BCC Minutes 06/11/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 11, 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 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - ADOPTED AND/OR APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission
meeting to order on this llth day of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, we're
going to have a pledge to the flag out of order this morning, but if
you could lead us in an invocation this morning, please.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Heavenly Father, we give thanks,
and we praise you this morning. We give thanks for the wonderful
quality of life that we enjoy in Collier County. We give thanks for
its wonderful diversity of people and interests and desires. We'd ask
that you bless those desires today in return and that those people
would bless you. Father, we'd ask that you bless our time together
here this morning as the county commission makes important decisions
that affect our community of a business nature, that it would be
fruitful and beneficial and a reflection of your will for Collier
County and its people, and we pray these things in Jesus's name.
Amen.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Almost automatic.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any changes to the agenda, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, I have two. Good morning,
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You have one add-on item. It will be
item 10(F) under the Board of County Commissioners, which is an
agreement concerning Lake Trafford and its designation as a Florida
game and freshwater fish preserve management area.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not really an agreement.
It's a discussion, and perhaps the board adopting the motion as a
resolution from the -- that -- it's not a signed agreement at this
point.
MR. DORRILL: Very well. And the other change that I
have, Mr. Chairman, is to continue indefinitely and withdraw item
13(A)(2), which is under advertised public hearings, petition V-96-11,
which was a request for a variance for a walk-in cooler that had been
installed in conjunction with a restaurant.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are they going to do something
different down there?
MR. DORRILL: I presume that there will be an
administrative remedy, and if not, I can report back to the board on
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I do have one note for your recorder this
morning. Contained within the executive summary on item 12(C)(1) is a
typographical error that the staff can allude to that's concerning
some restrictions on the flights of ultralight aircraft. It says west
of a certain point and not east. And while the typographical error is
in the executive summary, the ordinance as it is written is correct.
And if there's any confusion on that, we'll explain it during the
course of the presentation. That's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Mr. Weigel, anything
further?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'd like to add one
discussion item regarding the veteran services department and recent
accusations that our staff has looked into. I want to clarify those
for the record today.
MR. DORRILL: That will be 10(G).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 10(G).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a note, as I've told you
guys by memo, that I have to leave from 11:30 to about 1:30 today for
my son's graduation from elementary school. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 11:30 to 1:307
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I think that probably
would be sufficient.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to ask why we
weren't all invited.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can come. Come on down.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there a number of tickets
available?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Item #4
MINUTES OF HAY 21, 1996 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the minutes of HAy 21, 1996, regular minutes of this
board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 14, 1996, AS FLAG DAY - ADOPTED
We are going to now have our pledge to the flag led by a
member of the Sons of the American Revolution, and we'll follow that
with a proclamation for them. If we could stand, please.
MR. GRESHAM: Please stand.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. GRESHAM: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the
commission, I'm Robert Gresham. I'm a member of the Sons of the
American Revolution, and I'd like to say a few little things. But if
there's anyone who did not recognize me, it's only because of the fact
that in anticipation of being here this morning, my hair turned white
last night.
We're here on behalf of all of my compatriots in the
Sons of the American Revolution and in honor of my own ancestor,
Thomas Gresham, a 15-year-old boy who fought valiantly with George
Washington at Valley Forge to seek our freedom from the control and
tyranny of the court of King George, III.
I want to remind everyone that on Friday -- that is Flag
Day -- and we hope that everyone within the sound of my voice will
honor the flag, be devoted with patriotism and devotion to it. And in
that regard I ask to present to the commission a certificate, a
national certificate from the Sons of the American -- I'm sorry, Sons
of the American Revolution.
It says: A certificate of commendation is presented to
the Board of Collier County Commissioners in recognition of exemplary
patriotism in the display of the flag of the United States of
America.
It's a very lovely certificate signed by our national
president and by our national secretary. Neil, would you like to pass
it --
MR. DORRILL: Present it to the chairman?
MR. GRESHAM: May I bring this up? Mr. Chairman, it's
an honor to bring this to you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Gresham, I have a proclamation for
you, if you'd face that camera back there so the people at home can
see you.
