service fee could raise
$1.7 million. I am not going -- I -- I -- I don't expect that I would
support an interim service fee that required developers at CO to
reassess their property and begin paying taxes on it even though
they're carrying it as inventory and haven't yet sold it because from
a practical perspective how that would translate in the construction
industry and how you'd factor that in, I just don't -- I think that's
one of the most challengeable features and, frankly, one that I'm not
going to support. So how do I know if you assumed inventory being
taxed when you guessed or estimated the 1.7 million or not?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I will defer to Mr. Yonkosky who
prepared the preliminary report that resulted in the $1.7 million
estimate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I see Mr. Ward in the room,
but I haven't heard a peep out of CBIA on this issue, and I'm really
anxious to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to public comment here
shortly.
MR. YONKOSKY: For the record, John Yonkosky. Good
afternoon, Commissioners. Commissioner Hac'Kie, I have heard from Mr.
Ward --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- but the -- as far as the inventory,
the way that it's contemplated and the way it's -- actually takes
place in many of the other governments that have interim service fees,
it -- only at CO. So if it's an inventoried item, if it has a CO,
then the fee would be taken. If it does not have a CO, then the fee
would not be taken.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The normal process is --
MR. YONKOSKY: So we can be -- There can be an exception
for it, for the inventoried items.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- but that -- That doesn't
make sense because the normal development process is that you pull the
CO when you finish construction, and if you have sold the unit, then
you close quickly. But if the unit's not sold -- MR. YONKOSKY: Except for --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- can you not pull -- can you
pass your final inspection and not pull a CO?
MR. YONKOSKY: That I don't know but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because otherwise --
MR. YONKOSKY: -- the exception --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- it doesn't hold true that
inventory can be exempted if you've completed construction and you
pass your final inspection, you pull a CO and that -- and people
should not have to begin -- There's no impact yet at that point.
MR. YONKOSKY: But you can make that exception in the
ordinance when you init -- when you approve the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my question is, did you do
that when you calculated an estimate of 1.7 million? Did you make
that exception?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, I did not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I -- I'm asking why
because if you carry that for a year, it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody's living there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But it has a taxable
value. I mean, if -- if I buy a new home and haven't sold my own --
old home yet, nobody is living in my old home either, but I still have
to pay taxes on it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. I mean -- but it --
it's different from if you build a high-rise condo and you sell out
two-thirds of it and you've got -- I mean, how is that -- how is that
going to work in the real world? I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My concern over this is a
-- is a far cry from the discussion we're having right now, and I'll
just be real straightforward with it. We don't know that the legal
issues regarding this fee will be resolved in the next 12 months.
what happens is, if we proceed with this interim fee at $1.7 million
and the end of the year comes, the end of the fiscal year comes and
this issue has not been resolved by the courts, we must reserve that
1.7 million and roll it into the next year. We'll have to increase
our reserves the second year by $1.7 million to protect ourselves from
having to go into our investments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Until you're successful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- and these things -- these
things don't take six months to get done in court. It takes two and a
half years. We're talking not 1.7 million but now four, $4.2 million
until it's resolved, continually adding to our reserves. So --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess what I would
suggest is -- I guess what I'd suggest is, if we found ourselves in
that situation, you would handle your budget planning for that
upcoming year differently. Your assumption is that next year, even if
we were in litigation, we would say, "Ah, the heck with it. We'll
just continue on," and so on. I think you can take that into account
as you budget in each future year if you found yourself in that
situation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd just have to tax for it next
year instead of this year, is what we'd have to do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wait a minute, though, but what
happens if it's five years from now or seven years or ten years from
now before somebody is successful and you have to go all the way back
and repay all of those? That -- That's the problem that he's brought
up.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's my concern. You
know, you can tell me there's -- there's a big room, and there's a
snake in the corner. Now, you go in. You may not get bit. In all
likelihood you won't get bit, but that doesn't mean I'm going to walk
into that room. I mean, you know. There -- There is an inherent risk
here that we don't have to take. I understand why we would want to
take it. Obviously we don't want to raise taxes any more than is --
is absolutely necessary, but there is an inherent risk here and one
that doesn't have an end to it. And, God knows, when it's in the
court systems, there may not be an end to it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that you don't
necessarily have to keep collecting it for five years or seven years
while the court case keeps going on. If we've -- if we've had -- If
we collect for a year and next summer someone takes us to court and
the process goes on, we can say next year, well, we will not collect
this. In the meantime, we have that option. So five years from now
if we lose all we have to do is repay that first year. We don't have
to continue collecting and continue worrying about repaying for year
after year after year. We have that option whether or not to do that
annually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, how long would -- would a
litigant have to either adjoin a lawsuit or initiate a lawsuit
concerning something like this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this kind of feud is contemplated to
be exacted at CO or some variation of that. They probably have --
They have at least a year, at least one year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And so after a year they would be
precluded?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I -- I'm saying at least a year, and
it may be more than that. I'm not prepared to -- to say any less than
a year right now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that would be important because
if it's just one year, then your maximum exposure is one year.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I'm not --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If it's --
MR. WEIGEL: -- prepared to say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- ten years, then your maximum
exposure is ten years because the suit may not be initiated for ten
years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, there's one
exception to that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is legal action
on an interim fee in another county. So assuming it goes through the
appeals court and may proceed all the way to the state court, when
that decision is made, it will have an impact on us. If that decision
is not in that county's favor, you can bet someone will turn around
and sue us for all of the back amount.
MR. WEIGEL: No. There -- There's no action on the
interim government service fee -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's not.
MR. WEIGEL: -- concerning the county right now. There
is on the privilege fee related to the franchise fee on the previous
agenda items.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: That's still winding its way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is just simply
realistically we'll know this time next year whether or not we're
being challenged on it, and if we are, it might make sense not to
institute it for the following year until we know the results of that
challenge --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that way our maximum
exposure is the year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we take this opportunity to
go to public speakers who want to speak on any aspect of the budget
because we are about to adopt the tentative millage rate. And while
we're waiting for our first speaker, Mr. Smykowski, how much -- how
many dollars did we reduce our ad valorem requirements by this
morning?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the general fund, 325,800. In fund
111, four sixteen one hundred. Those were shifted to fees. A total
of 741,900.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And about what would that equate to in
millage?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The general fund was, as the executive
summary states, at 3.5346. It is now at 3.5166.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The impact to the taxpayer --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that including the
utilities?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- per hundred thous --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But -- But we deleted the utility.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh. Yes. That -- That has a
significant change. Just a moment, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Call -- Call the speakers while
Mr. Smykowski is getting our numbers for us.
MR. HCNEES: You have two. Whit Ward.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now we get to hear from Mr.
Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Whit
Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. I'd
like to talk just for a minute about the proposed increase in -- in
permit fees. I was here this morning, and I got called out, and
unfortunately it came up while I was out, and I'm sorry. I apologize
for that.
I am concerned. I would like to commit to you that we
will work closely. Our association and our industry will work closely
with development services to ensure that the fees are fair and
equitable. We would like you to do the same with us. I -- I would
remind you that several years ago before I came to Collier County, as
a matter of fact, the Builders and Contractors Association came to the
county and asked that permit fees be increased so that we could build
the facility over on Horseshoe Drive, development services' fee --
development services' building, and the fees were increased, and that
building was built and paid for, and -- and the development services
or the development industry portion of that building was paid off last
year. I say that in -- to -- to tell you that our industry does, I
believe, have a long history of cooperation and working closely with
the county. We would like to make sure that any increased fees do
pass a rational nexus test and -- and they are fair and equitable. We
do want to pay our share. We don't want to pay a penny more than
that, obviously. And -- And so I'd like to commit to you that we will
work and ask that you -- and -- and I know that your staff will do the
same, work with us.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And, Mr. Ward, I -- I --
that was exactly what I was referring to this morning when I said I'm
confident that this industry has always been willing to carry it --
not -- to carry its fair share and not be subsidized by property
taxes. So I appreciate that -- MR. WARD: Yes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and know that you will.
MR. WARD: Exactly. Thank you. The interim service
fee -- The interim service fee, as you've been told by your staff, is
currently in effect in several cities in Florida. I have checked on
them. I've checked with my staff at the -- or Florida Home Builders
Association or state staff, and it's my understanding that most of the
interim service fees to date are very, very small, and that's probably
why most of them that are in effect have not been challenged. Now, I
didn't call all of them, but I did call -- Clearwater, I think, was
one. Their interim service fee is something like 25 bucks. So nobody
is going to spend the money to challenge that in court, and that may
be one of the reasons. Again, my association has not taken a position
on the interim service fees. If we could do what we wanted to do, to
tell you the truth, we probably would like -- in Collier County, would
probably like property to be on the -- to go -- be able to go on the
tax rolls when it's occupied instead of at the first of the year, but
we don't control state law.
Now, I can tell you that my state association, the
Florida Home Builders Association, has fought every year, has opposed
interim tax revenue from new construction, and so Collier County
probably stands alone in that position. That's not the position of
our state association. I want to make that very clear because if our
delegation goes up there and proposes this, chances are they're going
to run into a buzz saw.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Really, Fred?
SENATOR DUDLEY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
SENATOR DUDLEY: I've run into that saw.
MR. WARD: So -- However, Senator, I'll be glad to go
with you to the state and -- and see what we can do to try to change
that -- that attitude.
The thing -- The other things that we're concerned
about -- my association has not taken a position on the interim
service fee. I will do my best to get them to take a position, pro or
con, as soon as we know just a little more about it. Your
consultants, I understand, will have something within the next two or
three weeks, and then we'll be able to really get our teeth into it.
We have had several meetings with your staff, and we feel like we've
been kept up to date there.
The thing that we are concerned about -- two -- two
issues. Should the interim service fee be adopted is obviously when
it's collected. We feel that a -- that it would be very tough
particularly on, as an example, condominiums and some of the
commercial buildings where there -- there's more than one certificate
of occupancy issued. I mean, how do you do that? You have tentative
finishes. How do you know what the end use of a building is going to
be, that -- We just have a lot of questions, and we haven't talked to
staff. So we don't know how that would be handled if it didn't go --
if the interim service fee did not take effect when the building was
occupied.
The other thing -- the other thing, of course -- and --
and I'll -- and I'll hurry. The other thing, of course, is the number
of months the interim service fee would be charged. We've been
assured by our state office that ad valorem taxes are paid in arrears.
They are not paid in advance, and so the -- an interim service fee
that was -- that was imposed for, as an example, as long as 23 months
we think clearly would be an illegal fee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Howard Allen, Senior, followed by Dr.
Fay Biles are your last two speakers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And while -- while they're coming
up, this -- I don't mean for this to be Bash Staff Day, but this is
another frustrating thing I'd ask you to communicate to -- to Mr.
Dotrill, Mr. HcNees, is, how do we get this far in the budget process
when we've been talking interim service fee for months and we don't
have that report to know yet what we're talking about? We've got to
adopt a millage. And that's just not right.
MR. HCNEES: Well, the report is under way and -- and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it should have been here a
month ago, and that's my complaint if you would communicate it for me.
MR. HCNEES: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Reverend Allen.
REVEREND ALLEN: All right. Thank you. I too have been
here all day, and I've -- I've sat through the -- all of the other
things, but it's been interesting to hear peoples come before the
commissions and talk about different things, Mother Earth and all of
those things, and I'm not here to talk about that part of it, but I am
concerned about health care. And in our -- In the time that I was
here before and I used my five minutes and maybe went over and when I
left, you didn't give me an answer as to whether -- what you was going
to do about health care. We just adjourned, and everybody took off.
So I didn't have a chance to talk. So I'm back again and probably
back in September too if you don't do anything about it.
You've taken $500,000 out of health care, and then from
what I can understand, what I've learned today, that you've also taken
over $200,000 out of the Immokalee clinic, the Isabel Collier clinic.
So now we are up to three-fourths of a million dollars that has been
taken away from health care. And from what I can see in the reports
that we have here, that that would be a greater task on our health
care providers here in Collier County when the state has mandated that
they make all HIV cases known and that they keep track of them and
that the service -- I meant the counseling and all that be done by the
state. District eight, which is our district, will no longer handle
that. We've got nine hundred and -- over 9,000 seventh graders that's
going to have to be -- take shots this year, and when you take all
that money out of health care and -- and they don't have the manpower
to provide the service, then the county then will have to come up with
something. We talk about the reserve. Then suppose we get down in
the middle of the year and you need to go into the reserve to get
money out to fund health care in order to provide the service that is
needed in our county, and I know we work to be the best in everything
that we can, and we ought to be number one in health care, and I think
the place where it should start at is with our county commission. I
don't -- you don't -- I don't believe you're not concerned about
health care. Maybe you're concerned about the way that the budget was
presented to the county commissioners, and you had questions about it,
but from what I -- It's good I've been here all day because even your
own staff makes mistakes in presenting budgets. They don't bring it
up to what you -- You still have questions, and you send them back to
get the information and bring it back to the commission so you can
correct that, and that's all we're asking as far as the health care is
concerned, that you look at the total picture. You're going to lose
three-quarters of a million dollars that you all have taken out.
Then the state -- Those payee that pays some portion of
the health care, that's another $100,000. And then when you get down
to next year when the budgets come and the state funding that comes
down to help with what we do here, then they will cut it short because
you don't have the service here; so, therefore, they won't have to put
the money into the budget in order to -- to help pay here in Collier
County. And -- and when -- You find the -- the AIDS epidemic that's
going up. You have the immunization that has to be done. You have
other communicable disease and chronic illness that have to be cared
for by the clinic. Now, if you have a good job, you have insurance,
you have all of these, that can be taken care of. But the people we
are talking about don't have that. The people that we -- we want to
help don't have that luxury of going to the hospital and then their
insurance pays for it. They have to look to other means. And so we
can say we won't do nothing about it. That's their concern. But then
when -- when disease starts to spread in the community, it's not just
going to stop with the poor and those that are unable to provide the
care. It's going to move on into your neighborhood and into your area
where you need -- Then we'd have to do something about it then because
it's crossed the line into -- into my area or my community, when we
can stop this right now by allowing the county to put the money back
into the budget and then have your staff -- and I understood they
worked with Hiss Polkowski -- I believe I'm pronouncing her name
right -- in preparing this, and it was their recommendation. And I
find that when you set up committees to make recommendations to the
board and now you find peoples don't want to be on those committees
because when they bring their recommendation to the board, then the
board say, no, I don't want that. So why I'm going to spend my free
time on a committee to make recommendations to the board and then when
I recommend it to the board, the board says, no, I don't want to hear
it.
So what I'm asking you to do and what all of Collier
County would be asking you to do is to put that three-quarters of a
million dollars -- I just learned about the over 200,000 from
Immokalee but anyway the three-quarters of a million dollars, asking
you to reconsider and put it back in the budget. And then where you
see errors, where you may think errors is, then work with the county
health department to make sure that those errors are corrected but
that the fund is there in order to fund the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
REVEREND ALLEN: -- plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question on that subject for Mr.
Olliff is, how much authority -- Let's see. Let me ladle at this.
You guys have gotten copies too, I'm sure, of some memos that went
back and forth between Dr. Polkowski and Mr. Olliff about just what
would be the repercussions of these budget cuts, and, frankly, my
worst fear is -- to be just as blunt as I can be, my worst fears were
realized when I saw Dr. Polkowski's memo saying, Okay. Fine. You're
going to cut money. We're going to let, you know, children not get
their shots and AIDS patients die in the street. And I appreciated
that Mr. Olliff wrote her back and said, No. I don't believe that's
the prioritization that the county commission instructed. My question
is, do you have authority over how she spends money or -- or -- or,
you know, is it the state who decides? Can we have some control over
what the priorities are in that budget?
MR. OLLIFF: Her budget is fairly complicated. She --
She has certain portions of her budget which are restricted in terms
of how and what she can do with the funds that she receives. The
portion of the budget that the county has control over, frankly, is
the portion of the funding that the county provides her. This year
that amount of money is -- some $375,000 was budgeted today. And
we've had several meetings about getting the board to better
understand that you have complete discretion in how she spends that
money because there are no restrictions on those areas and if the
board has specific areas that you would like to see those monies be --
being spent on that she want to spend them in those areas, and I think
those areas that we talked about that were direct medical service
provision-type services, whether it's children's dental or adult
health or those clinical --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The pharmacy closing.
MR. OLLIFF: Pharmacies, the clinical-type services or
children's immunizations. In fact, we had a meeting about that
yesterday, and I believe that when their contract comes before you
this year for renewal, that's what you will see. You will see a
breakdown of your funding in those kinds of areas where I think the
board has in its workshops and things indicated they'd like to see
their money being spent on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think what is happening is
exactly what we expected. Because Dr. Polkowski's department was
absolutely unable in repeated attempts to answer simple budget
questions, this board had to take action. You cannot continue funding
an arm of county government or an arm of state government that's
funded with county dollars without getting answers to how did you
arrive at this number. What is happening now is those prioritizations
are being forced, and if Dr. Polkowski feels that they have to close
the pharmacy and cannot provide insulin to people below the poverty
level yet one person in her department gets a new computer, guess
what? You know, it -- it's going to offer us insight into the
operation of that department that we couldn't get after repeated
questions --
MR. OLLIFF: And I will -- I --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that frustration has got
to end.
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I will tell you that I have learned
more in this process than I ever wanted to know about HRS --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Public health. Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- but I will tell you that there are basic
philosophical differences between what people in public health thinks
are priorities versus what I think I hear you saying are priorities.
And from their perspective, those programs that were educational are
preventive in nature. In other words, they're out there teaching the
community how to live smarter and better today because the long-term
implications are -- are more of a payoff. Those are the important
things to -- to public health officials where I think to us as lay
people and citizens of this community -- we think the provision of
direct medical service to people who are in need and would not get
those services is more important. So I think there's just a basic
difference there and that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we can control the
$370,000 --
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of priorities. And -- and
my -- My last question is, right now -- Well, when will that contract
Come to us?
MR. OLLIFF: You will see that probably the very first
meeting in October, is the schedule we've got.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the meantime, children aren't
going to get their immunizations for school?
MR. OLLIFF: No. Your -- Your budget runs right through
the end of September, and you are currently completely funded for all
of those programs at the end of that year and I think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then why did the pharmacy shut
down?
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I don't have a good answer for that
question.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, is there something we can
do to reopen the pharmacy?
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have jurisdiction over
that?
MR. OLLIFF: I think we can certainly get some responses
to what cuts are being made this fiscal year and why any cuts would be
made this fiscal year, because there were no funding reductions this
fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If anything, she had more money
this year because of the --
MR. OLLIFF: Privatization.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the privatization than she
had -- has ever had before.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just obscene to me that
that was shut down this year. It's just obscene.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to find out who went
to conferences while the pharmacy was being shut down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's obscene.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to find out what
services were being provided when the pharmacy was shut down. You
know, those kinds of questions are going to have to be asked. And if
this is the way we get answers, it's the way we get answers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we should be able to stay --
I've just got to go back to this one more time. Will you, to the
extent you have the authority to, please direct Dr. Polkowski to
reopen whatever facilities she's closed down that are funded by the
last year's budget?
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then when we get to those --
when we get to October, we can talk about prioritizing for ourselves
the money that we're going to fund. It's a shame.
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I agree, and -- and I think sometime
between now and then we need to have some sort of a format where you
understand better where she gets the money and what she does with
those monies and how she decides what she uses those monies for and --
and what role this county commission plays because I'm not so sure
that there's not a role that this county commission can play in even
the discretionary state monies that are spent here in Collier County.
And -- And I think from what I hear, you certainly want to have that
role, and I think we ought to provide that -- that to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think what's important for
everyone to keep in mind is that up until now the county commission
has just set a budget figure. Any cuts or reductions in services are
certainly being directed by the Collier County Public Health
Department and not the Board of County Commissioners. Now, what I
hear a couple of members saying is that they would like to have the
county commission at least have some voice in that. If there's going
to be -- If there's going to be a reduction in services, at least let
the county have a look at it. But right now I think if someone in the
public is blaming the county commission for cutting this service or
that service, that criticism is misdirected because it's the Collier
County Public Health Unit and director that's making the decisions on
what services will and will not be provided. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask Mr. Olliff one other
question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The privatization contract with
Collier health services, when is -- when is that going to be
readdressed?
MR. OLLIFF: The way they structured their contract --
it -- it's a unique contract. It doesn't have specific terms to it.
I know right now -- and I don't know the full extent of it, but the
health department is looking to privatize some additional services in
addition to what CHSI does, and the discussion that we had last
evening was that she needs to make sure that county management and
county commission understand a little better how the last
privatization occurred, what actually happened to FTEs and budgets and
operations before she brings in another contract for privatization
because I don't think there's a very good understanding or a very good
feel for -- for exactly how that current contract is going. So I
don't know whether she's trying to combine all of that into one or --
or what, but I know hopefully she's bringing something to you probably
before October again.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that -- I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just wanted to ask if --
if negotiations for the new contract with CHSI which I believe the
current contract expires the end of October -- are -- are they
going -- are they going forward at all, or are -- have we run into a
brick wall due to lack of money?