MR. GRESHAM: Do I look okay?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You look fine. The proclamation
reads:
Whereas, the Continental Congress of the United States
of America on June 14th, 1777, passed the flag resolution, resolved
that the flag of the United States be made of 13 stripes, alternate
red and white, that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field
representing a new constellation; and
Whereas, this mandate lacked a number of specifics about
the size and the arrangement of the stars, the flag evolved through
the years as our country grew in size and importance until July 4,
1960, when President Eisenhower designated that the national banner
shall have 50 stars in the blue field, one of each state; and
Whereas, through foreign wars and great civil conflict
it has endured as a symbol of our United States; and
Whereas, more than a million people have sacrificed and
given their lifeblood in its defense, and for Americans it has come to
signify honor and love of country beyond price.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Friday, June 14th,
1996, be designated as Flag Day and that these stars and stripes are
our glorious living symbol of human dignity and liberty under law.
Hay it fly proudly forever.
Done and ordered this llth day of June, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Gresham, thank you very much for coming.
MR. GRESHAM: On behalf of all my compatriots of the
Sons of the American Revolution all over this great country and some
in Europe, we accept this with great appreciation and humility, and we
do hope and pray that all of you will fly the flag on Flag Day, and I
thank you for having me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I might mention
VFW Post 7721 will be having ceremonies at 10 a.m. on Friday to honor
Flag Day as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Okay. Service awards. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm over here just
grinning about all this Flag Day stuff and lost track.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There will be no grinning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No grinning, huh?
We have four service awards today, and I'm going to
start with one that is a 15-year service award in road and bridge,
Mr. Joseph Corbo, if he would come forward.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Next for ten years is Helitta
Beakbane in EHS.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For ten years in graphics and
technical support, William F. Bryant.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And for ten years in parks and
recreation, Vickie S. Wilson.
(Applause)
Item #5C1
HARRY HUBER, PROJECT MANAGER III, OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
FOR JUNE, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next award is for the employee of
the month. Is Mr. Huber with us here today?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stand out of his shoes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're the man. Mr. Huber, today, if
you would turn around and face the camera for us. You've been
selected as employee of the month for June 1996, and the month is not
even over yet, not even halfway over, so you must be doing a good job
here.
I have this letter for your file. It says, Dear
Mr. Huber, it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection
as Collier County's employee of the month for June 1996. This
well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the
county through your work in the office of capital projects
management. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as
well as a $50 cash award which I am proud to present to you.
Mr. Huber, here's your letter for your file. Congratulations. Here's
your plaque.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You got your name --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A $50 check.
MR. HUBER: Already spent.
(Applause)
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION OF THE B-BOPP-TO WORK CORPORATE CHALLENGE AWARDS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, you have a
presentation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly do. In fact, I'm
going to ask Miss Chapman to come up and help me present these. Anita
has been very instrumental as our bicycle and pedestrian coordinator
in putting together the B-BOPP To Work Program and making sure it has
a high degree of success each year. And if I could ask you to stand
there right next to me, what we have today are four awards for
businesses in different categories that have participated in B-BOPP To
Work. The idea is to bring attention to different ways of commuting
to work, whether it be car pooling, bicycling, roller blading, you
name it, get here other than using a single-occupancy car,
single-occupancy vehicle. And we have four different-size companies,
and we'll start with the smallest category. Is someone here from
Custom Dock and Repair? Please come on up. We'd like to recognize
you and thank you and as the small employer award goes to Custom Dock
and Repair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next under the medium employer we
have for a second year, non-consecutive, Coastal Engineering,
Mr. Blair Foley is here, I believe.
(Applause).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then the large employer for the
third year in a row we have the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And here's the biggest surprise
of all. In the major employer category for the third year in a row,
Collier County Government. Mr. Dotrill.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I asked Miss Chapman
to come up here is, one, to give her the recognition for supporting a
very important program and, second, is to give Miss Chapman a round of
applause for all of her work in this program.
MR. DORRILL: Good job.
(Applause)
Item #7A
ROBERT GOUTELL REGARDING GULF ACCESS THROUGH CAXAMBAS PASS - BCC TO
WAIT ON ACTION OF DEP
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is public petitions.