MR. OLLIFF: I -- No. I do not believe that there is
any problem in getting to the end of the year, but I am personally
going to get involved in trying to figure out because there are some
budget implications to this county --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm talking about the new
contract.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. And -- And I'm going to try to get
that information back to you before this current budget -- this
current contract expires.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My last comment is, in my
typically impatient way, before this contract expires, I -- I find
myself very interested in seeking privatization of public health to
the fullest extent possible, not just to continue the existing
contract, and I wonder if before we do our October contract with Dr.
Polkowski it's possible to seek some RFPs and Qs for privatizing the
whole thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ps and Qs.
MR. OLLIFF: You'll have to let me do a little work --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say yes.
MR. OLLIFF: -- in that area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What a great idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. That's two.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we can provide the same
service for less dollars, you've got three.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's find out if we can.
I want to know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Let's see if we can move
our discussion along here. We've got more ground to cover. One more
public speaker?
MR. HCNEES: Dr. Biles.
DR. BILES: For the record, my name is Fay Biles, and
I'm president of the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association, and as you
might guess, we've gone over this budget line by line, department by
department. I also sat on the Greater Naples Citizens' Committee on
budget which is now named -- and, Tim, you sat on that -- the Budget
Process Reform Committee, and so we went over all the budgets, and I
would just like to bring up three items. I know that you're going to
go over that budget again very, very careful. I'd like to challenge
One.
We talked 3 percent utility tax, 3 percent. Why are we
paying Guy Carlton 3 percent to administer collecting taxes for us?
Now, I know he makes a big deal about paying that back at the end of
the year. We always cheer when he pays back that money. I would
rather see us reduce that percentage, pay to -- the taxpayers are
paying going in and not get as much back later on, and so I think we
need to look at that.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a brave woman you are.
DR. BILES: I know. I know. I am brave. The second
thing --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Dr. Biles, if I could interrupt
you --
DR. BILES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykow -- Smykowski, don't
we budget a turnback from Mr. Carlton each year? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's the same dollars?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe the fees assessed by the tax
collector for collect -- for collecting the ad valorem taxes are also
governed by statute, I believe.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're governed by statute but
when -- but --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- he budgets a turnback?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So --
DR. BILES: Okay. But is it --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: One point --
DR. BILES: -- the percentage that's governed by tax --
I mean, by statute?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe so, yes.
DR. BILES: Three percent? That chopped that down.
All right. Number two -- Number two, I served as a
senior officer, vice president at Kent State after the shootings on
our budget, and we had seven regional campuses, and we used to go over
their budgets because we went broke, as you know -- in fact, went in
the hole, and so we had to climb out of that hole, and we did very
careful analysis of every single department in colleges' budgets. And
we finally came to the conclusion that many of them put into their
reserves a bit more than they really need each year, and they kind of
save that. And then toward the end of the year, if there's anything
left, then they, you know, have a spending. So we had an auditor to
make sure that that didn't happen at the end of the year, but we also
found that we could reduce their reserves. I would suggest we reduce
all reserves to 5 percent and see if we can't get a real stringent
budget-conscious department -- in all departments. Now, I know
there's possibilities. We talked about it, and it would have to go
back to the reserves if, you know, something came up that we couldn't
handle.
The other -- third thing is that I would like to see all
constitutional officers' budgets absolutely scrutinized. We certainly
did to the bu -- the sheriff's budget. I mean, we went over that
sheriff's budget line by line. If you remember the day Dr. Polkowski
and also Denise Blanton -- very tough on their budgets. If you
remember, the agricultural section. You remember the health that was
reduced a half million dollars. Dwight Brock came up here, and y'all
just waved him on and his -- he went on his way and I -- His budget
was not in the big, thick book. So I -- I did get ahold of the
budget, and I went over it line by line, and I think there's some
things there that could be reduced. So I -- I think all the
constitutional officers' budgets should be reviewed, and then perhaps
we can cut down on some of that cost. So that's my third one.
The other thing, Jane -- Janet Vasey sat on the GNCA
committee who is very sharp. She was in the Pentagon as a budget
analyst for the Army, very sharp, and she -- we shared what we have --
the list I sent to you from MITA, and she concurred on almost all of
those.
So I'd still like this budget not to be closed, and go
back over -- instead of taxing ad valorem taxes for all of us in
Collier County, gosh, let's go back and see if we can't cut every
possible thing there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What percentage of our budget is
reserves?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the general fund, we're looking at
5.7 million.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: About 80 -- 80 million.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I think it's about 5 --
maybe a little more than 5 percent but --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For contingency we're only budgeting 5
percent in -- in typical funds. In the general fund due to the
cash-flow issues, we do budget a one and a half million dollar
cash-flow reserve which creates fund balance which allows us to
operate during that beginning of --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the fiscal year.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which also coincidentally is
roughly the amount that would cover the interim fee once we're beyond
November 30.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then our reserves are completed
though. Mr. Weigel, the -- Dr. Biles -- Dr. Biles brought up a good
question on the county commission review of constitutional officers,
but if my memory serves me correctly, we don't -- we don't have a lot
of purview over their budgets other than the sheriff; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I think it's about the same. I -- I
can't think of any statutory distinction that's imposed on you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. You control ultimately the purse
string or the -- the amount of the transfer to the constitutional
officer. You typically cannot dictate programmatically what they can
or --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- cannot do, but you control by the
purse string. You have a million dollars to carry out your functions,
or we're only going to give you 900,000 or --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the same for all
constitutionals.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have the ability?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- with the excep -- with the exception
-- the tax collector's budget and property appraiser's budget are
approved by the State of Florida. Now, there is an appeal process for
the property appraiser if in the interim you have any outstanding
issues with those budgets, but those are approved by a separate body.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what we're really talking
about is the clerk and the supervisor of elections, and that's it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, maybe the same -- the same
folks that hold our feet to the fire for their budgets ought to go to
their elected clerk and hold their feet to the fire. I mean, you
know, it happens every year with the sheriff's budget. He comes in,
asks for an increase, and we get hammered. You know, you elect him
too. You know, you elect them, and I would appreciate that the people
that are paid twice what we're paid to do their job would be held as
accountable as we are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have one more --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, the property appraiser's budget
and the supervisor's budget went down, and by statute the tax
collector's budget does not get submitted until August 1.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I think we have one more public
speaker, don't we, Senator Dudley?
SENATOR DUDLEY: Thank you. I think more of us should
spend more time watching local government. It's been a great day.
For the record, Fred Dudley. No. It has been a great day. Fay is
here all the time so she -- It's exciting for me, Fay. I only get to
see --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Be glad for how far Tallahassee
is away.
SENATOR DUDLEY: Yeah. And I'm surprised how many
questions come up about some of the very issues like the interim
proprietary fee that we've been debating together with the -- levying
the property taxes at CO. But for the record, Fred Dudley,
representing western Lee and western Charlotte County -- or Collier
counties. I do want to just bring you up to date on a meeting we had
yesterday. We sort of called a meeting of Chancellor Reed from the
State Board of Regents with Commissioner St. Cerny because if you've
been following some of the news accounts, there's been some sparks
flying about the $2 million which we were fortunate enough to get
appropriated for Treeline Boulevard. Yesterday we held that meeting
for about two hours. The sparks continue to fly. But we left the
room with an agreement that, in fact, the Board of Regents will
probably by tomorrow -- although they had some mechanical problem of
getting the comptroller to cut the checks and get them down here --
would deliver payment to Lee County totalling $2,005,000, and that's
because we're going to pay 1.6 of the 2 million. The bids for the
road came in lower than expected which is good news, not bad news, of
course. One point six will be paid to Lee County out of the 2 million
that was appropriated this year at this point. And out of the Board
of Regents' infrastructure or concurrency trust fund which is a fund
that they hold for all ten of our state universities, 405,000 will be
paid to Lee County as at least the amount that the Board of Regents
agrees is due as a result of concurrency, et cetera.
Now, there's a dispute that will be ongoing between Lee
County and the Board of Regents about the exact amount of proportional
share funding under a statute that was enacted, I believe, in 1995.
So there is still a dispute yet to be resolved, but I'm pleased to
tell you that based on the agreement yesterday, the 2 million will be
paid to Lee County so that they can go ahead and let the bid --
They've already opened the bids and identified the low bidders. They
can go ahead and sign the contract to begin the four-laning of
Treeline Boulevard from Corkscrew to Alico.
Collier County came up several times in that discussion
as -- as you did back when we went back to Tallahassee this spring
and -- and budgeted or appropriated an additional $2 million for the
road. We actually appropriated the money to the Board of Regents for
Treeline. And that is that you've been kind enough to consider some
contribution towards that road. I would encourage you to continue
those considerations. I, frankly, hope that you will support it, but
I do recognize that you have your own constituencies and your own
concerns to deal with, but I can tell you that in our negotiations and
in our figuring, we are hoping for -- for that support for -- for
Treeline. But, nonetheless, the -- the issue that's been raging I
think it's safe to say, knock on wood, has been resolved.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'd --
SENATOR DUDLEY: I'd be happy to answer questions.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- really like to thank you for
coming and communicating with us because my -- my frustration in
this -- in this partnership that we supposedly have forged with Lee
County and the university is that I get my communications from my Lee
County partner out of the Naples Daily News, and that's just not too
hot. I -- I had heard that the bids had come in low.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean the communication or the
paper?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You decide. Very good though. I
heard the bids were coming -- had come in lower, but I haven't
received any official communication about that. I -- I would ask, you
know, if that our other partner, Lee County, would communicate with us
to let us know exactly what the needs are. I will tell you, my
support for the $500,000 contribution towards that road is not
wavering. I am, however, interested in -- in if the -- if the bid for
the -- If the cost of the road has gone down by -- I'm curious to
know -- 30 percent, maybe our contribution should be reduced by 30
percent, and then that 30 percent of the half million dollars should
go toward what other funding Collier County might do in partnership of
as -- for the university so --
SENATOR DUDLEY: Well, I probably jumped the gun on
Commissioner St. Cerny, and I hope he won't be too angry at me when
it -- by -- by chance I had to be here today anyway and suggest that I
give you this report. So I know you'll talk to him and -- and with
him and get the details. But the -- the figures that the Lee County
transportation folks passed out yesterday, the total bid for the
road -- and this included the -- some signalization -- signalization
changes, including an additional turn lane up at 41 as well as, I
think, some intersection improvements at Three Oaks Park, which is on
the west side of the interstate, came in at nine point -- just under
9.5 million. So there's lots of expense for everybody to -- to take a
piece of, I assure you. Our 2 million from the state is but a bare --
a bare scratch in that -- in that contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think anybody from Lee
County is necessarily listening anyway, but I -- I would like to think
that as we start this partnership, we -- partners would communicate
with each other better than -- better than through the media. That's
just a shame.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's fairly sure they
still want our money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but it'd be nice if they'd
tell us the status.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just suggest we -- we
deal with the issue at hand which is our millage rate? It has
absolutely nothing to do with this right now.
SENATOR DUDLEY: Well, other than I want to tell you
that -- that I support what you're doing, and -- and I hope that you
will in your final deliberations -- taking into account all the things
that you have to do in making your decisions, I do hope you will give
that -- that strong support, and -- and we will not only build but
maintain that partnership, and I pledge to you to do all I can to make
sure that -- that there is a good partnership there because I -- I'm
very selfish about it. I represent two counties, and I have concerns
in both counties. Some of them are different, but some of them are
the same. This happens to be one I can proudly tell you is the same,
and so please count me in as far as helping at that -- that level.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Senator Dudley. Let's see
if we can get back now to our -- our item which is to adopt our
proposed millage rate.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Commissioners, you had
requested an update of where the millage would be obviously now
without the 3 percent franchise fee. The adopted FY '96 millage was
3.4889 or $348.89 per 100,000 of taxable value. Without the --
Without the franchise fee, at this point we'll be at $374.85 or 3.7485
mills for the general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that with or without the
partial year --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's with.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That assumes we have the partial year
assessment budgeted at one seven. If we -- If you opted, as your
county attorney and county manager have both recommended, to adopt
your tentative millage, assuming that that fee may not materialize, it
would increase to 3.8424 or 13 percent over the rollback rate versus
the 10.2 it would be at if we assume that fee is going to materialize
at the $1.7 million level.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're either raising taxes
10.2 percent or 13 percent, depending on the partial-year ad valorem?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keeping in mind there is
nothing to prohibit us between now and September from cutting more.
We simply canwt add more.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. In fact, that was part
of the logic behind the staff recommendation to up the tentative
millage, assuming that the interim government services fee may not
materialize because in the interim period we will have at least the
benefit of the preliminary report from Tischler and Associates and be
better able to advise you as to where that stands and/or if
$1.7 million is still a realistic figure. Obviously if -- if -- if
they said, yes, itws still -- we can still forge ahead and implement
this fee, but it may not be until December 1 instead of October 1. We
could take corrective action at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: R and N steadfast not wanting
to add that in, we heard we have 1.5 million over the standard 5
percent, and yet therews a window there. Commissioner Matthews, I
heard you say something about but -- yes, but thatws after the -- the
reserve is depleted. Itws not depleted. Itws borrowed from in a --
in a 7- to 15-day window, and then itws put right back. And -- And,
once again, at the end of November, we have that giant reserve again
so --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If that fee did not materialize, a year
from now your -- your fund balance would drop by 1.7 million, and then
you would -- we would assume we would not be budgeting it again. So
you would have -- in fact, you get kind of a double whammy the
following year. It compounds itself by another 1.7 million.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. My --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So we just want you to know that -- that
is a calculated risk that you would be taking.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, my --
my -- my concern is not so much that six-week window when -- when our
cash flow is going to be very tight. Itws going to be tight
regardless of -- of what we do. My concern is the entire fiscal year
where we have $5.8 million that the -- the sheriff, whether he comes
back in or not, we donwt know, but therews the potential. We have the
potential to having to fund the $1.7 million. If that doesnlt happen,
we have the potential that CHSI is going to come in and want some
money to renew their contract for primary health care, and we also
have the potential of the half a million dollars for the university.
Now, those are all some pretty big numbers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last one has never been
considered under ad valorem and -- I mean, we have the potential that
a hurricane could come too but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, you have any number
of hypotheticals. Thatls not necessarily what you base your real
number on.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I know when I -- when I do
my budget at home, I -- I base my budget at home on -- on numbers I
can hang my hat on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And thatls why we
have an extra $5.7 million floating around that isnlt dedicated to
anything.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- And I think welve discussed all
these points several times this afternoon. Iid like to see if we can
go to closure on this item.
We have three choices concerning the interim service
fee. A would be not to impose the interim service fee. B would be to
impose the interim service fee and not budget any reserves for
contingency. Three would be both the interim service fee and the
contingency. So is it A, B, or C? Let's poll the board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, with the possibility in September
of being able to reduce the millage, knowing a little better where
that will stand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that reminder. A is no
fee. B is fee without reserves.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A is no fee at all?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other choice --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A is no fee at all?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- Just say what you want to
do, folks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's possible, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other choice that I didn't
hear in A, B, or C is I want to vote against the budget increase
because I want to continue my objection that we should have done
franchise fees. So I think there's a D.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's too late for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're -- We're to the interim service
fee right now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can do that when we
actually talk millage rate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but let's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- do the support -- What's
your opinion on the interim service fee?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have too many questions
about -- I don't have enough information to support it at this time,
so I'm going to say --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- A.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which is increase the millage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've taxed for it and hope that
we can pass it. It's a shame but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That -- That was C, wasn't
it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's what I want to do. I
don't care about your letters anymore. What I want to do is complain
again to the staff that we don't have the information we need to have
to be able to decide about this interim service fee today and then
vote to adopt a millage that assesses the additional $1.7 million out
of fear that we will not be able to adopt the interim service fee.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Assign a letter, whichever one --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to clarify,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. She doesn't mean your letters. She means our
letters, A, B, and C.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. That's what I meant.
Thank you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: B.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm with the lady on the end.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm with the lady on the end.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's C. Then we'll -- we'll --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Put the money in and hope we can
pass it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we do, we're going to have
a real shot at lowering the ad valorem rate back down next year.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. So your general fund
millage would be 3.8424 mills, 13 percent over the rollback rate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any other comments before we
adopt the final millage?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me just throw one
other option out and this is --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean any more last attempts?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The -- One of the
things we did with each department, as they came we looked at the
numbers, and we said, you know, that's -- to come up with the
specifics of how you will do it is your job as manager of that
department, but we think you should cut "X" number of dollars from
your budget. And I wonder if the board might not entertain adopting a
smaller number and telling our county manager to come back with the
way to achieve that because we asked for a specific thing from our
staff and our county manager at the beginning of the budget process
which is not what we got back, and what we might do is pick a number
that is smaller than the 3.84 and let the county manager do his job.
MR. MCNEES: Speaking for the county manager, we would
only like to clarify that we'll do our share of such a suggestion
inasmuch as we are that percentage of the general fund and that the
same requirement be made of the other spenders, so to speak, of the
general fund money; that we're not, as often happens, the only ones
asked to step up to the plate to balance the budget.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's a great point and
that's -- When I say "county manager .... I apologize -- I mean that
across the board with -- with all of them, Mike.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't disagree with the
concept. The problem is the follow-through. The constitutional
officers don't -- don't have to do it, and what that does is if we
have a lower millage rate, it leaves the BCC holding the bag, and
whatever shortage there exists will have to be borne by BCC
operations.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: By the county manager's agency.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I disagree. I mean, as
Mr. Smykowski said ten minutes ago, we hold the purse strings, and we
can say there are "X" number of dollars to go to each constitutional
officer. And -- And I -- I know we're -- I'm -- we're taking a step
backwards here, but I'm not happy at the 3.84, and -- and there were a
number of projects that each one of us put forward and we couldn't get
three votes for. I had another 1.8 million or something in cuts that
I had suggested that didn't get agreed, and I know everybody had their
thing, but it seems to me there -- there's a little more meat on this
bone that -- that we can cut away, and -- and that may be a way to
achieve it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's tempting, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your suggestion?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's very tempting.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- What is your suggestion?
Let's have a suggestion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd rather see continued
action in that direction between now and September when we actually
adopt the budget and -- and -- and send perhaps a strong message that
we want that, but -- but you have to remember that right now we're --
we're adopting the millage rate of which we cannot go up. We can go
down, but we cannot go up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the only time we have
any pressure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is my point because if
we say, "Well, we'd like to do that, and that's a goal, but we're
going to adopt this millage rate," we don't have any teeth.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We already did that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And if we knock this
down by a few points, then that is our teeth. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pick a number.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I -- I would disagree, Commissioner. I
think you still do have teeth as demonstrated over the last three to
four years. You have made decisions at the final public hearings, in
each of those years changing the millage rate. I think you still have
that ability this year as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- it's -- it's kind of --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It doesn't lock you into -- This is the
tentative millage rate and -- and upon which the TRIM notice will be
mailed, but it in no way represents the final tax bill that will go to
Collier County residents.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does TRIM stand for?
MR. HCNEES: Commissioner, if I can offer --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Truth in millage.
MR. HCNEES: If I can offer an option --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe nobody else is
interested in that. I just -- It seems to me that's a way we can
still do something.
MR. HCNEES: If I can offer an option, if you -- if you
adopt a tentative millage rate today that funds the budget and the
programs that you've approved as you reviewed them during -- during
the course of the summer and then direct staff -- county manager staff
and constitutional agency staff, tell them by the time we come back
here in September you want to understand what it would mean if we take
"X" dollars out of the general fund. Then we can in a -- in a
reasoned and programmed way tell you what the programmatic cuts are
going to be, what is that going to mean in terms of your library
hours, what is that going to mean in terms of sheriff's patrol. You
can then make that decision at your final hearing or prior to your
final hearing and with better information than forcing yourself into
that position now by -- by adopting a lower millage rate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the difference for me
is if you say, "Gosh, bring it back, and tell us what would happen,"
then they bring back, henny-penny, the sky is falling. Just -- We
just had the discussion ten minutes ago on the health department and
priorities. As far as Commissioner Hancock said, if -- if someone's
going off to a conference somewhere while they're saying, well, gee,
we have to shut down the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pharmacy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- pharmacy, what we're told
in this public hearing is we're going to have to shut down the
pharmacy. And unless we can go over there and physically see who's
getting on a jet plane to go to Idaho to a convention, we don't have
any way to know that. So if there are no teeth in it -- if there --
if there isn't a cut required, we'll get the same thing we got this
spring which is the absolute worst case scenario. If you cut it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Children will die in the street.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Armageddon is going to
happen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my concern on that
aspect. By way of -- of across the board, we penalize the efficient
departments and probably only dent the inefficient ones. An operation
like Mary Morgan's which you can trace every hour and every dollar to
a voting machine or to a -- you know -- You know, there are some
operations I am very, very comfortable with in how they expend their
funds and that a -- a 5 percent reduction in their budget would have a
very significant impact on their operation versus one that's more
cumbersome such as the sheriff's office that I can't put my finger on
every little expense. So in trying to get after one, you
inadvertently hurt another. And the time to do that is in the
individual review of those budgets, in my opinion. And at this late
hour, to turn and tell other constitutional officers, yeah, we
approved your budget, but just kidding, go -- go find this money
whether it's there or not is -- is arbitrary, and -- and -- and I have
a difficulty with it because of the departments like maybe Nate
Skinner or Mary Morgan or -- you know, and I'm -- I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your concern.