Before we call up our first petitioner, Mr. Weigel, do you have some
preface for us today?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Briefly, Commissioners, and that is
Mr. Goutell has placed a petition and requested to speak before the
board today, and I'd just update you in the fact that the matters that
he's discussing with you today are related to ongoing litigation and
administrative review of the DEP concerning breakwater construction in
the Caxambas Pass area.
As you're aware, the public petition provides
information to the board. It's not an action item for the board to
take any action today, and the county attorney office stands ready to
discuss with the board any ramifications that may exist concerning the
litigation or administrative hearing process that -- with DEP
subsequent to the meeting, if necessary.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions, Mr. Weigel:
First, if someone has a form of a pending legal action against the
board, is it appropriate to hear a public petition on that matter?
And the second question is, if it is appropriate, my, I guess, belief
would be that comments and input by the board following that public
petition may be inappropriate. Can you give me some help on those two
items?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, there's certainly no
hard-and-fast rule that a public petition cannot be -- cannot be heard
by the board by virtue of the fact that it may touch on or even
directly be involved with litigation that the county has. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: One of the -- one of the matters related to
this has already been dismissed by the courts. There is currently a
matter before the supreme court concerning bond validation hearing as
well as a rehearing -- rehearing scenario concerning permitting with
the DEP. There is -- the active case involving Collier County as a
party defendant has been dismissed, so with that I'd advise the
chairman and advise the board generally that this may be heard. And
if there's any question that you wish to ask informational at this
point from the staff or the county attorney afterwards, you may. At
the same time I would reserve my comment if it involves areas of
privilege and confidentiality relating to the lawsuit to discuss with
you at a later time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Goutell, you're the first
petitioner. Our policy for petitions is ten minutes per petition. We
are not going to take action today on public petitions, but we may
decide to put it on an agenda for future discussion. So you have ten
minutes, sir.
MR. GOUTELL: Just a second. You were discussing legal
matters here, and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- start his time, please.
You're using your time, sir. You can tell us whatever you like, but
you've got ten minutes.
MR. GOUTELL: Okay. Thank you very much. Nine months
ago I stood here before you, Commissioners, asking you to slow down to
get another opinion trying to make you realize that these breakwaters
might not be everything that you were being told they were as a -- as
a cure-all to the erosion on the beach. And at that time you decided
unanimously to -- to give Kelly Brothers the contract to go ahead with
the breakwaters. And that was understandable because you were told
the breakwaters are a proven remedy and would definitely work to stop
erosion.
However, then -- and that -- that was what you did at
that time. However, there were a lot of things that you did not
know. And I believe if you had known them, you would have voted
differently. I made a list of those things, and I'll read that list
to you. Before I do it, I -- I just want to remind you that I'm here
asking only that this be put on the agenda for further consideration.
Here -- here are the things you didn't know when you voted on this
awarding of the contract to Kelly Brothers: You did not know that
there is not one single successful example of a segmented breakwater
in the State of Florida. At the time that you voted, you were told by
Mike Steven (phonetic) that there was a successful one and that that
was in Captiva, and you accepted that as a fact.
It turned out later that Mike Steven finally on April
22nd of '96 did say that that Captiva experiment was a short-term one
and that it was abandoned. And after talking with the chairman of the
beach committee up there in Captiva, it was discovered that they had
elected not to have any breakwater and just went ahead and renourished
their beach.
Another thing you didn't know was that breakwaters had
been installed in Palm Beach and -- with the same kind of high hopes
that you had for these breakwaters. And there's this article from the
1988 New York Times headline "New Reef Design Raises Hopes of Saving
Sand." In that -- in that article the mayor of the town of Palm Beach
said she was so excited about this she was going to seek to have
similar reefs placed all along the town beaches. Hanz Rouche
(phonetic), the engineer who designed the reef and who is currently --
was formed to market it, said that now these have been installed.
They've been in there for three months. The beach has obviously
increased. "A blind man can see that the reef is working," he said.
Well, in March of 1995 the town of Palm Beach announced that these
things weren't working. They had caused the beach to erode, and they
were going to remove the reef at the estimated cost of two hundred --
five hundred thousand dollars and immediately begin a six million
dollar beach restoration program. So that's another thing you didn't
know when you voted and might -- and might have caused you to vote
differently.
You didn't know also that this alternate boat channel,
which Ken Humiston said was there and usable, all that needed to be --
be done was -- to it was have -- have it marked, and then it would be
a perfectly usable channel. Well, at -- on April 22nd again at the
Caxambas inlet workshop Mike Steven said that after the breakwaters
are installed that very channel will definitely silt in and will have
to be dredged periodically and that that dredging would cost anywhere
from $80,000 to $300,000. You also -- that's another thing you didn't
know. You also did not know that the county had filed a guarantee
with the DEP in 1990 promising to remove the breakwaters if they
should prove unnecessary. You also didn't know that the DEP would say
early in 1996 that a final hearing would be scheduled for those whose
substantial interests are affected by the installation of the
breakwaters and that it should be held before the commencement of the
work on the breakwaters and that it would help determine if they were
necessary or if they would -- they would cause harm or good, and you
didn't know that there -- that, therefore, because of that agreement,
you will be required to remove those breakwaters if the DEP hearing
officer determines that they're not necessary or are causing erosion
and that the expected cost to remove them is estimated to exceed 2
million dollars.
You also didn't know that a similar breakwater in
Reddington Beach (phonetic), Florida, had to be abandoned after it
caused problems for swimmers, caused vicious tidal currents near the
beach; and eventually the whole breakwater was filled in with sand in
part of a major renourishment effort.
And I tell you about all these things because there can
be problems with breakwaters. We can't find one that has worked. We
think it would be good if the DEP hearing officer looked into this a
little farther, a little farther for you.
Let's talk about what's at risk in terms of -- of
dollars here. It cost $700,000 to install the breakwaters, estimate 2
million to take them out if they are found to be ineffective or
unnecessary. The only source for that -- that money to take them out
would be taxpayers' money. That's the only place it can come from.
Why should the county wait until after the hearing? If
the state says the breakwaters have to come out, they have to spend
the 2 million. If they wait, they don't risk having to spend that 2
million dollars. Is there any risk in waiting? It doesn't appear
so. The county's beach experts seem to say that there is -- is no
risk in waiting. What they seem to say is that during the summer the
tidal currents and the summer storms and the winds from the south tend
to renourish the beach and put sand on there, nature's own way of
doing that so that if you were to wait for the hearing, which is
supposed to be in 30 days after all the petitions are in, and they are
in now, you probably would be helping the beach for that time during
which the hearing was being held. And you're not saying that you are
opposed to the breakwaters or that you don't want them. You're just
holding off and waiting till the DEP can determine and take into
consideration some of these other problems that have occurred in
Florida with breakwaters, determine whether they are necessary.
Is it necessary to install the breakwater -- breakwaters
this summer? Really it isn't. In the original permit the state
prohibited any construction during the summer at all because of
environmental concerns. You know that the turtles are nesting out
there now. I've observed myself terns nesting, Florida Skimmers
nesting out in that area. It would be much less damaging to the
summer environment out there not to continue at this time.
Another question is how much of the beach, if -- if you
put the breakwaters in, how much is affected by -- by the
breakwaters. According to the experts, very little is affected. Only
about a thousand feet on the southern end of the beach would be
affected by those breakwaters. And if you look at the design of them,
they are out there off the very southern tip, and it does seem that
that is the only part that would be affected.
The entire renourishment of the Marco Beach was far --
four miles or 20,000 feet. If you spend $750,000 to protect 1,000
feet, that's only a 20th of the beach. So you're spending $750,000 to
protect a 20th of the beach. When -- when the beach was renourished,
it cost 4 million for 4 miles of beach. So you're spending an awful
lot of money to protect a very small segment of the beach, and that's
the same segment that the engineers for the county say will be
protected.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. GOUTELL: I hope you will put this on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A quick question for the
petitioner, and that is what's the date scheduled for public hearing?