The only thing I would disagree with -- with what you said is "at this
late hour" because they have another two months in which to accomplish
that. If -- and -- And there may be certain areas we don't want to
touch, but I -- I just -- I'm convinced there's more here to be done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's your number?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hike, we were at
3.84-something?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 8424.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- 8424.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From 3.4889 to 3.8424.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let's understand also that
the -- What was the millage rate four years ago?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Four years ago? Just a moment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We go year to year sometimes and
forget trends. We have reduced the millage rate two -- three of the
last four or two of the last three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Six of the last seven.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six of the last seven years.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've depleted our reserves as a
result.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- I think that's important
to know at least -- No, we haven't, but I'm -- I'm just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We haven't depleted our
reserves.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They are -- they are -- They are
lessening. They're not gone. Depleted -- They are depleting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it's like when we talked
about, you know, a teen curfew countywide. You penalize the good
kids, and -- and the bad ones usually get around it anyway. The
same -- You know, we're talking about the same thing here.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The adopted FY ninety -- adopted FY '94
millage was 3.6729.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was that year?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, but the question was '93. We
worked that number up the other day, if you'll recall. MR. SHYKOWSKI: '93 is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The number he just gave us was
'94?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I have 3.8531.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is higher than what the
highest proposed millage today has been?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By seven --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By a hundredth of a point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By a tenth -- a hundredth of a mill.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What about '92?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, in any case --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guys --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let's move along here. Either pick
a number or let's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.70.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I can't do that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can't do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think that's responsible.
Can't do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, do you have some other
suggestion, or you just want to go with the 3.84?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll go with three seven if
you'll talk about franchise fees again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That will be a quick way to get into
it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: You would still have latitude to discuss
franchise fees again. I realize what you did today, but that would
still be an option should you decide to go back down that route at a
future date just to be clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to support a
reduction. In the face of individual review, whether everyone agreed
or not, collectively or majority anyway, we agreed to certain budget
limits and levels for constitutional officers. To make an arbitrary
reduction in all of them at this point, I -- I'm -- I'm just not
comfortable doing that. The time to do that is early in the process
and not accept any budget that comes in over it. We didn't do that
this year. We set a percentage goal, and then, you know, some
departments said we can't meet it, and we said okay, and some said we
can, and we said okay and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a motion then?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion is to approve what's
been presented at the millage rate of 3.8424.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that. Mr. -- What's
the millage for '92? You were working it. I thought you had it on
your calculator. I'm sorry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's 3.8431.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm doing something else. It's a little
more difficult. We had -- The general fund and the capital millage
and water management were all separate. So you have to --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's okay then. Don't worry
about it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 4.03 -- 4.0320.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 4.03?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- 0320.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Which is substantially more than what
it is now.
We have a motion and a second to adopt the tentative
millage rate of 3.8424.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I do -- Just to comment, in the backup
there -- there are a whole host of millages, a number of -- of small
taxing districts. The only millages that I've changed, the general
fund, 3.8424; fund 111 which is your unincorporated area general
fund -- due to the shift of fees this morning of $416,100 is now a
millage of .5642 versus what was initially proposed of .5948 which is
now a -- a decrease of 5.2 percent below the rollback in the
unincorporated area. And with the alleyways program in road -- road
HSTD-3 fund 104, the proposed millage is .3294 mills, 234.1 percent
over rollback.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, your --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: So those would be the only changes to
the millages that were submitted in the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, your
motion again is to approve -- I just -- I want to make sure -- We said
so many numbers here. I want to make sure --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The final number was 3.8424.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- 24.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's what I seconded.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that motion --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only number.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That motion --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only number.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- incorporates Commissioner
Hac'Kie's statement regarding pursuing the interim fees so that
hopefully if we are successful come next year we can see again a -- a
significant reduction in the -- the ad valorem at that time.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. And, again, we would
have the preliminary report from our consultant who is working on that
now in early August so we'd be able to advise you in the interim where
that stands and will -- may have a better feel at that point for the
likelihood of success in that regard.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to vote against it to
be consistent with my desire for a franchise fee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we'll find out who's
going to vote for it and against it right now. This motion also
adopts the -- the miscellaneous millage rates that Mr. Smykowski --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- pointed out for us and --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- all those in favor please signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That is adopted three to two.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got all kinds of three to
twos today.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a short break. Short and
responsible, please. We still have a long ways to go.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-330 APPOINTING DANIELL BUHS TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I believe
Commissioner Constantine had item 8(E)(2) on the agenda pulled from
the consent agenda. In his temporary absence, I'd like to go ahead
and move to items 10(A), (B), and (C) until he returns.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 10(A) is appointment of a member to
the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we have one
applicant for one position. I'd like to recommend Mr. Daniel Buhs for
the position.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Mr. Buhs. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-331, APPOINTING MANUEL ANDRES LASO, ARHANDO AYLAAND
EDGARDO TENREIRO - ADOPTED
Our next appointment is members to the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we have three
members, three -- three available positions. I move that we appoint
Hannie Laso, Armando Ayla, and Edgardo Tenreiro.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. I'm glad that
Mr. Tenreiro I know personally is -- I think would do a great job and
Hannie also so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They'll all do a great job.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Glad to see them all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So there's three and three?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three and three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint these members. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #11A
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe we've hit the road
block.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Livingston Road we've done.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've already done the discussion
concerning Livingston Road.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need four votes for item
12, and that's the comp plan amendment -- MR. MCNEES: You have one public comment item if you'd
like to hear that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A1, it's a long day.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hi, A1.
MR. MCNEES: How did you know?
MR. PERKINS: But of course. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade
Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. First of all,
I'd like to invite you and everybody else to a meeting at the Golden
Gate Community Center tomorrow night at 7:30 to hear our president
speak, and at the same time too the videotape on what has happened to
the panthers -- and we paid for it -- is available to view at the
center.
One of the other things too, last week I had talked
about the -- having last week's meeting replayed several times on
channel 54 or the educational channel, and when we went to get that,
it says, Due to the malfunction of videotape equipment, a videotape of
the board's county commissioner meeting July 16, 1996, is unavailable,
meaning that the Grail -- Gail Brecht (phonetic) segment was totally
lost. Convenient, wasn't it?
(Commissioner Constantine entered the board room.)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's on -- on audiotape, though,
isn't it?
MR. PERKINS: It's on audio, but you can't see the
markings on the wall where the amount of the board is -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that, but at least
it's better than nothing.
MR. PERKINS: Right. One other thing that took place
today, Gail Brecht had an unpublished private meeting with the other
state agencies, and it was being held in the southern Golden Gate
Estates violating the Sunshine Law for the purpose of collusion to
fraudulently deprive the citizens who own property out there of the
right to improve or develop their land. This action for the state
to -- to cloud this land stopping the resale to -- to other private
citizens constitutes a land grab to be declared later as surplus, then
sold to insiders on auction or at auction on the courthouse steps in
Tallahassee without anybody else knowing about it. The stuff that's
gone on here with the DEP and the rest of the state agencies needs to
really be looked into very good, and some of these people should be
indicted. Thank you.
Item #8E2
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND
THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO REDEFINE
THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS REQUIRED FOR A QUORUM - TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED
IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move forward -- or backward, I
should say, now to item former 16(E)(2) which is now 8(E)(2).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I just pulled the
item. It didn't make much sense to me to single out one committee
or -- or advisory board this way. If this is a problem, I've got to
imagine it's a problem for other committees from time to time, and
either we ought to do it for everybody or not do it for one, but let's
make -- go ahead and make something uniform, and what I'd suggest
is -- I don't know what the feeling of the board is. If you want to
make it uniform and make this change, let's bring it back under a --
some sort of resolution that deals with all our advisory boards. And
if you don't, then let's not single this one out. But it just didn't
make a whole lot of sense to me to do it for one and leave the rest up
in the air.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I agree. I've had
some -- some recommendations from members of the productivity
committee on things. I know Hiss Filson gets -- You know, every time
somebody vacates or -- or resigns, she has to go through the request
for advertising for each individual position on each individual
committee, and this committee apparently, you know, has had a stagger
of resignations so they, you know, are constantly in transition for a
period of time.
Two things. One is I agree. It's either done for all
or done for none. The second thing is, is the board interested in
adopting any type of policy that provides biannual dates by which all
vacancies are advertised? You know, rather than doing it as it comes
available and then doing another one two months later, the committees
would then know if you have vacancies they'll be advertised for being
filled on a -- a date, whether it's two or three or four times a year,
so that Hiss Filson's job may be a little bit easier.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And people can be more, you know,
clear about where they want to serve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it would be easier for the
paper to print a block of them on a given date than getting staggered
requests. So I -- I'm glad to have the opportunity to at least bring
this up and -- and you know --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Quarterly might be more effective than
biannually.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like -- I like the quarter,
advertising by the quarter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the original subject of -- I
prefer that if we establish a committee of nine people, that that
be -- that a quorum be the majority of the full committee, personally.
If there's not enough interest to keep at least a quorum attending
meetings, there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It's an
indicator. And I would like to -- to see it remain the same unless
there are extenuating circumstances on this individual committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like we might have a
discussion on the whole committee structure. I think the quarterly
idea might be a good one. Any interest in -- rather than approving
this item by itself, bringing it back as a big -- one big item in a
couple of weeks' time?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Very much so.
MS. ARNOLD: How do we -- For the record, Hichelle
Arnold with the county manager's office. Are we directing which staff
to bring all the amendments back? Because --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the policy '-
MS. ARNOLD: Because there are quite a few advisory
boards, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The policy regarding
advertising is really something that's handled by Hiss Filson,
although I don't know if it's covered in every single ordinance that
forms these committees. Is it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And the staff usually make the -- makes the
amendments to the ordinances themselves.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The staff liaison to -- to the
committees?
MS. FILSON: The staff coordinators. Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if it's an ordinance,
it has to have the attorney's hand in it. So perhaps the county
attorney's office in concert with Hiss Filson might be an appropriate
place to do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And at this point it sounds like
there are two discussion items. One is advertisement for vacancies on
a regularly scheduled time frame. The second is whether or not to
maintain quorum as members in office versus '- MS. ARNOLD: Full --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- full committee '-
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- members. Are there any other
items?
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just discuss what the problem was
with the Black Affairs Advisory Board from -- You know, we had from
time to time five or six members, and we had four board members
showing up so that we couldn't conduct business because five members
were the only legal number for a quorum to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, is -- is it -- is it a problem
of not being able to attract enough members, or is it a problem of not
having issues to deal with, or is it a problem of '-
MS. ARNOLD: Well, there were -- there were --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- lack of interest or '-
MS. ARNOLD: There were issues to deal with, and I guess
from time to time -- we had one -- For example, we had one member who
is a crisis intervention case worker, and she is on call all the time
and had several conflicts with some of our meetings, so we weren't
getting a full attendance of our -- our membership that were in office
at the time, and we couldn't conduct --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, more importantly I think is
that the reason a quorum is necessary is for the board -- the
committee to make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Committee work doesn't stop when a quorum isn't
present. In committees I've served on in the county, if we didn't
have a quorum, we went ahead and had a meeting. We -- We discussed
the things that we're working on, and -- and things moved ahead, but
we were unable to make a recommendation to the board.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So '-
MS. ARNOLD: And there has been -- we -- that -- That
occurred and they conduct -- they held the meeting anyway with the
members in attendance, but there were -- there was a time -- and --
and this is not occurring currently, but there was a time where they
couldnwt take action for recommendation to the board because we
werenwt getting --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iwd like to see both items
brought back for discussion under the same heading.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Letws -- Letws do that.
MR. WEIGEL: As a discussion item; is that right?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the board may wish to take
action to revise all ordinances addressing committees regarding the
advertising at that time. So we may be prepared for -- may want to be
prepared for that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Itws got to be advertised.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: All right. You want us to prepare to
advertise for that meeting which will put it back a few weeks, or
should we be prepared to take your direction to go to advertising
immediately thereafter if you decide to do that? CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why donwt we have a
discussion on it in a couple of weeks, and then wewll advertise
something when we know what wewre going to advertise because I donwt
know what --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Letws not advertise something
until we figure out what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that idea.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Miss Arnold.
Wewre skipping around so much. I hope wewve gotten
everything done on the front page.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have --
MR. MCNEES: I believe we have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you take care of 10(A)
and (B)?
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 96-41, AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
(ACSC) TO REINSTATE THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION AND TO MODIFY THE SIDE
ALTERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOUTHERN GOLDN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have us at 12(A)(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(A)(1) is where we are.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have completed the morning
agenda.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've finally completed the morning
agenda. It's only 4:25. MR. MCNEES: Lunch.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. McNees wants lunch.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Lunch?
MR. MCNEES: I'll take whatever I can get.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's getting close to dinner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Wayne Arnold, your
planning services director for the record. This item is an amendment
to the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. This is to
reinstate the agricultural exemption of your area of critical state
concern. It's also an amendment to modify certain site alteration
requirements that would be applicable to the southern Golden Gate
Estates. And this item has been heard before this Board of County
Commissioners, I believe, at least twice previously. I -- I know it's
been heard --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we supported the changes.
You know, this is just the implementation of what we've indicated is
supportive.
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. I think the -- the one
point that the staff did wish to make to you specifically was that the
exemption that would apply to the southern Golden Gate Estates would
be to allow for exemption beyond the 10 percent where they were doing
fire breaks and other conservation-related types of things. The full
exemption for the Golden Gate Estates would not come out until the
full comprehensive plan amendment to take out goal two of the Golden
Gate master plan. So that timing would have to work together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's just because we can't
do it faster?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: Yes. We have quite a few. First I have a
statement from Nancy Payton representing the Collier County Audubon
Society, Florida Wildlife Federation, The Conservancy objecting to the
amendment, saying it does not adequately protect the area of critical
state concern, and she asked that that be entered into the record.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MR. MCNEES: Your first public speaker would be Barbara
Cawley followed by A1 Perkins.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In order to maybe expedite those,
I -- I personally am supportive of what's being presented. Obviously
if someone has an objection, I'd be happy to hear it. But those that
are supportive, unless you want to talk me out of it --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one -- one question --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same. That's three.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for Mr. Arnold, Miss Cawley,
if you've don't mind waiting a minute.
MS. CAWLEY: No. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the -- the portion of this
in -- in southern Golden Gate Estates that that is -- we're only
talking about that portion that's called southern Golden Gate Estates
that is ag zoning; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: Actually, no. The -- This provision would
apply as part of the 1992 code -- Let me start again. The land
development code requirements were applicable to all of southern
Golden Gate Estates in terms of its restrictions and that there were
also site alteration requirements applied to all of southern Golden
Gate Estates. This board through the EAR review process has directed
us to rescind goal two. The following item is to reaffirm the
transmittal of a resolution giving additional information to the
regional planning council and the DCA relative to goal two which would
take out some of those site alteration requirements and restrictions
in southern Golden Gate Estates.
The issue relative to the area of critical state concern
that you find is -- The area of critical state concern is outlined in
the area of red which largely is the Big Cypress Preserve, but the
area that's primarily impacted here is the large portion immediately
east of the Immokalee community and north of the Big Cypress Preserve,
but there are requirements that would also impact a piece of southern
Golden Gate Estates by the fact that they are included in the area of
critical state concern but also Golden Gate Estates proper by the
language that we currently have in our comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess then what I want to
clarify then because I -- I thought in the platted subdivision known
as Golden Gate Estates in toto came under the national permit of the
Army Corps and that under that permit under 8,000 square feet of any
lot could be cleared without going and getting an additional permit.
MR. ARNOLD: There -- That's correct to a degree, and
I'm probably not the most diverse person on the estates issue relative
to the Army Corps. But that issue, as we discussed, primarily affects
certain units in the northern Golden Gate Estates that were under this
blanket Corps permit and required certain individuals if you were in a
specific unit to go seek additional Corps permits, and we went through
the iterations of having some suggested amendment to the way that we
and the Corps dealt with certain permit issuance in that particular
area. And it really didn't influence the southern Golden Gate Estates
because we were under a separate settlement agreement with DCA at the
time relative to handling these and having a potential 180-day review
cycle for building permits, et cetera, and that really is what will
happen when the EAR amendments are adopted, and we will then rescind
goal two which included these other stipulated agreements for the
southern Golden Gate Estates.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So when -- when all that
happens, then will the southern Golden Gate Estates platted
subdivision then come under the national permit?
MR. ARNOLD: It's my understanding that the way the
national permit is currently structured that it is inclusive of all of
Golden Gate Estates proper. By the fact that we had the separate
agreement, we dealt with permits in the south estates differently than
we did in the north estates. And this amendment that we're
proposing -- the two amendments that are being proposed, I should say,
would then bring permitting in -- more closely in line with how we
currently do them in the northern estates where permits are issued on
a regular basis. There's still an issue of certain road improvements,
obtaining septic permits and other things that will still need to be
completed, but, again, I think it's important to know that there have
been no building permits issued under this DCA settlement agreement
with this 180-day review time frame since that was adopted back in
1992.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just looking for
assurances that once all this gets moving, that the southern Golden
Gate Estates, the platted subdivision part, will -- will be treated as
the northern Golden Gate Estates is and -- and that it is under the
national permit with the exception of maybe a few units here and there
that the Corps retains complete jurisdiction on.
MR. ARNOLD: Staff will do all in its power to ensure
that these permits are handled equally as they would be in the
northern estates, I can assure you. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a suggestion
that we try to go through each of the public speakers and save
questions that may arise to the very end? Because we seem to have
gotten in a habit of -- today of asking questions between everyone,
and I think it takes us about three times as long.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You seem to be in a hurry. I'm
just kidding.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was hoping to get all my --
MS. CAWLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Barbara
Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. I just want to
basically thank the board for being so persistent in getting this
amendment moving forward. It's been a long time in coming. It's a --
It's a private property rights issue. It's -- It's really a correction
of a glitch that probably should never have occurred and I just -- The
private landowners and the -- probably the stovepipe areas are the
people that I'm working with on this, and they really do appreciate
all your efforts in this, and we just concur with this and appreciate
it. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: A1 Perkins followed by Bradley Cornell.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights. Barbara said it all, and Tim was
about to say it. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Then Mr. Cornell followed by Sewell
Corkran. He's waiving literally his right to speak. Mr. Corkran.
MR. CORKRAN: For the record, Sewell Corkran, Olde
Naples. I think it's disappointing that the agricultural exemption is
being reinstated. Back in 1973 when the regulations 27-F-3 were
promulgerated [sic] -- set up, rather, excuse me -- in those days
agriculture in the area that we're talking about which is the 20,000
acres, stovepipe, lands not for sale to the state -- agriculture in
those days was the highest and -- and best use. And 24 years have
gone by. Roads have been built. Roads have been improved. There's
an Immokalee airport that may be destined for growth and international
trade, and today the highest and best use for the remaining 20,000
acres for the most part is apt to be development.
This -- When the agricultural exemption is reinstated
and the time has gone by and now development is the name of the game,
it will be possible to do what is called bait and switch in major
retailing. The bait and switch in land development or growth
management, the bait is agriculture, the switch is development. It
makes it possible for me to come in if I've got 5,000 acres and say, I
want a clearing. My purpose is agriculture. Under that exemption I
have the possibility of clearing to 100 percent subject to the county
code or 27-F-3 which is ever most restrictive, but I'm going to have
the possibility of approaching 100 percent. If I came out front, it
would be 10 percent. With some modifications I might reach 15
percent. So if I've got development in mind which is my real purpose
and I can clear up to 100,000 acres as opposed to -- not 100 percent
as opposed to roughly 10 percent, I've got a tremendous advantage.
And along with this up to 100 percent site alteration, I can build
roads in there where I don't have to have with the flow of the water.
Buildings that I put in there for farm purposes don't have to go to
the hundred-year flood level, and it's an awful good game.
You're within the law, and you're going to be able to do
it, but it's not the right thing for the area of critical concern.
Under Florida Statutes 380, the Department of Community Affairs is in
charge of overseeing the area of critical concern, and they are --
have the responsibility and the duty under 380.032 to modify the rules
27-F-3 to keep the integrity of the area of critical concern.
I don't think there will be any interest here in what
I'm saying, but I have talked with planners and various people in the
DCA that I have known for years. They couldn't come up front and say,
Corkran, we -- we know what you're talking about. But in ways they --
they said we know it is bait and switch. And my effort is going to be
to get the DCA to change the rules to prevent bait and switch, and I
am making a concurrent effort with the governor and the administrative
commission. The governor is the chief planning officer of the State
of Florida, and I don't expect any help here, but I'm going to be
making a real effort to stop bait and switch which is what's going to
go on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. HCNEES: Clifford Fort followed by Judy Leinweber.
MR. FORT: I've been gathering some information. Excuse
me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've got to be on the
microphone. I'll pass those down if you want.
MR. FORT: Okay. My name is Clifford Fort here today
representing Broken Wing Ranches and the Southern Golden Gate
Utilities Association. Again, I want to thank the board for making
tremendous inroads in recognition of some of the hardships of the
people within southern Golden Gate and the southern Golden Gate area.