MR. GOUTELL: The public hearing has not been
scheduled. However, the DEP, as I understand it, is required to
schedule it within 30 days of the time when all the petitions for a
public petition -- hearing have been submitted, and they have been
submitted, and they're up there at Tallahassee. So I think we can
expect it to be scheduled quite soon and be held during the summer,
this summer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you why I ask is, I
mean, do they schedule a public hearing for every petition that is
filed, or do they reject some petitions?
MR. GOUTELL: I don't know personally about that. I --
they probably do reject some petitions, but they have informed us that
we're entitled to a hearing, that a hearing will be -- be held and
that our petitions are -- are being processed at this time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I asked is since our
conversation at the end of last week, do you have -- do you have a
petition or a representative from Marco had a rep -- a petition
rejected, or no public hearing was assigned for a particular petition
and there are now, as I understand, additional petitions.
MR. GOUTELL: Okay. Let me explain that. Originally
three of us submitted petitions as required by the DEP. They, you can
say, rejected or dismissed all three petitions, but they rejected or
dismissed all three with leave to amend, which -- which meant that
they said in their -- in their letters back that there were certain
things that should have been included in the petitions or expanded
upon in the petitions and that we should resubmit those petitions with
that additional information, and that was for all three of them, and
we have amended all three of them and have sent them back in. And
that was only about a week ago that we did that. So what they did was
say these aren't perfect petitions, can you cure them and send them
back in again, and that's what happened.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, the state agency
reviews those and may or may not depending on their discretion have a
public hearing; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's correct. And just to speak
not exactly hypothetically, but they certainly by the resubmission of
a petition amended or not does not mean that the resubmitted petition
or petitions are adequate for the reviewing agency.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess my concern here
-- I understand your point, and if we're only a couple of weeks away
from a public hearing, what you're asking makes sense. My concern is
if we wait 30 days or 60 days and those aren't granted, we've kind of
lost some ground here and lost the summer season, and I wish -- I
don't know if we have any way to have more validity, but I'm not
comfortable doing it if we don't have a specific date in mind.
MR. GOUTELL: Maybe -- maybe there should be some cutoff
date. Our -- we believe firmly that there will be a public hearing,
and maybe you -- if it doesn't occur within certain time limitations,
I can see why you wouldn't want it to be an open-ended delay,
perfectly understandable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll just -- we'll just wait with
anticipation on the DEP action then. MR. GOUTELL: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll wait in anticipation of DEP's
action. Thank you, Mr. Goutell.
MR. GOUTELL: Okay. You're welcome.
Item #7B
PATRICIA HOLT REQUESTING A WAIVER OF LANDFILL TIPPING FEES FOR A
COMMUNITY CLEANUP - BUDGET AMENDMENT TO BE PREPARED FOR THE COST OF
TIPPING FEES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next public petition is Patricia
Holt. Miss Holt, are you here? MS. HOLT: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There you are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Never say no to a person with a
gun.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ten minutes, and you know the rules.
MS. HOLT: Yes, good morning, by the way. My name is
Patricia Holt, and the reason why I'm here, I was given the duties to
become a community police officer in the East Naples area, which my
main area is Naples Manor and Bayshore area. And one of the projects,
not only a law enforcement job, but my job is to get into the
community and try to get them to understand and take back their own
community, because everybody has to work hand in hand. And one of the
problems is that we're having in Naples Manor is the garbage. There's
-- and we have this one lake on Mitchell Street that is just filled
with debris. There's from chairs to -- there's even an oven back
there. And what we're going to try to do is try, along with the
sheriff's department and the people of Naples Manor, is get in there
and get our feet wet, I guess you could say, and clean up the Naples
Manor area the best that we could do continuing by the garbage and, as
you know, the drug dealers and everything else.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you can lump that in with
garbage.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sending them to the landfill
as well.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If only.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Dorrill, Miss Holt,
about how -- I mean, we don't know how much volume here, but you have
an idea of what kind of tipping fees we're asking for?
MS. HOLT: Right now we're anticipating we're going to
have three dumpsters that Waste Management has graciously donated for
us. And I talked to Terry, and she says it all depends, because one
of them is going to be like tree branches where if you'll just throw
everything in the lake. Another one is going to be the regular
garbage and whatever, the ovens and bikes and chairs. And then we
have, as you know, a lot of drinkers, I guess you could say, and
there's cans everywhere, and that's probably going to be filled up.
So there's going to be three dumpsters, and the price range is --
like, one's 13.50, the other one is 25 cents a ton, and the white
dumpster there is no charge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, in the past we have
administratively done this for community cleanups and beneficial
events and so forth. Is this out of line or out of character with
what we've done in the past?
MR. DORRILL: No, and your opportunity to approve it in
its final form would be a budget amendment moving funds from the
general fund into the solid waste enterprise fund to pay for the
tipping fees. You cannot legally waive tipping fees. They need to be
paid, and that's the mechanism that you use. And if it's the
consensus here this morning -- if we have an indication that's your
consensus, then you'll see a budget amendment in about two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to see that on the
agenda.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Strong support from here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Strong support from here. We
appreciate your efforts very much in that area.
MS. HOLT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know we've made some progress out
there. We'd like to see you continuing your effort. Thank you very
much.
MS. HOLT: Thank you for your time and effort. Thank
you, both.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weigel's
asking for some input.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Just an additional note on this item, which
appears timely is that code enforcement, Linda Sullivan, had contacted
our office in regard to cleanup of this area itself and from a code
enforcement angle by virtue of the fact of refuge as well as exotics
on these properties out there. So to the extent that this has come
forward as it has to assist in that problem would tend to diminish the
legal issues that we have concerning the citation in the future. But
it's an area that staff has been looking at and working with in our
office. Thank you.
Item #8A1
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED LONG-TERM STRATEGY AND BUDGET TO ADDRESS
THE HANGROVE DIE-OFF PROBLEM IN THE CLAM BAY NRPA - STAFF DIRECTED TO
BRING BACK AN AMOUNT OF $95,000 TO DISCUSS DURING BUDGET HEARINGS TO
FUND THE CLAM BAY NRPA
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Next item is 8 -- hmm,
this seems to be a little misprinted.
HR. DORRILL: 8(A)(1) and (2) actually appear before the
(A), but they're both community development items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 8(A)(1) then.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 8(A)(1).
MR. DORRILL: That's the mangrove die-off issue.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought it looked strange.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, good morning.
MR. LORENZ: Good morning. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
natural resources director. The purpose of this item is to have the
board be presented and provide direction to the staff regarding a
long-term direction and strategy for the mangrove die-off in Clam Bay
and also to consider a budget for the -- for the effort.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I ask just a
fundamental question before we get started? I'm confused about having
this discussion before the budget workshop.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The purpose for having this
discussion today, as Mr. Lorenz indicated, was staff direction as we
enter those discussions. As you know, protracted lengthy discussions
during budgets are not always best received and best handled. The
purpose of this was also to present to the Board of County
Commissioners the long-term strategy that a task force, an ad hoc task
force I'd been working with for nearly a year, had come up with and
what that participation was going to be. And I guess I'll go ahead
and preempt Mr. Lorenz and give that information to you now.
What is in essence being requested is a four-part
approach on the county's part through the NRPA at a funding level of
$150,000. The elements in that are water quality monitoring and
testing, exotic removal, removal of much of the debris in the dead
zone, and an implementation of the yards and neighborhoods program for
Pelican Bay to reduce nutrient runoff. That's the extent of the
county involvement that's being requested.
The balance of the work that was adopted in the
long-term strategy by the -- or recommended by the task force consists
of steps you see under long-term strategy in your staff report, and I
won't belabor those, but the funding for those has been set aside by
the two other entities. The Pelican Bay Services Division, through
its annual budget discussions, has recommended allocating $500,000 to
address this issue; and WCI Communities has committed up to a million
dollars over three years to address this issue.