I have passed out to the board a list of comparable
sales that unfortunately Hiss Gail Brecht did not see fit to mention
to the board, and there's some misconception that the only people that
buy land out there in the Southern Estates area happen to be Hispanics
that don't read or write. I resent that comment, by the way. A lot
of them are very sophisticated people that have made a lot of money in
agriculture. And if you're aware of the prices of ag land in Dade and
Broward County, it is astronomical. These people have come out and
they've used patch farming which is a very interesting technique where
they don't go in and level 10,000 acres, and they grow things like
lemongrass and a variety of other ethnic produce that is really in
demand in this high dollar. I get five bucks a pound for my longans,
(phonetic) by the way. I mean, it's tremendous. These people you'll
notice are Laotian, Cambodian, and there happen to be quite a few
Americans. I've given the board 15 sales of ag land in 1992 that
range from 4,000 to $5,000 an acre in section 13 which is known as the
boot and section nine which is known as the hole in the doughnut. We
didn't hear any discussion from the DEP about those sales, and one of
the arguments we have is that they ignored those sales. They have
also attempted to say that they're not arm's length.
The second thing I would like to bring to the attention
of the board is the fact that when you reinstate that agricultural
exemption, I hope you make it very clear to the DEP that since land
was selling for four to $5,000 an acre in agricultural areas there, I
hope they reflect that in their appraisal. And, by the way, anybody
that has land out there in the hole, Gail Brecht just closed some
deals, and they're paying about 2,200 an acre, not 1,500 an acre.
They don't really want everybody to know that because they might ask
it for a price for the property.
In addition, there is a meeting that was conducted the
day that the regional planning council met which was last week on
Thursday. I am the largest single property owner among them out
there. I found it strange that I was not invited and repeatedly and
never invited to give my input although there were five environmental
agencies there, and the DCA was there and the DEP. And to my
understanding, one of the commissioners was very interested in
attending but was told that it was an interagency meeting.
You'll note on this information that I gave you -- and I
hope you demand answers to all these questions because I think they'll
throw some real light on the DEP acquisition program out there. On
the second page, they discuss on number eight the Miller Boulevard
Extension, and they state Miller Boulevard has been graded. Governor
Hartinez, Robert Brantley and Estes Whitfield in the governor's office
wrote letters in 1987 opposing the paving and extension of Sabal Palm
and Miller Boulevard and the provision of infrastructure due to the
area's close proximity to the panther refuge. What can be done to
slow growth in this area.
So despite what you guys are doing -- and God bless you
for it -- it's business as usual. Those people are having their
little meetings up there, not even talking to the commissioners, and
they're still figuring out ways to slow it down even more and try and
keep those prices down.
So I wanted to bring that to your attention and I
hope -- in -- In addition, one other item. Miss Brecht told you that
there were 200 to 300 pieces a month being acquired out there. I'm
going to submit evidence to the board that they have acquired a total
of 314 little weenie pieces of property out there on the southern
estates in six months which averages to 52.6 acquisitions a month.
Now, I don't know if you can be a half of a liar or a whole liar, but
50 percent of those numbers there, even if it was 100 -- you know, I
think if I was in that business, I'd kind of know the difference
between 200 and 350.
So I want you all to know that you're getting a lot of
misinformation, and I'm going to make it a point to continue to
provide this board with substantiated facts in making your decisions.
Thank you so much.
MS. LEINWEBER: I am Judy Leinweber. I am a farmer's
wife, and I do live at Bay West Nursery, and we do have agricultural
exemption. I appreciate the county commissioners finally looking at
the farmers and the people in Golden Gate Estates. And, Cliff Fort,
the way I look at the bait and switch started when the land was sold
to the people out there, to the farmers out there. They put their
hard-earned money into it. They put their blood and sweat into it.
And the switch came when their exemption was taken away. The same
thing could happen at Bay West Nursery. We've been farming for 18
years and just like the DEP and the government coming in and telling
me all of a sudden we can't farm anymore. And the same thing with
land values, Bay West Nursery, $36,000 an acre, but right across our
ditch and dike right next to us, not 10 feet away, the people over
there on Nursery Lane and Rose Boulevard can't even give their
property away, let alone sell it, because they are in a designated
flood zone, and it's hap -- it's happened there, but it's Cliff Fort
and the people out there in that area, and it's starting to happen on
Immokalee Road and Cocohatchee Canal, the exact same thing, and our
county commissioners can put a stop to it and do the right thing, and
I think you're on the road of doing it, and I appreciate the time.
And what happens to Cliff Fort also happens to people on Immokalee
Road and north Golden Gate, all of Golden Gate Estates. It affects
the whole area. I appreciate your time, and thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Close the public hearing.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: I just wanted to get one point on the
record specifically addressing an issue that Mr. Corkran raised, and
that would be --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't need it.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd like to hear it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the purposes of creating
a record, I don't mind if he does that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Create a record then for us.
MR. ARNOLD: Merely to state that there are other county
restrictions that will apply even though the agricul -- agricultural
exemption is removed, and that means that there are sensitive
treatment area requirements as well as agricultural land clearing
permit requirements that they will have to meet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They are --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The likelihood of 100 percent
just --
MR. ARNOLD: Very unlikely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- automatically happens
anyway.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They -- They are still ACSC-ST;
right?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you for that
clarification --
MR. ARNOLD: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- Mr. Arnold.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #12A2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS APPROVE A
RESOLUTION TO ADD AN ADDENDUH TO THE EVALUATION & APPRAISAL REPORT
(EAR) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY AMENDING
PARAGRAPH V.C. OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT AND TO TRANSMIT SAID RESOLUTION TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SWFRPC) AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY
AFFAIRS (DCA) - REAFFIRMED ACTION OF 7/16/96
The next item is similar. Please ask the indulgence of
the public not to sing to the choir, please.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, for the record, Wayne Arnold, your
planning services staff. This is an item relative to the evaluation
appraisal report for your comprehensive plan to amend paragraph 5(C)
of the Golden Gate area master plan of the future land use element.
This was the resolution to provide additional information to the DCA
and the regional planning council. You heard it last week, but due to
a typographical error, you're hearing it again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Public speakers? None.
Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the item.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds like we're racing to make
motions; right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sometimes it seems like that, I'm
sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six hours overdue.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we starting the afternoon
agenda now?
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-42, RE PETITION PUD-84-7(4), GEORGE L. VARNADOE, ESQ. OF
YOUNG, VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A. REPRESENTING 951 LAND HOLDINGS
JOINT VENTURE REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "H.H." MOBILE HOME DISTRICT TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR 22.9 ACRES AND ITS
CONSOLIDATION INTO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK/MARCO SHORES PUD TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED AS PART OF AMENDING THE FIDDLERS CREEK MARCO SHORES PUD
FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" WHICH AMENDMENT WILL RESULT IN REDUCING THE
AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FOR FIDDLERS CREEK, AS RENAMED FROM
UNIT 30 MARCO SHORES, FROM 7,000 TO 6,000 DWELLING UNITS; REVISE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCREET HOUSING STRUCTURE TYPES; ELIMINATE
LOCATION SPECIFIC AREAS FOR TYPES OF HOUSING UNITS; AND OTHER
AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO REFLECT CHANGES TO FIDDLERS CREEK/MARCO SHORES
THAT DO NOT AFFECT THE REGULATIONS FOR THE REMAINDER OF MARCO SHORES
DEVELOPMENT AREAS; UPDATED REFERENCES; ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN
RESPONSE TO CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TO ADOPT A NEW MASTER PLAN
(COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS 12C(1) AND 12C(2) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're -- We're in the afternoon
agenda. Yes, we are. We're on 12(B)(1) which has a companion of
12 (C) (1) and 12 (C) (2) .
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Finally George Varnadoe has
something to do besides flash that laser light in my face. Is it only
me?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's only you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't noticed it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Flicking that red light around
here blinding me. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Just -- Just for the record, Mr. Chairman,
there are some typographical errors, and it's nothing really of
substance. There was some --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just threw in a --
MS. STUDENT: There are --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- couple of trees for us.
MS. STUDENT: No. There are --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot of dead trees.
MS. STUDENT: There are some typographical errors.
Where there are strike-throughs and underlines, some of the language
wasn't replicated correctly from the prior ordinance so it had to be
put in proper format, but I just wanted to tell you that for the
record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did we pay for this copy?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Those are extra.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're all extras as far as I'm
concerned. I understand, Ron. We're shooting the messenger. Just
enjoy it.
MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, your planning
services section. The -- We'll deal with the PUD first and foremost
because I think that's really where all the substance to this petition
is, and the rest is of -- is of an insubstantial -- insubstantial
nature.
The PUD amendment is about two things. It's an attempt
to zone 22.9 acres of land that's now zoned mobile homes and
authorizes up to 82 dwelling units on that land to be rezoned PUD and
to be incorporated into the existing Marco Shores PUD. Concurrently
the Marco Shores PUD is being amended to accomplish a number of
things, one of which is to change the name of unit 30 in Marco Shores
to Fiddler's Creek. That's not a very important issue; however, I'm
sure from the applicant's perspective it is because it has some
marketing charisma to it. But the major issue here is, one, in the
process of amending the Marco Shores PUD specifically for unit 30, the
number of dwelling units that are authorized today of 7,000 dwelling
units will be reduced to 6,000 dwelling units.
Additionally, open space and conservation areas will be
increased, and those numbers are in the staff report, and I'm not
going to cite them because I'm sure you've all read your executive
summary.
In -- in -- in essence -- and -- and -- and let me
remind you that because Marco Shores is a development of regional
impact, that development is for all practical purposes vested and any
discussion of consistency with elements of the Growth Management Plan
are really irrelevant; however, I can assure you that staff has
reviewed those issues that it still thinks is important such as the
issue of traffic and levels of -- levels of service for traffic and
utilities and all of those elements that apply in this case, and a
number of staff people have advised us that this petition is
nonetheless consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
The issues that came up specifically in dealing with
this petition were the issues of drainage, the issue of relationship
to the Marco Airport Authority -- Marco airport, and those were the --
and the relationship between the Marriott golf course.
I have -- At this meeting, Mr. Stan Chrzanowski is
available to speak to you specifically about the issues of drainage.
John Drury is here, I believe, to speak to you about the issues of the
Marco Airport Authority. Additionally, there are some representatives
from the southwest -- from the water management district here that I'm
sure you might wish to ask to address the issue of drainage which I am
sure you're going to find out is the major issue that you have to talk
about this afternoon.
Our understanding of the petition is that the -- as it's
now before you, is that the petitioner has resolved the matters that
deal with the Marco -- with the Marriott golf course. Mr. Varnadoe is
going to talk -- speak specifically to that. The issues of airport
relationships -- The PUD document that you received in your packet
contained assurances that the development will be consistent with the
Land Development Code provisions relative to airports, relative to the
approaches, and relative to noise and -- and -- and -- and,
furthermore, purchases of land will be put on notice. Since then, the
petitioner has agreed to an avigation easement, and Mr. Varnadoe is
going to speak to you specifically about that issue.
I think to go any further would -- would simply belabor
the issues that are going to be more fully discussed by -- by the
applicant's expert witnesses and our own experts.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury, could you come up
for a moment? Obviously if we're flying kites rather than jets in and
out of there, we wouldn't have this concern, but I just want to make
sure -- You and I had had a discussion, and Mr. Varnadoe and I have
had a discussion. I think everybody is on the same page. I just
want -- For the record, we have all in writing now the avigation --
avigation easement agreement, noise abatement procedures, and so on.
You're completely comfortable with the agreement the two parties have?
MR. DRURY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Mr. Varnadoe, you're
comfortable with -- on behalf of your -- Mr. Varnadoe, you're
comfortable on behalf of your client with the agreement you've reached
with the airport authority?
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect he
indicated, "That's correct." Great. I just wanted to get that -- we
had -- There were three issues you've named. We've knocked one of
them out already. So I suspect the drainage issue may -- may have
more discussion, but there is a way there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let -- Let me start by saying I
have received personal telephone and written contact on this issue
from both sides, and while I certainly appreciate that, I am going to
base my decision on the information that I received this afternoon in
this public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I too have received phone calls,
letters, and personal conversations with people from all sides of this
one, and I'll base my decision on information presented here today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I too have received letters and
telephone calls as well as meetings with the petitioner and others
representing all different sides of this. There's many different --
but I am basing my decision on the information provided today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As required by the law of the
State of Florida, my decision will be based solely on the information
provided during this public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe, and I'd
like to thank your -- your staff for working with us on this project.
I'm here today representing State Road 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture
which is the owner and applicant on this project. Also here today
I've got several experts in various disciplines. I'm going to ask one
of them, Stanley Hole, to address you on drainage issues. The rest of
them are here to answer questions in the areas of planning, water
management, transportation, and other areas of expertise.
The -- I'm going to give a very brief presentation as
far as I can and cover what I need to cover and would like to reserve
some time, Mr. Chairman, to respond to issues that may come up from
the public if it's necessary.
The -- Ron has given you a little bit of perspective on
this project. What I'd like to give you is a little bit more. This
project arose out of the Deltona difficulties with the development of
the Marco Island area in the early '70s when they let certain
environmental permits lapse and were unable to get those renewed or
get new permits issued. As a result of that, some years of litigation
and battles between the State of Florida, Deltona, and the federal
environmental agencies occurred all -- and culminating in a settlement
agreement in 1982 whereby Deltona got the right to develop seven
specific areas in and around Marco Island, including unit 30 which is
the one we're talking about today, unit 24 which is over by Rookery
Bay which is now been conveyed to the federal government, Horr's
Island, Barfield Bay, and the Isles of Capri commercial area, and the
Goodland Marina. So your Marco Shores PUD that you're seeing revised
in front of you covers seven distinct and separate pieces of property,
so it's a little confusing to read through that, and that's why I'm
bringing it up.
In addition, three of these areas were required to go
through a vastly modified and simplified DRI process because they
constituted DRIs in and of themselves, Marco Shores unit 30 by virtue
of having more than 1,000 units, Goodland Marina because of the number
of slips, and Isles of Capri commercial area by virtue of the amount
of square feet that were in there. So those three areas are covered
by the same development order. So we've got one project covered by
PUD that covers six other projects and a DRI development order that
covers two other projects. So I -- That's just by way of background.
So when you're reading through these documents, if you see numbers
that don't add up to what I'm telling you today is because I'm dealing
only with this piece of property right here from now on.
We have -- the client has acquired -- I guess the other
thing that comes out of that is this may be the most vested project in
the State of Florida by virtue of having a DRI development order and
being part of a settlement agreement between Collier County and the
State of Florida and Deltona from 1982.
951 Land Holdings Joint Venture acquired all of unit 30
that hadn't been previously conveyed to other parties. And when I say
that, SSU has some 43 acres down here for part of their utility
system. Mass Mutual Insurance Company has a golf course which is, I
guess, better known as the Golf Club at Marco or the Marco Marriott
Golf Course which is in the middle of the project right here. And as
you can see, a lot of our development parcels will be around that golf
course. They have -- That's 243 acres. And the Collier County School
Board had three parcels in the project. They have -- now have one
remaining which is here which they'll be using for mitigation for some
other development they're doing elsewhere in the county. We entered
into an agreement with them. On the other two parcels, they declared
it surplus. We found property they wanted, and they traded them to
us. They're now part of this project. So that's the property we're
talking about today with one addition. We've acquired 22.9 acres
which is this little parcel here which we're seeking to add to the
existing DRI and PUD.
The proposal, as Mr. Nino told you, is to rename the --
the project to Fiddler's Creek, update the master plan, amenitize the
project, turn it into a modern project with a -- more of a quality of
life mode than was present when it was done in 1984, add the 22.9
acres which is currently zoned mobile home and has a preliminary
subdivision plat for 82 mobile home units and is environmental permits
and ready to go for that.
The -- It's certainly my opinion that this project as
proposed is not only good for the developer, it's good for that area
of the county and also good for the county at large. It think it's
going to be a very, very good project and a -- and a -- a -- a real
complement to our -- our land use in this county.
The -- As we talked about, the -- this project as
originally permitted through the DRI process was for 9,000 dwelling
units in 1989. It was reduced to 7,000. We are further reducing that
by 1,000 units or some 15 percent to 6,000 dwelling units. Obviously
that has an attendant result on its impact on county facilities and
infrastructure. For example, we're reducing the -- the amount of
off-site annual average daily trips by some 20 percent. We're
providing two community facility sites, and they're a little bit hard
to see but up in this corner here. The school -- There's a school
right here. Your regional park site sits in here. The one site is
going to be for -- well, the upper site -- we'll go in order -- is for
a sheriff's substation, EHS, and fire station site. The other one is
for a library. We're reducing the number of commercial parcels that
were permitted on the project from seven to three, reducing the
acreage slightly, and reducing the square footage from 384,000 to some
325,000. The commercial now will be located in this parcel here, this
parcel here, and this small parcel here solely. (indicating)
Obviously we have, as you heard, increased the
preservation area by some 201 acres. Host of that is contained in a
linear buffer between the black line and the -- and the development
parcels around the project which separates and buffers the state lands
to the south from our development areas to the north and provides a
buffer that the state and federal agencies want when we're going
through the permitting process. So it's an additional 201 acres of
preserve in the project, and modernizing the project we now have an
additional 80 acres of lakes, open-space parks, things of -- of that
nature on the project.
The 22.9-acre parcel, as I said, had been previously
filled and cleared. It's got some borrow canals on it, no
environmental significance on that property. The -- We're deleting
those 82 mobile home units and actually spreading our units and other
uses onto that property. So we're not increasing the density or
intensity of uses by adding that property to -- to the project.
Unless you've got some questions about the project as a
whole, I would like to go in and address the three issues that I think
are there that we need to talk about today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've mentioned a community park
and a library. In coming through this time, have you discussed with
our staff what their needs are, whether those sites are still
appropriate. Is there --
MR. VARNADOE: The -- I'm sorry. The -- the -- The
school site's up here, and the park site is here off -- off site.
It's -- it's -- I'm sorry. I didn't make it clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: -- off site and what -- The idea is --
Mr. Hancock, is to have an in -- have a connection between the library
site and the school site and the park site that jutted out on 41 to
interconnect those activities, thinking that would be a good -- a good
juncture of uses there. But those are two county facilities that we
are proximate to, and we thought putting the -- the library site there
would -- was a good juxtaposition of uses.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And was the library advisory
board consulted?
MR. VARNADOE: I have been dealing with -- with Tom
Olliff, and he's been coordinating with them, and that was their
request for a library site there so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- That's fine.
Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: First issue let me deal with a little
more detail is the avigation easement, and as -- as Mr. Constantine,
always trying to steal my thunder, has said, we have -- we have dealt
with that issue successfully and have agreed upon an avigation
easement, and I'd like to put a -- a final copy of that in the record
so you've -- you've got that. That's a commitment on behalf of the
applicant to execute that avigation easement, and we will do that in
conjunction with the airport authority adopting some noise basement
procedures which they've agreed to, and, of course, you're approving
the PUD, but, yes, it has been all agreed to.
The -- The second issue is pretty simple. We've got a
DRI, and one of the things you need to do today and probably the first
one you need to do is determine whether or not what we're -- the
changes we're making to the DRI development order constitute a
substantial deviation. We have submitted this as an insubstantial
deviation. DCA and the regional planning council have -- have
addressed this issue and advised your staff that they consider it an
insubstantial deviation also.
The third issue and the one that's still -- Excuse me.
Let me go back. Obviously this morning we dealt with the issue with
us and the Marco Marriott Golf Course and that -- what you did was
send us out in the street to solve our own differences and -- and
we'll certainly do that, I think.
The last issue is our -- our juxtaposition with -- with
our neighbors that sit in here which is the Port-an-Prince
development. At the Planning Commission hearing, we heard from
several of the neighbors that they were concerned about the impacts
that our project would have on their drainage, and I should add that
the planning commission after hearing everything approved this project
unanimously, if I haven't mention that previously.
Terry Cole and I from Hole, Hontes and Associates went
down and met with the residents, those that wanted to meet, and spent
some time discussing the issues with them. As you can see from the
attendance, I wasn't totally successful in -- in -- in -- in assuring
them that we weren't going to have an adverse impact on them. Stan
Chrzanowski from your project review services staff went, and I'd like
to -- I want to tell him publicly I appreciate him taking his time and
going down and trying to respond from the county's perspective as to
what was being reviewed.
The South Florida Water Management District, your staff
and our engineers have reviewed the -- the drainage that's been --
been implemented so far which Mr. Hole will address and have
determined that we're not going to be having an adverse impact on
their drainage, but I've asked Stanley Hole who is a senior, senior
engineer with -- with Hole, Hontes and Associates that specializes in
water resources issues to personally review this and address the board
in an overview of the drainage in this area in -- in general and then
in particular what we're doing and why that won't have an adverse
impact.
So I'm going to turn it over to Stanley. As you all
know, Stanley probably has more experience in the water resources area
than any engineer -- any other engineer in Collier County, maybe
Southwest Florida. He spent many years on the South Florida Water
Management District Board and actually served as chairman for several
terms.
Before Mr. Hole talks, I'd like to make three points.
Number one, part of the system -- Mike, be of some use and just kind
of hold that right there just for -- just for a minute. I wanted to
wake him up anyway.
Part of this system has been installed and is in place
and, of course, has been permitted. Mainly these two lakes that were
dug, about 13 1/2 acres -- actually, three lakes, but two of them
are -- this one and this one are part of the drainage system. Those
were dug for fill on 951 pursuant to an agreement between county
and -- and the developer. So, actually, the drainage now coming south
comes from here into here into here and back over here. Mr. Hole will
address that in more detail, but that has been permitted and is in
place. Thank you, Mr. McNees.
Second, the canal that you're going to hear that we are
filling -- this canal and part of this canal in -- in -- in addition
to this canal are all on our property. And to the best of my
knowledge, there are no easements on behalf of anybody for drainage
across those canals.
Third, our legal obligation is to take the historic
drainage from our upstream neighbor and convey it without altering it
in any great degree across our property without backing it up on their
property, and we're going to fulfill that obligation. And I think
that the -- the experts and the engineers are going to assure you that
our obligation will be fulfilled in that regard.
Mr. Hole, I think, can give you an overview, and if you
have more detailed questions, we can -- we can certainly respond to
those with our -- our engineers. So unless you've got something more
for me, I'm going to let Mr. Hole talk about drainage.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the experts
of petitioner be sworn in and all of the speakers that come in after
and any additional speakers from staff that come forward.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me at this time ask anyone
who intends to speak on this issue to please stand and raise your
right hand to be sworn in for your testimony.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That includes all the citizens
who may have registered to speak also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That includes Mr. Varnadoe in arrears.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if there's people here who
want to talk about this drainage, to be able to, you'll need to stand
up and swear -- be sworn.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anyone who does not swear in
does not speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or swear at.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So would you swear them in, please.
(Thereupon, the intended speakers, having been first
duly sworn, upon their oath, testified as follows:) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HOLE: My name is Stanley Hole. I'm a civil
engineer. I've been practicing in Collier County since, I guess, '63.
George, I would have been happy with just one senior engineer. You
didn't need to say "senior, senior."
They've asked me to look at where -- you know, what's
going on out there and if I can figure out why, and I'll do that as
soon as I get a -- to '-
To understand what's going on out there, we started from
the basic county maps, and this is the one we started from. This
shows the way the county was. This part of the county when we first
used to go down and fish in this area, you came across this road. It
was before 951. There was a railroad facility here. We got into this
area. We came out of here and fished up in Johnson Bay, Tarpon Bay,
and McIlvaine Bay. This is Port-au-Prince. U.S. 41 is up in that
area. You had about 46,000 acres draining across 41 and about another
7,000 acres. So you had 53,000 acres draining this way. This is old
sheet flow. This was salt marsh -- identified as salt marsh. It was
salt marsh.
And then 951 was constructed coming down this way. And
as is typical in the county -- most counties, when 951 was built,
borrow ditches were constructed on either side. You can look at
Immokalee Road and see the same thing. And the borrow ditch carried
water south toward Hcllvaine and north toward Henderson Creek.
Now, we've got -- I'll just put this one over here. And
things went along well for years and years with 951. The snook came
in, mullet, and this was a salt-water community. When the tides came
up, it forced the water up, and it would come all the way around into
Henderson Creek.
The problem, if you want to call it a problem, came when
951 was fixed. Up until that point, the flows came as this map shows
right across -- right across where Port-an-Prince is across this whole
area. It flowed south into Hcllvaine Bay, came right through this
area, and it flowed that way forever. As Hcllvaine Bay tides rose to
one, it discharged at one. As they dropped to minus-one, it
discharged to minus-one, but you had this salt-water community here.
We'll talk a little bit more about that later when we start talking
about mangroves. But the water flowed across and through this area,
and it was a typical salt marsh. 951 was constructed, and then 951
was reconstructed. When it was first constructed, a major box culvert
was installed at the Mainsail Drive. Okay. That allowed the water
that was in this ditch to come down through Mainsail Drive down to
Hcllvaine Bay.
If it's a problem, which it is at the Fiddler's, the
problem is that you used to discharge down here at minus-one to zero
to plus-one. When the tides came up to two or three, you discharged
at two or three, and it was slow. When the tides went back down, the
water drained out quickly, but it was a salt-water community.
An environmental resource decision was made, not by the
county, not by the applicant, and certainly not by Port-an-Prince,
that this would be a fresh-water world. This would be a salt-water
world, and this would be a salt-water world. And bleeders were
designed in 951 to drain fresh water from Port-an-Prince and from
anyplace else in this area out into -- toward Rookery Bay at plus-two.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that decision would have been
made by whom?
MR. HOLE: I think that was a permit issue by DEP to
FDOT.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. HOLE: Okay. Also the decision was made to install
down here a water-control structure -- we have all kinds of
photographs of it -- which discharges at plus-two. So what you've
done -- and you've got to think through -- you have raised the
discharge elevation for this whole area from zero or plus-one to
plus-two. It doesn't ma -- sound like a lot, but it's a heck of a lot
when tides change and it never goes down. So you've got a -- you've
got a problem here.
Now, when you see these mangroves turning brown, as you
will over the next four years, just remember that it's a fresh-water
community now. It used to be a salt-water community. And when you
see the salt-water fish population that populated this system going
away, it's intentional. It was done. Permits were issued, and the
work was done. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to -- to
understand that at all.
The important thing as far as this area is concerned is
that it drains out but at two. It drains out but at two, drains out
as -- but at two, or it runs as it always has through this system and
drains out at two. This two is closer than this one. So it takes
longer to get from here to here. When you have high tides which we
haven't had a lot lately, it will back up, but it will pull out, but
it won't drain down below two. This land has always drained -- This
little high area has always drained through this slough. It's not
really a slough. It's part of a salt-water marsh. And the difference
in elevation between the slough that I call and the land next to it
could be as little as a half a foot. You know, it's not much, but it
always drained to the south. (indicating)
To supplement that drainage, it went into this DOT
borrow ditch through the DOT box culvert, and now it is stopped --
stopped by this water-control structure, stopped by the water-control
structure, stop, stop, stop.
We were out the other day. The water was coming into
these storage lakes and coming out through this water-control
structure because this is closer to tide than this is, but if you'd
had a lot of rain, this system would have carried it down to McIlvaine
Bay through the water-control structure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hole, while you're setting
that up, is mean high tide typically at zero elevation? What is
the -- What is the elevation of mean high tide for -- what would
that -- What would that weir have to be to drain at mean high tide,
minimum, to have positive drainage?
MR. HOLE: Well, you know, it would be nice to have it
down at zero, but you're not going to get it down there, I don't
think. Plus-one would make a big difference. It would continue the
integrity of the artificial line, the salt, salt, fresh system which
DEP apparently feels is very important, and they want this to be a
fresh-water system and this to be a salt-water system out to Rookery
Bay, and that probably would make a big difference and continue the
integrity. There would be times when the tide got up to one and a
half that you'd backflood with salt water. There are times that
you're going to backflood with salt water when it's at two. You know,
it's a -- it's a -- it's a -- It's a number that I'm sure a lot of
other people spend an awful lot of time on, and I'm not commenting on
the validity of it. I can tell you, I think, why it was done.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motivation -- It's safe to
say the motivation was not the positive drainage of Port-au-Prince?
MR. HOLE: It reduced the positive drainage of this
area. Whereas it used to drain down to zero, it now drains down to
two and no further. When the tide would go down -- If you have a
slight tide, north wind, the tide would go down to minus-one. So
you'd drain to minus-one. It will not go down below two. And do you
have any -- You have some photographs you can show them? We'll --
We've got the photographs of this control structure. But, you know,
board members, that's what's going on out there, and that's how we got
there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Hole --
MR. HOLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- who manages the control
structure?
MR. HOLE: I --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it a fixed --
MR. HOLE: -- don't know --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it a fixed weir or --
MR. HOLE: -- if FDE -- it's -- a DEP permit was issued
to FDOT, and I don't know of the arrangement. It's a non-control --
it's not a variable structure. It's a set structure. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I see.
MR. HOLE: George, do you know -- Is Archibald here?
Where's George? George, do you know who's -- who's supposed to manage
the structure?
MR. ARCHIBALD: FDOT.
MR. HOLE: FDOT. I would expect that. George Archibald
confirms that he thinks it's FDOT.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HOLE: But we were out there the other day, and this
lake -- this being 951, new 951, Port-an-Prince, Fiddler's, this lake
was draining in front of the TV cameras. Again, it was draining to
the -- to the west through this -- over this weir and through this
pipe into this direction. It was not -- The canal was not draining
south. There was flow as there, you know, always has been through
this sheet flow low preserve -- what is now called a preserve area
through these animal crossings or under these animal crossings,
through the animal crossings down into the preserve.
You know, we designed and permitted Fiddler's Creek to
work. I see no way that we have hurt Port-an-Prince. Under some
conditions we probably have helped them -- some conditions -- because
of increasing the storage, and the storage was working. The water was
flowing into the lake, into the other lake, and out. So this is
acting as a -- as a storage area.
You know, if -- if Port-an-Prince were being designed
under today's standards, it wouldn't look like this. Okay? Not at
all. But it wasn't. So we were trying to figure out the complaints
we've heard, where they came from. And I hate the word "culprit," but
if I had to use it, I'd say if you could drop the water at the
discharge points from Port-an-Prince a foot or a foot and a half,
you're going to reduce substantially the amount of time that they're
going to have problems.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who has the jurisdiction and
authority to -- to cause that to happen only if DEP --
MR. HOLE: I think the -- The only person I know who
could influence that would be -- the county could go to FDOT and say
we don't like the permit you got from DEP. Go to DEP and say we would
like to modify that permit, chop that weir down from plus-two to
plus-a-half or plus-one and these weirs too. But there was a lot of
thought given to that number by others, and the issue was a permit
requested by FDOT of DEP, and they looked at the environmental
resource issues, and the issue is this is a fresh-water system now,
this is a salt-water system, that's a salt-water system, and that's
how it's been built. Do you have any --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Varnadoe.
MR. HOLE: I'll return the ball to Mr. Varnadoe.
MR. VARNADOE: Could I have your indulgence for a
minute? There are two things I want Mr. Hole to get on the record
before we --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: -- if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Proceed.
MR. VARNADOE: Stanley, I'd like for you to address
the -- the drainage -- the overland drainage through what we now call
our preserve area -- you'll need this chart at the bottom down here.
MR. HOLE: Yeah.
MR. VARNADOE: -- number one. And, number two, I want
you to tell them in your professional opinion as an engineer who is
skilled in water resources matters whether in your opinion our
proposal is going to have any adverse effect -- effect on the
Port-an-Prince drainage system.
MR. HOLE: Okay. The drainage as shown on the old map
was south -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hole, I believe your mike's off.
Could you flip the button back up? MR. HOLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There you go.
MR. HOLE: The drainage traditionally was south. It
shows south this way through this area, and you can go back to these
maps and find out the width of the area, and that's been replicated
here. So we have replicated the sheet flow traditionally -- and I'm
talking about traditionally before 951 -- that traditionally went to
the south. Again, these bleed-offs will help when the water is right.
But this is the way it's gone. That's the way it's supposed to go.
That's the way it's designed. We looked at all the various scenarios
we could think of to see if we were from a water management drainage
perspective adversely affecting Port-an-Prince, and I can't see -- You
know, I can't see how we're doing it. I just think it's clean.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Varnadoe --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we could probably sit here for
another 6 to 12 hours and -- and have various engineers discuss the
problems and the fixes and the different designs, but I think what --
what the people of Port-an-Prince are probably more interested in is,
is this going to cause them any harm if this action is taken, and I
think we can simplify the issue and -- and shorten the discussion if
we could simply ask you on the record if -- a couple of things.
I think that that preserve area, as -- as I understand
it, is kind of choked with exotics and that under your conditions of
your DRI is, I believe, conditions that at some point you'll have to
clear those exotics out which would make that flow substantially
better. Could I get you to put on the record that if -- if approved
today, that you would be able to clear those exotics as soon as
possible as sort of an immediate --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The only -- and -- and be glad
to commit to clearing those exotics. We have a permit that says how
and -- and where -- where we're working to do that and -- Yes, sir.
As soon as we're allowed under our permit to do it, we commit to clear
the exotics out of there. We agree with you that that's going to help
the flow through that area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So -- well, then could you -- since
you can't say that -- Since you can't tell me a definite time, can you
give me some sort of an indication of when that could occur
potentially?
MR. VARNADOE: That will be occurring either late this
year or in the first half of 1997.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you're -- you're confident
that there won't be any permitting issues --
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. The permit is in place --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: -- but there's things we have to do in
conjunction with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand. Okay. But you're
committing on the record that you will go ahead and do that as soon as
practical, assumedly by the end of this year or the first part of next
year?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And may -- maybe to tie it
better for them, the concern has been with our filling or partial
filling of the two canals that are shown on that plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Actually, though, the -- Yeah.
MR. VARNADOE: Which --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But one of them is not actually a
canal --
MR. VARNADOE: Right. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but a long lake; right?
MR. VARNADOE: They're all dug for -- for fill purposes,
and that one we certainly commit that we will clear the exotics out of
there before we undertake any filling activities here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. One other thing is that I would
like to ask you to agree on the record to -- I'm sure that the concern
of the Port-an-Prince people is that somehow the engineers won't be
correct and this will cause them adverse impact. I would like to ask
you to agree to take immediate corrective action .... immediate" being
the key word -- immediate corrective action should your construction
in this area have any proven im -- adverse impact to the
Port-an-Prince area, drainage-wise. I'm sorry.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. That's -- that is -- if our --
Like you said, if our construction is causing any adverse impact on
their drainage system, then -- then, yes, sir, we would -- we would do
that as soon as we're able to get a permit for the corrective work.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And the reason I put it --
frame it in those terms is that by law, as you mentioned in -- early
in your discussion, you would have to -- you would be required to take
remedial action, but I don't know that the time frame would be
particularly specified, and what I'm asking you today specifically is
to specify that you will begin action to correct the -- any adverse
impacts immediately.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. You have my commitment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's acceptable?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. In conjunction with that, I
don't know if today would be the appropriate day, but I'm going to ask
the board to petition DOT and the DEP to -- to lower those weirs as
mentioned by Mr. Hole on the basis of the health, safety, and welfare
of the affected parties up there; namely, Port-an-Prince and assume
any of the other Fiddler's Creek portions that may be affected as
well. But I don't think that today is the day to do that. We'll ask
the staff to bring that back probably in the next couple of weeks
and -- and get a resolution to ask the DEP to do that for us.
MR. VARNADOE: We certainly don't object to that and
would support that -- that position by the county.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We might ask you for your
support at that time. Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That resolves or at least answers
one of the issues for me which was, this is another case of, you know,
the idea of backing the water up to separate the fresh- and salt-water
systems without regard to where people's feet are on natural ground
level in Port-an-Prince, not too unlike the south block estates and
the position there. So I -- I agree with that fully, and I think we
need to pursue that.
What concerns me is I'm looking at the lake
configuration in Port-au-Prince, and I've designed -- in the past,
designed lake systems and connected them, and I'm looking and I'm
thinking, well, there's got to be culverts underneath those roadways.
And I found something in our packet that says that the residents
insist there are no culverts connecting the north-south canals in
there. I find that anyone who went in and dug those canals, there's
something wrong there. There should be -- The culverts may be
crushed, they may be filled, but there should be culverts underneath
those roadways. And I know that's not your project, but if I lived in
Port-au-Prince, one of the first things I'd do is -- is open those up
because that -- that is going to help them more than anything you can
do in that south preserve area. Mr. Hole, does that -- does that make
sense to you?
MR. HOLE: Well, typically it would.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hole, microphone, please. Sorry.
MR. HOLE: Tim, you're right, and people would do it
that way typically, but in this case these canals discharge across
this -- into this system. It's a surface discharge, and the water and
the ground levels are very low here, and so I guess they wouldn't have
had anyplace to put a pipe. It's just a surface sheet flow discharge.
MR. VARNADOE: I think he's talking --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm talking east-west between
the -- the little fingers and the midpoint of the canal. That -- It
makes logical sense that that -- that would be a -- a culvert at some
point, and maybe it just -- maybe they were never installed but --
MR. HOLE: Well, I don't -- I -- I don't know the
details on those two, but I know the system is set up to go this way.
You know, when the water in this area is low, it works. When the
water in this area gets high, it has a problem.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I heartedly endorse
what you said, Commissioner Norris, because I -- I know that it's
unfair to tie the -- to tie my vote any way on this project with the
changes to the FDOT permit there, but, frankly, I'm going to vote for
this if we give some strong direction to staff to go to -- to FDOT and
urge DEP to change that permit because I don't think this project is
going to affect your drainage, but clearly the state hasn't done the
right thing by you already.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think we can give staff
direction to do that. If -- If you would rather hold it for a couple
of weeks, we can bring it back as a full discussion item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We could do it either way.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to eventually know
who -- who decided it should be a fresh-water system and -- and who --
who decided -- who decided to set that at 2 feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please -- Please, back in the
audience, let's hold it down.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the same mystery people that
are deciding the decisions for south block.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have much more to go, Mr.
Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I don't have anything other
than when we respond --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got --
HR. VARNADOE: -- to the public.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got one more thing to do, and
it -- it would be not related to this drainage issue. If you could
remove that -- that one that's over the -- the map of the -- the
entire project, I've got a question for you and another little
commitment that I'd like for you to do for me.
It's my understanding that the long-range plans involve
adding more property to this.
MR. VARNADOE: That's under consideration, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Serious consideration.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your request here is to reduce the
number of units to 6,000 units from seven, is it? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I'd like to ask you as a
commitment is that that 6,000 units would -- would apply to the new
property that you have under consideration to add to this existing
property and that you will limit this existing property to 5,500
units.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, let me -- let me respond this way,
Mr. Norris. This project -- let me -- Let me answer your question
directly. We'll commit that the property you see up there now will
never be developed with more than 5,500 units. I'm not able to tell
you that this project some day might not want to have more than 6,000
units, but I can tell you that -- because I don't know how much land
they may -- we may end up adding to this project so I -- you
understand where I'm going with that. But I can tell you right now
that the property you see displayed here today, I certainly can commit
it will never have more than 5,500 dwelling units on it, which I think
is your concern.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So then are you saying that you
want -- you would have no objection to modifying your request from --
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- reducing from --
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- 6,000 -- seven to six?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I'm -- I'm -- I'm asking you to
re -- to -- to set the density at 6,000 because if I come in, which
we're currently looking at some property to add, and I want to then
modify my plan to add more property but not increase the density, I
don't want to have to go through a -- a -- a -- a rigmarole with DCA
and whether I have a substantial deviation or not.
So right now you've got a project that's approved for
7,000 dwelling units, and I'm asking you to reduce that density to
6,000, and I'm telling you I'm never going to build more than 5,500
units on that property right there. If I add more property, I want to
be able to come back to you and say, "I'm adding more property, and
that's where I'm going to put these additional 500 units," but that
way I don't have to go back to DCA and fight about whether I've got a
substantial deviation or not. I mean, why should I give in and say
wait and go back and fight to get them back, is my point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not indicating that you're
going to come back and ask for more -- go back up over 6,000 --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, sir --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in the total project?
MR. VARNADOE: If I do, then you'll be saying yes or no.
I mean -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll -- We'll remember this
conversation --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- today.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you -- you are committing,
then, on the record that -- that this existing property as we see it
here today is to -- to be limited to 5,500 units? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any other questions? Go to the
public speakers. Do you have something?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, I do. I believe your first one is
gone. Gil Erlichman. He's gone. John Betzler will be followed by
Mary Edwards.
(A short break was held.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, have you been sworn?
MR. BETZLER: I'd be glad to. You want me to swear to
something?
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. BETZLER: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, Madam
Stenographer, Mr. -- I forgot your name here -- McNees. Good
evening. I have been here since eight o'clock this morning. I just
woke up and -- but I am a rocket scientist, and I can smell and detect
a five-star snow job when I see one.
My name is John R. Betzler, 1375 Mainsail Drive,
No. 1712, Naples, Florida, 34114-8808. That's the new ZIP. This will
take less than five minutes. I speak for several hundred
"Jackithens," and we give our full support to Charlotte and Mel
Hatton, two of the last great Americans -- American leaders in Collier
County. We are allies with the Hattons and their Port-Au-Prince
clan.
Mr. Chairman, you are allowing your developer friends to
railroad this Fiddler's Creek snow job right through your District One
constituents in late July when almost all snowbirds are out of town.
There are many questions which us, the people, your constituents,
insist that you personally answer before September.
Whose idea was it to plan and implement a four-lane
highway expandable to six lanes right down to the two-lane Jolly
Bridge at Marco Island? Who's going to pay to expand the Jolly Bridge
to Marco to four or six lanes? Whose idea was it to harass Fiddler's
Creek with that navigation-easement thing --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, that was my idea,
sir.
MR. BETZLER: -- while not insisting that Mr. Jack
Antaramian, Fiddler's Creek's competitor, also agree to the easement
covering his proposed 1,000 units at Marco Shores.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if he comes back in, one of
us will ask him; but we don't have jurisdiction over him right now.
We'd like to be able to ask him for the same navigation easements but
__
MR. BETZLER: There's -- when there's a will, there's a
way. Why did you allow the arrogant, incompetent, immature, and
deceitful Collier County Airport Authority to knowingly and willfully
stiff arm and hide vital information from us, the people? What is
this Fiddler's Creek/Marco Shores PUD? Is this Marco Shores Estates
or is it Mr. Jack Antaramian's Marco Shores? Is Antaramian's -- is
Antaramian merging with Fiddler's Creek? Was this your friend's
hidden agenda from day one or two or three or when? If this is a
merger, who owns how much? What percent? Who's the boss? Does the
navigation agreement apply to your friend Antaramian's 1,000 units at
Marco Shores? We, the people, expect and demand answers from you
personally before September, Mr. Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I can answer the question on the
roads right away. It's the Florida Department of Transportation that
made the decisions that you asked about concerning 951. As far as
questions about who I --
MR. BETZLER: Now, wait a minute. Excuse me, sir. What
-- what question are you answering?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You asked a question, sir, about 951,
the four laning, and the bridges on Marco. MR. BETZLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The Jolly Bridge. Those are state
roads and the decision, of course, is made by the state.
MR. BETZLER: Now, wait a minute. The county put up a
lot of money -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. You asked -- you asked me
to answer the question, and that's what I'm -- MR. BETZLER: Well, we want it in writing. We're your
constituents.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm not going to provide you
with written answers on everything. I'm putting it on the record
right here. That will be in writing in the minutes and records. You
can certainly go get yourself a copy at 15 cents a page any time you'd
like. If you want to ask questions about someone's personal business
dealings, I suggest you ask them. I have no way of knowing the
corporate structure of these places.
MR. BETZLER: We want you to find out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it's not my --
MR. BETZLER: We're your constituents.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not my business, sir. If you
want that information --
MR. BETZLER: Apparently, sir, you do not understand the
difference between Tommy Barfield and Tommy Jefferson. Tommy
Jefferson set things up where you were supposed to respond to your
constituents and we, the people, are supposed to be in charge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll be glad to respond --
MR. BETZLER: Thank you. I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to anything that's County
Commission business; other than that, I won't.
MR. HcNEES: Mary Edwards followed by Hel Hatton.
MS. EDWARDS: Hello. I'm Mary Edwards for the record.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, ma'am. Have you been
sworn?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. My father Glenn Shire, St.,
(phonetic) was the second resident in Port-An-Prince. When Denny
Patton (phonetic) first set it up, my father was named as someone to
more or less manage the property when Denny was not around. And in
1971 I came down with my family, and we left my father's dock at -- on
Moonbay Street in Port-An-Prince, went under Marco Bridge and out to
the gulf fishing, and this was done for a couple years after that.
And then big developers came in, i.e., Deltona and fixed that for us
so that we could no longer have gulf access.
Now, I -- I just can't see where all of your experts on
the matter are saying that because they have lakes on Fiddler's Creek
property that that's going to drain our property. I don't believe
that because that is a higher elevation. Water does not run uphill.
It is not going to drain our area. It's going to make it worse.
I don't really have a whole lot else to say except that
by -- we can't expect them not to fill their property. I mean, that's
natural. They're going to do that. But don't fill their property and
then fill our canals also, and they may be on their property, but
they're still drainage for our area. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd ask you please, ma'am, to pay
-- stay in touch with Commissioner Norris, because he has made this
developer say on the record that they will immediately correct if they
drain on to your properties. So be in touch with Commissioner Norris
so that he can enforce that.
MS. EDWARDS: We have made the attempt to be in touch
with Mr. Norris, and we have had no -- no communication with him.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- that is not true. That's
not true. You have never contacted me.
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The phone messages show that you are
not on there. The phone log '-
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir, whatever.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the other thing is that we're
going to be trying to get the state to correct the -- they're the
cause of the problem.
MS. EDWARDS: I would also like to know if the property
that -- that they're thinking of adding to Fiddler's Creek is going to
be our property after they flood us out and condemn it. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Hel Hatton followed by Charlotte Hatton.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Hatton, have you been sworn?
MR. HATTON: Yes, ma'am. For the record my name is Hel
Hatton. I live at 100 Isle of Saint Thomas Street at Port-An-Prince,
and I'm a professional surveyor and mapper. I'm here with several
other residents of Port-An-Prince Mobile Home Park who are opposed to
the rezoning of the parcel, because we fear that construction on this
site -- which includes the filling of those two canals that were
earlier discussed -- will further restrict our drainage canal system,
which has already been hampered by the new construction on 951, which
Mr. Hole addressed.
Let's see. There is a drainage proposed through the
preserve area on Fiddler's Creek, and at this time I would like to
show some photographs to the commission members of these -- this
conservation preserve area just to show the type of vegetation --
there are notes on the back of these photos -- show the type of
vegetation that exists in this preserve area that it is not all
exotics. A lot of it is natural vegetation, which cannot -- will --
and will not probably be removed but will restrict the flow of the
water through the preserve area. I mean, it's -- if you've got water
flowing through a heavily vegetated area, it's not going to flow at
the same rate it would through a clear area; correct?
Okay. These -- these three canals on the 22.9-acre
parcel purchased by Fiddler's Creek are connected to our canal system
and provided part of the drainage before it was impeded by the
construction on 951. In their present state they provide water
retention. If two of these canals are filled as is proposed by
Fiddler's Creek, this will greatly reduce the amount of water being
retained. And the water that does flow out by 951 will be slowed by
the 36-inch pipes -- which is three sections of pipe that connect
their lakes -- put in by the Fiddler's Creek project in their 12-acre
lakes and was presented to the Planning Commission as three lakes, as
15 acres. One lake has not been connected and it is not completely
excavated at this time.
The existing canals are approximately 50 feet wide, 10
to 12 feet deep, and hold thousands of gallons of water. Where is
this water going to go when these canals are filled, and what happens
to all the fish? I heard the commission members earlier discuss the
Lake Trafford incident with the fish kill. What's going to happen
with all the fish that are in there when this is back-filled? Are
they just going to be left to die and rot and pose a health problem,
too?
If the water rises in our canal to the level of the land
surrounding it, it would cause problems with our water and sewage
systems, which is already in a poor state in reference to the state
and county health officials that we contacted over the years about
these problems. We are asking that these things be considered before
a decision is made on the rezoning of this parcel and our drainage,
which has already been hampered by 951, is further damaged or
destroyed.
Is it really necessary for all of these canals to be
filled for Fiddler's Creek to build on this site? Why not leave the
northerly and southerly canals, which provide access -- water access
to 951, in their present state and preserve our drainage, the
mangroves, and the wildlife? Thank you for your time and
consideration.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Charlotte Hatton is your last speaker.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mrs. Hatton, have you been sworn?
MS. HATTON: Yes, I have. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Norris, and
all the chairpersons. I've never done this before, so I'll try to do
the best I can. I looked up some words this morning in Webster's
Dictionary as to the definition of a canal, an artificial waterway
designed for navigation or for drainage or irrigating land. Number
two, a narrow arm of the sea extending far inland and approximately
uniform in width. This is comparison to a ditch. A ditch is defined
as a long, narrow excavation dug in the earth; number two, a trench
for conveying water for drainage or irrigation.
We have on record and it's been recorded here on plat --
plat book -- O.R. book 333, page 784, it's for Port-Au-Prince. It's
described in covenant of restrictions that run with the land. It
reads in one part each landowner has the right or privilege to
construct a dock no longer than 50 percent of the waterway width of
each lot and not to extend into the water a distance any greater than
5 feet at mean low tide. Both traffic has the right-of-way at all
times in canals.
In order to present this, I'm trying to show that
Port-Au-Prince was originally a -- a subdivision for exclusive rights
to the Gulf of Mexico. It is -- we recommend for one thing -- we have
maps that back us up that these canals were back to 1952.
We recommend to delay your decision until more
information from the state can be brought forth as to the legality of
closing the canal along 951 because of our rights. One, mainly due to
navigational laws, we have contacted the state, and it is being
researched at this time. To quote a state official, if deemed a
navigational canal, Fiddler's Creek cannot fill in these proposed two
canals that they're wanting to close.
I -- I also question -- I have a map here of the
subdivision -- proposed, that is, PUD of Fiddler's Creek, and as you
go up 951, say, to -- from Mainsail northward, Mainsail is totally
blocked. There is no way for the water to get out there. The state
lands are sort of in between Fiddler's Creek and also border their
property. To the north of that is the proposed PUD that they want to
change now -- to have rezoned, that is. They also -- what bothers me
a lot in this, because it definitely affects our drainage, and this
may be -- the problem now is our water in our canals now are above 2
feet, and we haven't had the rain that we normally do during this time
of year.
What I'm getting at is that there's businesses: Silver
Lake, the Shell station, Coastal Mart, Coral Isle Factory Isle -- this
is going north. Every one of these, going north on the east side of
951, have drainage ditches as they're now called, because this has
been developed. Okay. On the opposite side on Eagle Creek is the
same way. They have put their land all the way to 951 and closed this
ditch. They are the only parcel of land there that has done this, and
we don't know why they were permitted to go totally over this drainage
area to begin with.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Hatton.
MS. HATTON: I thank you for your time. Oh, and I also
would like to present for the record -- this is a petition that was
signed by the people of Port-An-Prince. I thank you for your time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for legal staff
as a result of this. Is -- have you confirmed or are you absolutely
sure that they have no easement rights on these canals as -- as a
result of their plat if there's -- if there is a plat? She refers to
a plat book page. If these canals are there as drainage easements,
that's obviously a critical fact.
MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Mr. Hatton, we can't get
what you're saying on the record. It sounds like you had something
important to say but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was on the record anyway. He
made that statement.
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, was it? Because I had -- I was
following the same line myself, and that is that we have a landlocked
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know, Hargie? Sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Someone's going to answer the
question, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a landlocked development
that's drained historically in a certain way. Are there any easements
to protect their ability for their land to drain?
MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. I've not been asked this
question, and I have not researched it. I cannot give you an answer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Varnadoe, have you got a copy
of the plat?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you show it to us so we can
see if the canals are there.
MR. VARNADOE: Sure. The only canals on there are the
ones we've hand-drawn on to iljustrate -- there are no canals on the
plat itself.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The canals aren't on the plat.
MR. HATTON: They're not a part of Port-An-Prince;
they're a separate parcel.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a plat of those canals?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, this
discussion isn't -- only half of this is getting on the record.
MR. HATTON: Hay I come back up and speak?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is -- is fairly
simple. What we have is a landlocked piece of property here. It's
drained historically a certain way. Now, the state did you folks an
injustice, in my opinion, when they put that weir in. They cut off
your access to the gulf. They backed water up in 2-foot elevation for
you that historically didn't happen, and I think this board, just as
we have for other private-property owners, is going to pursue that
with vehemence to try and bring that relief to you. MR. HATTON: That's what we're asking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second part of this is more
of a legal question now, one in which -- your water has been leaving
your property, albeit slower than you'd like, through certain
mechanisms. Are any of those mechanisms, any of those areas, platted
recorded, listed as easements? In other words, what -- what
protection does -- do the folks of Port-An-Prince have that their
water can go somewhere other than -- than on their own property?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question, Mr. Nino. In
-- in the application process -- I can't get it -- well, I'm sorry.
I don't think he knows the answer to that question, and I think one
place to find the source would be -- in the application for the
fezone, isn't an attorney's opinion required as far as what are the
exceptions to title? Sorry. I thought I was there.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- let me try to bring -- Hel, if
you'll give me -- indulge me for a moment. It's not like -- the water
in Port-An-Prince now all ends up down in this canal here, and
currently it goes up here. What doesn't go sheet flow -- and this is
at a lower elevation at 1.5 than these control structures on 951.
They're set at elevation 2, so until the water reaches 2, it's going
to go this way. Okay. That water currently, though, for an alternate
out of here goes up to here, it all drains to the south, comes in this
canal, goes up to here, and comes out this canal or comes down and
goes out this canal to 951; right, Hel?
MR. HATTON: In its present state, yes, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: In its present state. What we're saying
is we're closing this canal, but you'll still have this canal open.
Okay. Then it comes down here, goes through here, goes through here,
and so as Mr. Hole said, in certain conditions we're improving the
situation. We're taking the 2.8 acres we're filling in here, and
replacing it with 12 1/2 acres in these two lakes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- my only question -- and I
started this because somebody referred to the -- the lady before who
spoke referred to a plat that included the canals -- MR. VARNADOE: The platted canals --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and if they were platted
canals -- MR. VARNADOE: The platted canals are in Port-An-Prince
she was talking about. They are not the canals on our property.
MR. NINO: The plat that they're talking about -- Ron
Nino for the record. The plat they're talking about is a plat of
Port-An-Prince. There is no plat on the 22.9 acres where canals have
been dug. That was done as part of an anticipated development. The
land is private, and I would assume that any owner of that property,
irrespective of what they intend to do, could reclose those canals.
They're on private land.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- pull that map back up,
Mr. Varnadoe. You're -- you're saying you're leaving that center
canal out of Port-Au-Prince. You're leaving that.
MR. VARNADOE: That's the north canal to them, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the north canal?
MR. VARNADOE: They don't -- this is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What does --
MR. VARNADOE: This canal -- for some reason they don't
connect to this canal, and I can't answer why or how or when. They
don't connect to that. All their -- all their canals don't
interconnect this way. They all come down to here, and they all come
over here and come up to -- to this point right here. Now currently
-- I think Mr. Hatton's position is currently that water there can go
out this way and out this way, or it can go this way. And we're
saying that when we're done, it's still going to be able to go this
way, and the main drainage is here, and the problem they're having, as
Mr. Hole tried to explain -- I don't care if we had 42 canals coming
through here. Until those control structures are lowered, it's not
going to go anywhere.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is the most important
factor. No question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. I have a very
quick question for Mr. Hole, though, if I may, because it involves the
hydraulics. You're filling -- you are proposing to fill two areas
that previously have been used for nothing short of storage. I mean,
the water doesn't really move rapidly through there. Because of the
weir elevation at 2 feet, they really serve more as storage than any
other purpose.
MR. HATTON: Can I just make a statement?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, first let me ask Mr. Hole,
because he's been tendered as a water management expert and we accept
that. Mr. Hole, is -- what I'm asking, hydraulically, the water when
it does back up to 2-foot elevation and that water has to find a way
to get out, option B so to speak, by filling in the south canal, have
we reduced the hydraulics in the north canal that there is going to be
a slower rate of discharge to reach the lake system in Fiddler's
Creek?
MR. HOLE: I don't believe so, no sir. No, it can't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You think the rate of discharge
is going to be the same or similar regardless of the filling of that
canal?
MR. HOLE: Yeah, it's going to be the same or similar.
What has changed is you've taken out a 30-inch-deep-in-some-areas
ditch and replaced it with this bundle of storage here, which then
bleeds out this way. In that case FDOT did you a favor or did them a
favor and realized instead of running all the way down here, it comes
through this system and comes into there. This canal comes here and
out that way, but more importantly you've got a 1 1/2 elevation for
this whole system to drain out this direction, south.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That wasn't really my question.
If you guys went out and hired a water management engineer to do a
hydraulic study of whether this improves or not the situation -- and
here's someone who is about as impartial as they come, Stan
Chrzanowski. Is what Mr. Hole is saying --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: My name is Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with
development services. C-h-r-z-a-n-o-w-s-k-i and, Commissioners, by
way of comparison --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. Before he speaks
should we recognize him as an expert?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I -- I was sworn in before.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But as an expert in the -- in the
field of water management?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe we have in the past,
and I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'd like to do that for
this. So moved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
recognize Mr. Chrzanowski as an expert in water-management issues.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Proceed, please.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: By way of comparison this canal that's
going to remain the one that drains Port-An-Prince toward 951 is
larger in cross section than the D-2 -- the Green Canal that runs
along the north side of Green Boul -- or excuse me, the south side of
Green Boulevard on the north side of Golden Gate City and goes from
Santa Barbara -- that one-mile canal from Santa Barbara to the 1-75
canal is smaller in cross section that this canal. That canal
probably drains two square miles of Golden Gate City and four square
miles to the north, which is about 3,000 acres. And it may not do it
as efficiently as this one, but that canal is substantial. Fifty by
ten feet is a substantial body of water.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in your opinion what is being
proposed by the petitioner -- MR. CHRZANKOWSKI: The remaining canal can definitely
handle the flow.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: I got up just to answer any questions
that anybody had. I don't have any more presentations.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one other -- one
question on the Port-An-Prince property. Does anybody know what the
-- what the NGVD is for the property that their homes are sitting
on? I mean, we're talking about a -- a fixed weir of 2 feet -- yeah,
okay -- a fixed weir of 2 feet, and we're talking about drainage of 1
1/2 feet, so how high is your home?
MR. HATTON: The homes -- most of the homes are between
elevation 7 and 8, but the lots are very low. They run from 4 to
elevation 4 1/2.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four to four and a half?
MR. HATTON: The lots, yeah.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's -- that's what I want to
know. At what -- how high does the water get that your lot is
covered, and that's at 4 to 4 1/2 you say?
MR. HATTON: That is the ground elevation typically.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But the weir south of you
is set at 2 feet so it would -- figuratively, should never get to 4 or
4 1/2 feet?
MR. HATTON: But it's already -- the water's already
starting to back up as Mr. Hole stated earlier in his comment because
of the weir structure.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's why we've got to go to
the state to get this problem solved.
MR. HATTON: Hel Hatton for the record. The other
comment I wanted to make is was just to clarify for Commissioner
Hac'Kie that we weren't talking about the plat of Port-An-Prince
earlier; we were talking about a recorded document, which are the deed
restrictions for Port-An-Prince, which give us rights to -- to
construct docks down to an elevation of mean low tide, which means
that that was title, and it was -- it was intended for us to have
access -- boat access out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the state has taken that away
from you apparently.
MR. HATTON: Yes, sir. I realize that but this is just
another thing that was -- was added on. This is what I've tried to
tell all of the experts that have testified here today that I've
spoken to is this is a compounded problem starting with the weir at
Mainsail and actually starting back in the early '70s when the pipes
were put under Mainsail and the canal was blocked and the road at
Mainsail was built.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we understand that.
MR. HATTON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: I have nothing further unless you have
questions for me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions? Close the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a
motion that we --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we've got three items to do. We
have two companions. We'll take -- Mr. Weigel, we'll take the first
one first. The first item -- take them in sequence? Okay.
MR. NINO: I think your first action should be to -- to
deal with the determination of insubstantial deviation of the
development order then to adopt the amendment to the development
order. PUD first.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. PUD first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And I was looking for
the reference number on that one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's PUD 87-4(4). I mean, 84-7(4).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I thought -- I'm sorry. I
thought there was a separate item on the -- a separate item finding
that there -- this is not a substantial deviation. MR. NINO: Yes, a separate finding.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In that case I'm going to
move approval of PUD 84-7(4) with the -- not necessarily condition,
but with the understanding that this board will be pursuing the state
for a reduction elevation of the weirs along that area to try to
assist in the matters being brought to our attention today. In
addition, there would be a reduction to 5,500 units within the
confines as presented today of the Fiddler's Creek project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Although 6,000 is the permitted
number of the commitment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the 6,000 will be
referenced in the document. The exotics will be removed from the
south -- the flowway and the natural vegetation area south of
Port-An-Prince.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the PUD in flooding.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that will be done by midyear
next year, I think, was the commitment -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next year, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that the developer made, and
if any action within Fiddler's Creek has a detrimental impact or
negative impact to the drainage of Port-Au-Prince that they take
immediate action to correct those problems. Did I miss anything?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nope.
MR. NINO: Does your resolution also acknowledge that
there's some wordsmithing that Miss Student has --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion will include direction
that the county attorney's office to -- you know, to clean up any
areas within the document that need to be done so for legal
sufficiency purposes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-332, RE PETITION DOA-96-1, DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO
THE MARCO SHORES DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL
DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW
(COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS 12B(1) AND 12C(2) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next, the companion, is 12(C)(1).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move petition
DOA-96-1 subject to conditions stated in companion item 84-7(4).
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-333/DO-96-1, RE DOA-96-1, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A. REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO
SHORES DEVELOPMENT ORDER, RESOLUTION 84-237 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION
88-117 AND 89-149, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENAMING UNIT 30 OF THE MARCO
SHORES PUD FIDDLERS CREEK; TO ADJUST DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF LAND USES
AND TO ADOPT A NEW MASTER PLAN (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS 12B(1) AND
12C(1) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
The next one is 12(C)(2).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move petition DOA-96-1
subject to conditions in the two aforementioned companion petitions.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. VARNADOE: I have -- I've got to correct one thing,
please. I'm a little concerned about perhaps our permit not allowing
us to clear those exotics within that time frame. What -- I thought
maybe there was a better answer to -- Mr. Hancock, the one condition
was that we would clear those exotics prior to any filling of either
of those canals on that 22.9 acres. That -- that I can control when
we develop that. That way I know I have positive control of when
those exotics get removed. I don't want to get afoul with the county
if I can't get them removed by midyear next year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your original commitment on the record
-- we talked about you would do that within the constraints of
permitting but as soon as possible.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, and I'm certainly willing to
commit to that, but I thought maybe tying it -- giving a positive
control to the -- to the Port-An-Prince people, why, we at least would
be done -- it would be done prior to any filling on that 22.9 acres on
those canals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with
altering my motion to include that as a stipulation. Would that take
a motion to reconsider?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it will.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move reconsideration of PUD
84-7(4).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going against it now though,
George.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to add this to your
original motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. What I would like to do is
I would like to restate the original motion with the inclusion of --
excuse me -- with the exclusion of a specific time line on the removal
of exotics from the area south of Port-Au-Prince and replace that with
a stipulation that those exotics be removed in total prior to any
filling of the canals on the parcel that's being added to Fiddler's
Creek adjacent to Port-Au-Prince.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Both canals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Both canals.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, any.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a motion and a second to add
that to the original motion. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. By rule DOA-96-1 both
items also include that element since it referenced the -- that
particular motion, so I wanted to make sure that was clear, also.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 96-43, RE PETITION PUD-76-35(1), J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, REPRESENTING NATIONAL ASSISTED LIVING
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE WILDERNESS PUD REQUIRING
AMENDMENT FOR USE SPECIFIC LAND USES FOR PARCL 9 (COHMERCIAL TRACT) AND
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 12(B)(2), petition
PUD-76-35(1).
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The -- this
petition is -- is rather unique in the sense that the Wilderness PUD
while establishing a 10.9-acre tract of land for commercial purposes
failed to recognize any uses within that specific tract and required
any subsequent use to come back to this board as an amendment to the
PUD. So we have a petition here -- we have an application here to
acknowledge an ACLF facility of 50 units, which is substantially less
than the 26 dwelling units per acre authorized by provisions of the
Land Development Code. It's about 17.9 actually.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, I admit to being
grouchy because we've been here a long time, but all of what you're
saying so far is in the staff report. MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't have questions about
this. It seems eminently reasonable to me.
MR. NINO: Let me say that the Planning Commission met
-- heard this petition and by a vote of five to one recommended
approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who was the one vote?
MR. NINO: I don't know. I was on vacation.
MR. GOODLETTE: It was Mr. Nelson, Commissioner
Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did he state a reason for the
negative vote?
MR. GOODLETTE: Dudley Goodlette for the record,
representing the petitioner here. Yes. It was similar to what has
been presented to you, and I think he thought he was being asked to
approve the site development plan rather than just the zoning, and the
picture that he had in front of him, which was a reduced copy of what
I have enlarged versions of today, he wasn't able to really discern
what the plan -- you know, what the units were going to look like, and
so he voted against it for that reason even though what they were
actually considering was not the SDP itself but was the underlying
zoning of the ACLF, Commissioner Matthews. I think that is an
accurate indication of what actually did occur at the Planning
Commission last Thursday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions for clarification;
one, this is proposed and will be no more than a one-story facility;
is that correct?
MR. GOODLETTE: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing is that -- this
is an issue we discussed regarding an ACLF on Marco. Roughly you're
-- you're requesting something in the area of 16 units per acre.
Will there be kitchenettes in the individual rooms?
MR. GOODLETTE: A couple but not very many. There will
be a cafeteria area. It is -- it is -- and, Commissioner, Alan
Parfish is available and can answer those questions more
specifically. He's a general partner -- a shareholder in the general
partnership that is a general partner of the limited partnership that
owns this -- this ACLF.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many of the units of the 50
are going to have kitchens?
MR. GOODLETTE: I'll -- I want him to answer that on the
record. I want to be certain that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, the basis for
awarding any type of increased density for ACLFs is that they have a
reduced impact externally, and I want to make sure that we are not
providing individual condos for self-sufficient residents.
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, have you been sworn?
MR. PARRISH: No, I have not.
(The speaker was sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: And your name, please.
MR. PARRISH: Alan, A-l-a-n, Parfish.
We are proposing that approximately one quarter, 12 or
so of the units, have kitchenettes in them. We are building a real
ACLF. We -- we are going to go apply to the state for a extended
congregate care license, which would give us the opportunity to take
care of people as they age.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PARRISH: The -- should I clarify further, or are
you happy with that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, that -- that gives me
direction. If you were asking for 26 units an acre, we'd knock you
down, but that -- that answers my question. Thank you.
MR. GOODLETTE: And, Mr. Chairman, because of the hour
we're happy to answer any questions. Mr. Parfish is here;
Architectural Concepts' Paul Haglet is here, the architect for the
project; Steve Lueng, who's with David Plummet and Associates, has
done a transportation analysis. He's available but I don't want to
belabor that unless members of the commission have questions, specific
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any specific questions at this point?
Any public speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of
PUD-76-35(1) with the stipulation no more than 25 percent of the
individual rooms have full kitchen facilities.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 96-44, RE PETITION PUD-92-2(1), BLAIR FOLEY OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES H. GORHAN, REQUESTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE VICTORIA LANDING CONDOHINIUH PUD WHICH IS TO BE
RETITLED WHITTENBERG PUD THROUGH A PUD TO PUD REZONING PROCESS HAVING
OBJECTIVE OF CHANGING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF
AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS (122) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF DAVIS BLVD., IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
CONSISTING OF 41.08 - ADOPTED
Next item is petition PUD-92-2(1).
MR. NINO: Again, Ron Nino for the record. PUD 92-2(1)
amends the Victoria -- Victoria Park -- Victoria Landing Condominium
PUD, changes the name to the Whittenberg PUD, and maintains a hundred
and twenty-two -- a hundred and twenty-three dwelling units, the same
as were in the approved Victoria Landing Condominium. However, I
would point out to you that this is a much superior project, because
each -- as opposed to what were essentially houses in the first plan,
we're going to have duplexes, each lot individually owned. Each unit
will own the deed to the property underneath it. By virtue of that
you won't have unit over unit. You'll have truly a single-family,
attached-type of development, certainly a vast improvement over the
currently approved PUD.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the density, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three units per acre?
MR. NINO: The same as the currently approved --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I just didn't --
MR. NINO: Three dwelling units per acre.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One less than base.
MR. NINO: Planning Commission heard this, unanimously
endorsed it. There were -- there were no expressions of objection to
this petition from nearby residents.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing?
MR. ASHER: John Asher from Coastal Engineering.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Asher, have you been sworn?
MR. ASHER: No, I have not.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. ASHER: I'd be happy to answer any questions. It's
pretty straightforward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You swear that's your name,
then?
MR. ASHER: I swear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve petition R-96-6.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Upgrading we can handle.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, wait.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, wait a minute.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the wrong one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the next one. I'm
sorry. I'm ahead of myself. PUD 92-2(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Killen was getting really
excited back there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #1284
ORDINANCE 96-45, PETITION R-96-6, THOMAS E. KILLEN REPRESENTING SOUTH
WEST HOTELS CORPORATION REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED
PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "RT" TO "RT" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH
OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) CONTIGUOUS OF APPROXIMATELY 3.58 ACRES -
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now we're at R-96-6.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next one is R-96-6.
MR. MILK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition R-96-6. This
petition seeks to amend Ordinance 92-43 for the purpose of increasing
the maximum building height from two stories to three stories and
replacing the existing master plan with a new master plan.
I'd like to give you some historical relevance to the
project. In 1985 the subject property was rezoned from RSF-4 and C-4
to RT for a motel, and that also resulted in the master plan. In 1992
the subject property was not developed, so it underwent the zoning
teevaluation process. During that process there were stipulations
that were instituted by this board that provided a maximum building
height for the hotel at two stories and also carried forward with that
the original stipulations of the 1985 ordinance.
Today the petitioner is asking for an amendment to that
Ordinance 92-43 by providing a maximum building height of three
stories and providing a new master plan, which provides a three-story
building at the north and northwest portions of the site. It also
provides access from U.S. 41 with a decel lane on U.S. 41.
During the public hearing there were approximately six
residents from the adjacent properties that spoke in concern and some
opposition to the proposed three-story building height and master
plan. During that public hearing the Planning Commission recommended
approval six to zero; however, they implemented approximately six
standards and commitments that the petitioner shall provide, which he
has agreed to, and it's set forth in the ordinance of adoption.
Importantly, on the particular site there's going to be
a proposed restaurant. The hours of operation was from 6 a.m. to 11
p.m. There was to be provided a 6-foot opaque landscaped hedge along
the property's eastern and southern property boundaries. Access from
the River Court is now prohibited. The only access to the site is
from U.S. 41, that all dumpsters shall be located near the loading
zone contiguous to the restaurant, and the proposed conference room on
the easternmost portion of the building be limited to the two stories
and for office use only. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this
time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need to know why the County
Commission imposed the two-story restriction in the first place. What
was the reasoning?
MR. MILK: That I don't know. Mr. Killen's here and he
was -- he provided the original site plan at that particular time, and
he might offer a little --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prior to his presentation
it's probably important that I point out that I have had a prior
discussion with Mr. Killen; however, as required by State of Florida
Law, I'll base my decision solely on that information provided during
today's public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, too, have had discussions with
the petitioner and some residents and will base my decision on the
information presented today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I also will base my decision on the
information presented here today in this public hearing.
MR. KILLEN: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Killen,
Naples, Florida.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Killen, have you been sworn?
MR. KILLEN: No.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. KILLEN: What I have in this package here, in the
cover sheet, first to -- to show the location. This is directly south
of the Pewter Hug up on 41, and there are some residences around the
vicinity that are affected by the site. To get to the third page,
marked four on this plan -- it's an old plan. About 1990 Grady
Hinor's office prepared an STP, which was approved, with this exact
layout. This is a two-story hotel with outside balcony access. The
client did not go forward with a building permit at that time because
of the premature site location and the financial condition of the
world in respect to hotels. It was very difficult at that time.
Since that time they have -- they are now ready to build a hotel.
Well, after this plan was approved but not permitted for a building,
the LDC came along.
Well, let me back up. The ordinance that Bryan is
referring to was modeled from this particular plan. This was the --
the approved STP, and the primary concern, of course, people didn't
want to -- people looking into their backyards from the balcony
locations, and they didn't like the noise and traffic problems, so
that's where the ordinance came from. Plus I think we prohibited
boats at that time, any type of boat ramp.
Now, the LDC came along. And the next plan just shows
what the original looked like, but the page with the red marks on it,
of which I have an enlargement, indicates what the revisions in the
LDC in respect to one -- one -- or every 10th car being a tree in the
parking lot and the increased setbacks imposed by the LDC. This is
what happened to that particular project. Now, it can still be built
but it's -- it's very congested, and it's more of a blacktop jungle,
plus the outside balconies are a noise factor at the same time and the
views are in all directions. But if you notice that if you take these
red dots that we've marked here for cars lost, and this red -- red
area here shows those cars being recaptured in another location,
leaves this entire building wiped out to be relocated here, and you
diminish the courtyard area down to a minimum, so it's not a desirable
project.
What we've done with this approach is addressing the
traffic noise. And the other item that was brought up was the height,
because we've put all the noise factors down at this end up by 41 and
the river. We've gone to the inside corridor hotel access with no
balconies. The only balconies are at the extreme west end in the pool
area. We've also oriented it north-south so that all windows face
either north or south, not into the existing subdivision areas or into
the homes.
The buffer for this two-story area is a meeting room on
the first floor, and the second floor is strictly a laundry. That was
done to -- to create kind of a transition from two story to three to
help with the height appearance.
The next page is -- is the reduction of that -- of this
particular plan, then the next page shows what -- what we want the
project to look for -- look like. And the top drawing shows some
rubble out front. This is actually -- the client is asking for
waterfalls up at Highway 41 to work as a sound buffer into the
courtyard for the hotel. That's a pretty -- pretty well-described
appearance of what it should look like. And the second drawing down
below, that is the south entrance or the main entrance into the hotel
itself. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the first page of the staff
report it says that you're requesting a 93-unit hotel. MR. KILLEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It also says in the second
paragraph the subject property was rezoned in 1985 to RT for a 56-unit
motel.
MR. KILLEN: Our STP -- the STP was for 93 units in
1990.
MR. MILK: That's correct. What -- what had happened
originally in 1985 is they submitted a site plan as provided in your
executive summary packet. Okay. That site plan was massaged with
Mr. Minor's site plan as Tom Killen has provided.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was never a limit on units
in '85. It just happened -- it was just 56 units at that time, but
there was no limit on units placed by the board at that time?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: What else has happened through the
implementation of the Land Development Code in 1991, there was a
statement in there that if the RT zoning existed prior to the adoption
of the October 30, 1991, adoption date, then the 26 units per acre was
valid on the subject parcel --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: -- throughout the county.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that answers my
question. On the original proposed site, which you've issued us a
diagram in this packet, from finished floor elevation to roof peak,
what was the height of that structure? MR. KILLEN: On the original?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the original, yes, sir.
MR. KILLEN: Approximately 20 feet from building -- from
floor to floor. The height of the building --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm saying finished floor of
the first level -- MR. KILLEN: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the top of the roof. I
want vertical heights overall over all the structure.
MR. KILLEN: It would only be a guess at this time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what I'm concerned about is
-- and you and I discussed this -- is to go from two stories to three
stories for the people that live to the south, that obviously means
they're going to be seeing more building above the trees. What we
talked about is eliminating or changing the roof structure so that the
vertical height was not dramatically different from one to the other.
MR. KILLEN: Well, we -- what I did was I took the roof
off of the majority of the building.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. But I'm just -- I
was looking for an answer to that difference. I -- you know, they --
they knew what they had when it was approved the first time. MR. KILLEN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they probably want to know
what the difference is between that and this, and that's what I'm
looking for.
MR. KILLEN: Well, overall approximately 9 feet, the
overall height.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the building --
MR. KILLEN: But we'd be happy -- we'd be happy to as
we mentioned or discussed going to some type of a mansard roof
arrangement or something on the main area to keep the profile down
lower.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to -- if this
petition moves ahead, I would like that to be part of the motion. I'd
like to see the profile reduced by at least 5 more feet. You have
moved the hotel to the north away from the homes.
MR. KILLEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that true?
MR. KILLEN: Yes. An additional 10 or 20 feet more than
it was before.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that's --
MR. KILLEN: And we've agreed to close the drive off of
the side road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Milk, did the Planning
Commission -- I saw hours of operation for the bar in here I thought
so that the --
MR. MILK: For the restaurant.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, for the restaurant.
MR. KILLEN: Restaurant, correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we talking about the chikee
bar outside?
MR. KILLEN: No. In fact, I don't think the chikee bar
is going to be there. It'll be an indoor-outdoor bar from the
restaurant itself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: But it's a full-service restaurant.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my concern is, again, is
you're real close to a residential area, and a restaurant is one
thing, but a bar is another. And the entertainment associated with a
bar -- I'm a little concerned about how that plays to the residences
to the south. You know, we don't want -- you know, I know we have
noise ordinances, but, you know, if you crack the door open --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Trust me. They don't work
correctly sometimes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And if you crack the door
open on that, it's tough to get pushed -- and it gets pushed open a
little further. You stand here with all the best intentions in the
world today, but I'm worried that there's going to be some guitar
player crooning out there until midnight.
MR. KILLEN: Well, that's why we shoved it as far to the
north -- northwest corner as we can and have the building wrapped
around it as a buffer back to the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you willing to stipulate
no outdoor entertainment? MR. KILLEN: Sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you willing to stipulate
no entertainment outdoors?
MR. KILLEN: I -- I couldn't answer that. The gentleman
that we're talking to now about the restaurant location does not have
entertainment. It's strictly a three-meal-a-day restaurant,
breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and the bar is just kind of a
convenience to the pool-side people and so forth and to the restaurant
customers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then I'm sure he wouldn't mind that
stipulation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. That's all -- that's all
I'm going to be willing to approve, not live entertainment in that
area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm going to have to ask
that no outdoor entertainment be allowed at the -- the outdoor portion
of the bar. I -- I think in concert with the adjacent residential
community, that's the least we can do.
MR. KILLEN: I don't think that would be a problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It probably won't matter after
today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you talking about outdoor
live entertainment or just music or period? So not even during the
daytime to have music in the pool area?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. We'll make an
exception for mimes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mimes, okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, what I'm looking for is
performance, you know. If they get a radio station D.J. in there with
a promo, and he's cranking out music until 10:30 at night, you know, I
think the folks to the south are going to have a problem with that,
and I'm trying to avoid that whole scenario. So I'm just saying
period. No outdoor entertainment, period.
MR. KILLEN: Would you put a curfew on that? For
example, if you want to have a steel drum band in the afternoon or
some type of a corporate --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
MR. KILLEN: -- entertainment with the people staying
there?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I won't support it if
there's outdoor entertainment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then what I want to do is
secondary, because there's two people that won't support it if -- MR. KILLEN: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that's a wise move.
MR. KILLEN: We'll go by your wishes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So so far we have a
reduction in height by at least 5 feet. We have no outdoor
entertainment, period. All the other staff stipulations are in tact.
Mr. Milk, is there anything that you find objectionable about the
petition that was not granted by the Planning Commission? MR. MILK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. HcNEES: You had one speaker registered who made it
through most of the day. She went home and left a letter for the
record. She is a resident in the neighborhood. Her name is Jean
Batridge and she is objecting to the project due to the -- believes it
will be a nuisance to the small residential area, will increase
traffic, and objects to having a restaurant as there are already three
restaurants in the neighborhood.
MR. MILK: Can I add one more thing to that? I think
some of the residents were concerned about negotiating ingress and
egress to the site just because of the median cuts and where they're
located adjacent to the Pewter Mug to the north and on Shores Avenue
to the south. That seemed to be their greatest concern. After
hearing the concessions of the Planning Commission, they were fairly
satisfied from what happened there, but then as another concern they
talked about the roadway and, again, I tried to get them to the right
channels on how to talk to FDOT and Mr. Archibald and that sort of
coordination.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. There's not much we can do
about traffic at this point. There's already -- MR. MILK: Well, what they don't need is a median cut,
and what they do need is a good decel lane into the project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This -- this site plan shows no
access from River Court.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And is this the site plan that has
been submitted for approval?
MR. MILK: The -- the ordinance will prohibit access
from River Court as a stipulation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. I'm
questioning the buffering on the hotel site versus the residential
area. It looks like you're going to have a canal that you're going to
construct on the south side?
MR. KILLEN: No. That's existing. All that's showing
is existing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This -- where this black line is
it's already existing?
MR. KILLEN: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It looks like a lot of trees to
me.
MR. KILLEN: That's mostly Brazilian peppers around that
canal. We're going to try to beautify it as best we can. We're
thinking about putting a bridge across, a little wooden walkway
bridge, for access to a remote parking area and beautify that into a
little park-like setting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What kind of buffering are we
looking at for the back of the motel, along the waterfront at the back
of it?
MR. KILLEN: We have, what; three foot --
MR. MILK: There will be a 6-foot hedge along the
eastern and southern property boundaries and a tree spaced every 30
feet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's just type A buffering?
MR. MILK: It's a type B buffer.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Type B?
MR. MILK: Type B, which is opaque at planting and 6
foot at planting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's required to be opaque
when it's planted and 6-foot high?
MR. MILK: That's correct, at planting. We started with
three foot just so the folks could look at the water and the Planning
Commission and the neighbors said we don't want that. We want to
increase it to 6 so as a stipulation in the ordinance, that is what
they recommended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I can put a number on it,
the building height we're talking about for the proposed structure,
what is -- what elevation is that currently proposed at?
MR. KILLEN: Let me take you across the trap. The
highway at that point is 9 feet. The building must be at 11, first
floor, and the floor to floor is 9 foot, 8 inches. Each floor is 9
foot -- a 9-foot ceiling with 8 foot (sic) precast --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We measure from finished
floor elevation for building height; is that correct, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So finished floor
elevation, what is the building height going to be? You said 9'8" per
floor?
MR. KILLEN: Yes. Nine eight so thirty -- probably
fifty feet high. Forty-five from eleven -- I'm saying eleven --
you've got thirty feet and three floors, right? Approximately.
You're almost -- you're one foot short, so you're -- twenty-nine feet
high plus the roof structure, and you've got a ten foot, fifteen foot
roof.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, which we're going to do a
mansard or parapet wall -- MR. KILLEN: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to bring that down. So if we
said 30, 35 feet from finished floor to top of structure?
MR. KILLEN: Thirty-five from the eleven foot, that
would work.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. That's the finished-floor
elevation.
MR. KILLEN: Thirty-five's tight.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I like tight.
MR. KILLEN: We don't get much tile up there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure you'll do wonderful
things with the paint job.
MR. KILLEN: Can we make it 40? That's about 10 feet
less than it is showing on these drawings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a final negotiated bid at
37 feet.
MR. KILLEN: Thirty-seven and a half.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just say 38 feet, max
height 38 feet for the structure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let's close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is closed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of PUD
-- PUD R-96-6 with the following stipulations in addition to those
contained in the staff report: One, no outdoor entertainment will be
allowed; two, building height for finished-floor elevation will be 38
feet; and three, to the greatest extent, I guess, reasonably possible
that existing vegetation and trees will remain in the buffer areas,
most of them Australian pines, but I -- if there's a --
MR. KILLEN: We have a lot of mangroves, so we'll
maintain all the mangroves plus add some additional riprap and
mangroves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. Did I cover
everything we discussed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think so.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. KILLEN: Thank you very much.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 96-46, RE SCRIVENER'S ERROR 96-1, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ATLAS HAP NUMBER 9515N, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY (EXHIBIT "A") FROM "C-4", "RSF-4"
AND "P" TO "C-4" TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR IN THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND U.S. 41, IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next item is really a
sorivener's error.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval to the scrivener's area -- error. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed? None?
Item #13A1
PETITION A-96-1, EMILY HAGGIO REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF A COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COHMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPROVED ON
JUNE 6, 1996, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK C, LITTLE HICKORY
SHORES, UNIT 1 - APPEAL UPHELD WHICH DENIES THE BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
Next item is 13(A)(1), petition A-96-1.
HR. HcNEES: I think we have (C)(5), 12(C)(5).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, adoption of an ordinance to
approve a dispute resolution for the water-sewer district.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped right over
that one. Okay.
MR. HcNEES: It's something required by the FDEP and the
State Revolving Fund process to have this process in place.
MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn, public works.
This is essentially a resolution that you had approved back in HAy
associated with state funding for some of our wastewater projects,
that you had approved a resolution back in HAy. The state has
required that that resolution become an ordinance in order to further
process our loan application. It's really as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
MR. FINN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a motion and a second to adopt
the ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
MR. FINN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now we'll move to 13 -- 13(A)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no guardhouse involved,
is there?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. It's just an extension of a
dock.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services staff. This is an appeal
of a Collier County Planning Commission's approval of a boat dock.
The Land Development Code states that waterfront properties on canals
less than 100 feet in width are entitled to a 5-foot dock. In
addition to that they can work both further encroachments to the
waterway.
The applicant requested a U-shaped dock wrapping around
the boat 3 feet along the seawall and 2 feet from the outside of the
boat to help them with cleaning the boat and also for boat lift. The
Planning Commission after hearing the staff review of this petition
met with the Land Development Code and approved it. The Planning
Commission after hearing from the neighbors decided to modify this to
allow them to have a 3-foot dock along the seawall and two pilings on
the other side of the boat for boat lift.
Mrs. MAggio is appealing this decision. The staff
recommends that the BZA uphold the Planning Commission recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the Planning Commission
recommendation was to remove the walkway, which makes incredible
sense, and the only reason the pilings were left is because that
particular type of boat lift requires outside pilings to be used?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. They need two pilings outside
for the lift.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I assume no one else on the
entire canal has the same type of boat lift then, otherwise we
probably would have done this once before?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically, it's an established
neighborhood and most people they have davits. They don't have boat
lifts.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: MA'am, have you been sworn?
MS. MAGGIO: No.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MS. MAGGIO: Yes. For the record my name is Emily
MAggio, and if I can direct your attention to the handwriting on the
wall, what that is is a simple diagram. It's -- it's not a fancy
drawing. It's just -- it represents the 22 lots that back up to the
canal. Their backyards join the canal. The lot that's colored red is
Mr. Litty, the petitioner, and the dots -- the yellow dots on all the
other lots represent everyone who I am representing here today, and
they are -- we are all as homeowners there opposed to this extension.
What happened at the Planning Commission meeting we --
the -- 11 of us were there, and we handed in a petition that was
signed by each of those particular property owners. Since that
Planning Commission hearing, the two lots immediately -- this is
north, south, east, and west. The two lots -- one vacant and one
improved -- that are to the west of Mr. Litty's lot were sold and
closed on, and the new owner has signed in opposition to that. And
also minutes of the Planning Commission meeting mention that staff
received several phone calls in opposition, and had I known at the
time, I would have brought this up then, but evidently one of the
property owners at 229 Third Street had sent a letter in that -- that
he even went to the problem -- or to the trouble of having it
notarized. So just in case it got lost somewhere, I just want to make
that a part of the record.
In addition to that, you know, it's summertime and a lot
of people are away so I've got here 11 letters from homeowners in
opposition expressing concerns about safety, precedence setting, et
cetera, et cetera, and I'd like to turn those in to you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Emily, what's the substance
of the objection?
MS. HAGGIO: Well, we feel not enough consideration was
given to what is there. This would be a precedent-setting thing. In
the 26 years that I've lived on Second Street, this is the first time
that anyone has ever applied for an extension. We, quite frankly,
don't feel it's necessary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's such a rotten way to come
into the neighborhood. I'm anxious to hear from the petitioner why --
MS. HAGGIO: Well -- and I would like to say what I was
going to say. I mean, I know you're all tired, and we all want to get
out of here. This is nothing against Mr. Litty. You know, no one has
to pass a litmus test to come into our neighborhood. We -- we're just
not like that, and we certainly have no objection to someone coming in
and improving their property. That's good for everybody. However, we
don't think this is an improvement that's good for everybody. I '-
I've got -- if I could pass those --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Haggio, the question was what is
the nature of the objection and physically was the intent. What --
what is it about the request that is objectionable physically?
MS. HAGGIO: Like I say, basically that it is a
precedent-setting thing on this particular waterway. There are --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why would it be a bad precedent,
Emily? Is it navigation that it interferes?
MS. HAGGIO: This is an 80-foot canal, and that may
sound like a lot but, you know, when I stand on my seawall and look
across the canal -- here's -- here's some pictures that, you know,
might help. It's not that wide. It's not that wide. What I've
passed you -- that's the petition. Okay. If I could just point --
bring your attention to the first page at the bottom of the page.
This lists the boat dock facilities that are close in proximity. All
right. This information that's here -- this -- where it says, at the
mouth of the canal there's a boathouse that's 18 feet into the water.
That's a gross misrepresentation; that's what I'm going to
characterize it as.
As this picture will show, that boathouse is out in the
bay, which is a much wider waterway. So, I mean, this thing was
filled out by a licensed contractor. That contractor certainly knows
the canal from the bay, and the reason this is on -- I don't believe
it got on here by mistake. I think that why this is on here is when
you're coming -- asking for a dock protrusion that's three times more
than what the code allows, and it's more than what everyone else has,
it doesn't look good if the first statement is all you can say, most
docks in the canal are within the code or less. We just feel that --
I mean, it's a misrepresentation. It's a lie and it shouldn't be on
there. There's no excuse for it, and it certainly shouldn't be
condoned and it shouldn't be rewarded.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Chahram, have you confirmed that
that's a misstatement?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That -- I do not -- the thing is
Mr. Litty's entitled to a boat dock whether --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Is it true or false or do
you know that at the mouth of the canal there is a boathouse about 18
feet into the canal?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. There is a boathouse 18 feet
into the canal.
MS. MAGGIO: What canal?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The bay or the canal, coming out of
the canal --
MS. MAGGIO: No, no. Can I just -- am I -- am I on? I
live here. My neighbor lives here. That's the mouth of the canal.
We do not have a boathouse that sticks 18 feet into the water. This
out here is a natural waterway; it's Hickory Bay. And that's what
you're looking at that is actually in the bay, and 18 1/2 feet is not
an extension for that water width.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the sketch you have there,
Emily, could you show me where the 18-foot structure is?
MS. MAGGIO: Oh, it's not even on here. It's way, way
out into the -- into the bay. This is -- see, this is all -- like I
say, it's a simple diagram. We're only showing the canal. This is a
natural waterway out here. It's part of Hickory Bay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Emily, I've got to tell you
this photograph sure looks like it's in the mouth to me.
MS. MAGGIO: I know and photographs are deceiving. But
you'll have -- I mean, I wouldn't -- I'm under oath not to lie to you,
and I'm telling you when you're there --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The camera doesn't lie.
MS. MAGGIO: See that spit of mangroves? That spit of
mangroves that's there is actually part of the Hickory Bay
Condominium. It's a mangrove preserve and that boathouse is actually
west of that anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, Emily --
MS. MAGGIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when most of the homes were
built back there -- I mean, I grew up on a canal in Pompano Beach.
The only way to get your boat out of the water was a davit that sat on
the seawall, and that's what everyone had. MS. MAGGIO: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, what has been more efficient
and a better lift is one that requires supports on both sides and it
lifts the boat completely out of the water, and it's stronger than
davits. It holds up in high winds and that kind of stuff better than
davits do. We have kind of a change in the way we -- we're pulling
boats out of the water now. So what's really at issue here are the
two 8-inch pilings that are going to be on the outboard side of the
boat. You know, the boat would stick out further with a 5-foot dock,
but the person would have to use davits, you know, if they went all
the way out. So is that -- is that really kind of the issue? It's
the type of lift that's creating this problem?
MS. MAGGIO: Well, yes. And -- and you see the -- the
question becomes -- this is -- this is usurping -- even with the
modification that the Planning Commission made -- 362 1/2 feet of the
public's property. So before that is done, okay, it seems to me there
should be a really good reason to do it. There are davits in place on
Mr. Litty's property that were there when he purchased it. A previous
owner put them there. He is seeking obviously not deeper water but
the ability to lift his boat out. We understand that and there's
nothing wrong with that. But he can do it without usurping all of
that public property and encroaching on the waterway by using davits.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, can I ask -- can we
ask Mr. Litty why davits are not -- why he can't use them? Because if
he can use davits and everyone else has them -- actually, yes. I'm
addressing the question to you, sir. If you'd give your name and we
might need to swear you in.
MR. LITTY: My name is Mike Litty, and I live at 226
Second Street.
THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn in, sir?
MR. LITTY: Yes, I have. I've sworn earlier but I'll
swear it again.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How come davits won't cut it?
MR. LITTY: Main -- the main reason I would like davits
-- I'm familiar with the water. I grew up on the water all my life,
and davits are -- actually, they're dangerous in a lot of ways.
They're convenient for some people. I've grown up with lifts most of
my life on the water. I grew up on the water all my life. My father
is elderly. It's much easier for him to get into the boat with the
lift. It's mainly a safety factor for him and myself to get into the
boat and get out of the boat.
It's better for the boat to be -- for the environment to
be out of the water. It's not protruding -- I can actually but a boat
there that would intrude further than my lift is going to go, which
would actually impede the canal even more. I don't want to do that.
I want to put a flat boat on a canal on a lift so that it puts the
boat out of the water and keeps the boat protected and the canal
protected for the environment, and that's basically it. I'm not
asking for anything special. I just want, you know, what I'm -- I
think I'm legally able to have there, and I'm not trying to hurt
anyone, or the navigation is not going to be hurt by any means. I
basically just on my time off -- I work 40 to 60 hours a week as a
beverage manager, and when I have time to get off, I like to put my
boat in the water and go fishing for a couple hours to relax. And at
this point right now, I have to keep my boat on the trailer or leave
it in the canal to have barnacles get on it and everything else, and
I'm not inconveniencing anyone whatsoever.
This is basically, I think, a ploy. I did not agree
with them. They all came to me early in the process when I bought the
house and said why don't you drop this and put in davits. And I said
I'm going to ask the county to let me do what the county wishes me to
do. I'll be happy to abide by whatever the county decides, and that's
where I'm going from here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, on an appeal of a
Planning Commission approval, who has the burden and what is the
hurdle -- what's the bar that they have to jump to achieve that
burden?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the burden is on the
petitioner or the person making the appeal. The criteria that come
before the Board of County Commissioners is that they would need to
make a finding that the Planning Commission determination is one not
supported by competent, substantial evidence; and/or two, that the
determination made by the Planning Commission is not consistent with
the Growth Management Plan or the future land use element or the LDC
or the zoning atlas issue.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Emily, the burden is on you
to do one of those things. You haven't done it so far.
MS. MAGGIO: Well, you know, like I say, I'm here
representing the neighbors as best I can, and I just --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if you have a way to
do that, I'm giving you the opportunity now, but you need to be aware
that you haven't done that, and the only way that we can approve your
appeal --
MS. MAGGIO: Right.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is if you go over that
bar.
MS. MAGGIO: Well, okay. What can I -- well, let me
just read what I intend to say at the end, and if that isn't good
enough, then so be it. We all agreed that we'd live with whatever the
decision is.
This dock extension was approved despite the fact that
the application contained false information. It was approved despite
the fact that every other dock on the waterway is within the code, and
part of what has to be considered is how does this fit in with
everything else. Despite the fact -- it was approved despite the fact
that granting it takes nothing away from either side on this issue,
but granting it unnecessarily takes away from the public for the
benefit of one shore-front property owner. It was also approved
despite the fact that everyone else is within the code. Everyone else
does not think it's necessary. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other speakers?
MR. McNEES: You have one, Bill Ryan.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Ryan, have you been sworn?
MR. RYAN: Bill Ryan, 225 Third Street.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. RYAN: I live directly across the canal from
Mr. Litty. I've lived there for 10 years. I enjoy a beautiful view
of the canal in the mornings. I fish out there. I would like to
continue to do so without getting my line snagged on timbers or
whatever else might be there. I love to look at the canal. I don't
really want to look at unpainted wood, because that would be my view.
If you think about it, I'm not looking straight down into the canal at
the water but off to side. And also, as Mr. Litty said, he's using --
he wants to use that as an elevator. I think -- talking about danger
on a davit, I believe that riding down that thing as an elevator would
be far more dangerous. I don't know of a lift that doesn't say that
you don't ride it, and everybody else is using davits. I use davits.
I'm 75 years old. I use davits and I swing that 20-foot boat in and
out by myself, and I don't know why he can't do the same. He looks a
little tougher than I am. And I'd sure like for you to consider my
view and the fact that my fishing is -- to me is as important as him
riding up and down on an electric elevator. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Nothing more? Any further
questions from the board?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand -- and,
Commissioner Constantine, you and I may have a disagreement here.
There's -- what happens if we approve this is we're going to see a
change along that entire canal of people when they -- instead of
replacing their davits, they're going to come in with lifts. And when
you go from having a 3 foot or 5 foot continuous number of docks with
boats rafted to them or on davits to now, all of a sudden, you start
getting pilings out into the water, it is going to change the
character of what goes on back there. I have to disagree with the
safety issue, because you can put a boat in the water -- and you cited
it correctly, sir. I spent eight years in the Coast Guard Reserve.
I've put boats in water more times and more ways than I care to think
of. It can be done safely.
MR. LITTY: May I answer that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, you can't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's not his burden to
meet, you know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's not his burden to meet,
but we have considered at times the character of neighborhoods and
whether something is -- will set a trend that is not in the best
interest of that neighborhood and, again, I just -- I'm trying to
picture the canal slowly being converted to everyone having these
types of lifts, which is what will happen as the davits break and so
forth. I just don't think it's advantageous for --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, do we have to -- does
Miss Haggio have to meet both parts of that test? Because I think
Commissioner Hancock just described sufficiently something to meet the
second test, which had to do with the spirit of the code, et cetera,
but the first test --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, no. You don't have to meet both.
Either of those is one of the elements that has to be met. I don't
see the word "spirit" in there, though.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm sorry. I'm tired.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'll try and move things
along. Sir, I understand fully --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can understand fully what
you're trying to do, but I have to -- I have to agree with the
residents. There are things being done in a certain way, and they can
continue to be done safely that way, and I'd rather not see a
significant change to -- to the way the backs of everyone's homes
along that canal looks over the next 10 years so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm going to make a motion
that we -- that based on the issue of compatibility with adjacent
property owners and consistency within the neighborhood, I'm going to
recommend that we approve -- grant the appeal of -- for petition 96-1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I'll tell you, when
I was a kid, we didn't have a boat. The toughest thing was figuring
out where we were going to hang the tricycle on the garage wall, not
hang a boat in the backyard. But I'm -- I'm going to oppose the
motion only because -- not because I don't agree that you're trying to
-- to maintain the area, just because I don't know that it's met the
legal requirement, and that's the difference in opinion we have there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you read the second
criteria one more time, criterium.
MR. WEIGEL: The second one is that the determination by
the CCPC is not consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the future
land use element, the LDC, or zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not consis '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, obviously it's not
consistent with the LDC, or it wouldn't be a variance.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's a boat dock
extension.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's not consistent with the
LDC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And perhaps not consistent with
zoning when one of the underlying reasons for zoning is compatibility
in the neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is a narrow canal. You put
the pilings out there -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, your
time is up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the motion is to uphold the appeal,
which would deny the extension of the boat dock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whoops. I didn't mean aye
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Those opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There we go. That motion is
successful four to one, and that brings us to the end of our items.
Commissioner Matthews.
Items #14-1 and #14-2
BOARD OF COUNTYY COHMSSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I have -- I have one item
and this came from Everglades City. I just want to give you a brief
update, and it'll be real brief. The city barn in Everglades City is
half on county-owned property, and the -- the city has asked that the
county deed that two lots to the city so that they can move -- sell
them, take the proceeds and build another city barn facility. And
I've negotiated it, I believe, successfully with Mr. Hamilton, and
Mr. Dotrill doesn't seem to object, but I believe the City of
Everglades is going to take over the mowing of the Chokoloskee
Causeway in exchange for the property, but as we move forward in that
I believe staff right now is drafting an interlocal agreement, and
hopefully we will have that to the board within the next couple of
weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you'll bring that forward soon
then?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because, I mean, it would be
nice for Mr. Archibald not to have to mobilize the equipment down
there to mow anymore.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to see caution on that
one, because if we give to Everglades City, we might have to give to
City of Naples.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a great piece of property
the City of Naples wants. We'll mow your grass.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have been called for jury
duty the week of August 5, so if for some reason I don't appear
Tuesday morning, you'll know where I am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In the Cracker Barrel trial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- book tells you how to get out
of that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're not going to Tampa, are
you?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, anything?
MR. HcNEES: I wouldn't dare.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He would dare.
MR. WEIGEL: Interim government service fee, I take it
that we should be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All together now.
MR. WEIGEL: -- adopting -- or should be developing our
ordinance right now, but I didn't know for sure if we should actually
advertise it yet or bring it back to the board for you to look at. I
can even distribute it to you if you would like prior to advertising,
simple as that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That seems consistent with
our direction today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What? Well, the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which or?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would say prepare it for --
prepare it for advertisement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Let's don't add a
step.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: All right. Thank you. I'll talk to you
about the golf authority and the golf course and the landfill old site
another time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything
else?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're done.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-320, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60209-016; OWNER OF RECORD - LAWRENCE K. JOYCE ESTATE
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-321, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60209-017; OWNER OF RECORD - LAWRENCE K. JOYCE ESTATE
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-322, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60308-136; OWNER OF RECORD - VARNVILLE CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-323, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60311-131; OWNER OF RECORD - DELTONA CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-324, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60313-019; OWNERS OF RECORD - ERIC H. REISHUS, MARLIN B. REISHUS
See Pages
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-325, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60308-135; OWNER OF RECORD - VARNVILLE CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A7
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.574 FOR "REGENCY VILLAGE WATER MANAGEMENT
LAKE" LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY 1-75, ON THE SOUTH BY C.R. 846
(IHMOKALEE ROAD) ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY THE REGENCY VILLAGE PUD -
WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-326 APPROVING THE VACATION OF THOSE LANDS PREVIOUSLY
PLATTED AS TRACT F-4 AND A PORTION OF LOT 31 OF QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE
REPLAT, PETITION AV-96-014 AND RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST
UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCK A" - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW
AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A9
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM INCOME THAT MUST BE REFUNDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COHMUNITY AFFAIRS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,907.00
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 96-327 APPROVING THE VACATION OF THOSE LANDS PREVIOUSLY
PLATTED AS TRACT F-4 AND A PORTION OF TRACT C OF QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE
REPLAT, PETITION AV-96-017, AND RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST
UNIT ONE REPLAT BLOCK C, FIRST ADDITION" - WITH CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16All
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT TWO, VANDERBILT
CORRIDOR - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16B1
INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR THE "OAKES DRAINAGE DITCH
PROJECT" - WORK ORDER #WA-8-S WITH WILKISON & ASSOCIATES
See Pages
Item #1682
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 TO STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR WORK ON THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
See Pages
Item #1683
MODIFICATIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA AND IHMOKALEE DISPOSAL CO.
See Pages
Item #1684
WORK ORDER NO. VB-13 WITH VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO PROVIDE
SHORELINE STABILIZATION ON HIDEAWAY BEACH - SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW
See Pages
Item #1685
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1995 FOR
FUND 589, OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT AND REPAYMENT TO THE
GENERAL FUND
Item #1686 - This item has been deleted
Item #1687 - This item has been deleted
Item #1688
CHANGE ORDERS TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUHISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND SEGMENTED BREAKWATER - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $54,281.00
See Pages
Item #16C1
CONTINUATION GRANTS FOR HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND ALZHEIHER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE FOR 1996-1997
See Pages
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT
ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET
Item #16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENSES
IN THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND 521
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-461, 96-479, 96-502, 96-508 AND 96-511
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #8E2
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
243-245 7/9/96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
71 7/7/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of
County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as
indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:59 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY:
Catherine Hoffman, Christine Whitfield, and Barbara Drescher