Throughout this course I heard very succinctly from my
colleagues that this was not to be a county-funded issue, and I agreed
with that. The county is not going to pick up the ball and run with
this. I thought it was our job to coordinate and our job to work
within the parameters of the NRPA; that's what's being presented to
you. The reason it's being presented is to give you a big picture,
look at what the long-term strategy is, to be able to determine what
the county's role in that is going to be, and what is being proposed
here dovetails nicely with that long-term strategy but are things that
we would, in all likelihood, have to do anyway such as exotic removal
and spend water quality testing that we have approved before. So it's
not a great expansion on the county's part. It's not a huge part of
what the overall strategy is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just as soon hear the
details only because -- not only because but partially because Carl
and people from the newspaper and everyone else keep asking, and we
haven't had -- you've had the sit-downs with all this. We haven't had
the benefit of all the details on that, so I just want the forum to at
least be better educated on the topic. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. LORENZ: Well, let me -- let me just cover as a
chronology, the short-term actions the board has previously adopted
include money that was funded through the county's NRPA program for
exotics removal. Of that $45,000, $34,000 have been spent in looking
at a groundwater assessment of how much water is exchanged between the
Gulf of Mexico and upper Clam Bay.
The other -- the other efforts that have been done by
WCI and Pelican Bay Services District include permit application for
flushing cuts within the dead zone to be able to bring some water in
and out of that area, which will help to replenish the soils for --
for the area. That particular effort is -- is moving forward and
should be under construction here in the latter part of June.
A second effort that, in fact, is related -- we have a
related item on the agenda today, what we call the overflow
structures. Again, those -- those structures were developed to try to
reduce the amount of water that is coming in to Clam Bay to divert
into the Gulf of Mexico when water levels get too high since that was
a -- determined to be a very specific cause of the mangrove deaths in
1995. So you'll be actually seeing a -- a variance request of the
county setback line for the overflow structures within your agenda
this afternoon.
Those are the short-term actions. Those were designed
to -- to provide some emergency relief to the system before the rainy
season. This year they also provide some additional information to
help us through the long-term action strategy.
The long-term strategy is pretty much set up as a task
force to first establish some what we call benchmarks for the system.
This is what the sys -- these are certain key items that the system
need to -- need to provide. For instance, how much exchange of water
needs to occur in the system for the mangroves to be self-sustaining,
what kind of water levels can the system tolerate before we have
increased die-offs. That's a first step in terms of establishing the
benchmarks for the system.
As Commissioner Hancock said, these long-term strategy
issues right now are going to be funded by WCI and Pelican Bay
Services District. The second item on the long-term strategy, which
we are calling adoption of a course of action, consists basically of a
feasibility study to evaluate a number of alternatives that have been
presented -- that have been identified to help solve the problem in
the system. These alternatives include such things such as opening up
the channels within the Clam Bay system, if you will, making the
plumbing larger to be able to drain more water from the system or to
get more tidal flow up to the system. This particular study is
necessary because we need to be able to determine if -- if the
alternatives that people have been -- been looking at will actually
work, will actually reach the benchmarks that we're going to set for
the system and how much would it cost to reach those benchmarks. So
that feasibility study should basically turn into an analysis to
determine the cost effectiveness of a number of different alternatives
or combination of alternatives.
That particular -- that particular step would then be
followed by a decision or recommendation -- recommended course of
action. Of course, the board would be briefed. The costs would be
established at that particular point. And then the authority would
then go into final design and permitting, which would basically be
your third step; and a lengthy step involved would be environmental
agencies. A lot of the information should have already been gathered
through the development of the alternative feasibility study.
Once the -- once, of course, it's permitted, the fourth
step is construction and implementation. The costs for that are
undeterminable at this particular point, but that would -- that would
be a -- of course, it is full remediation steps, and then a -- then
obviously we have post-monitoring and evaluation that the agencies
will provide on -- on the district or the county, whoever is the
applicant for the work. And that would, of course, would -- would
involve funding expenditures.
The schedule is basically provided. It's -- it's still
-- although a lot of people would like to see it accelerated, I think
it's somewhat ambitious, but you wouldn't -- we wouldn't see
construction begin before November of 1988 (sic) because of the
alternative study and the length of time it will take for
environmental permitting.
That particular -- as I said before, that particular
long-range strategy will be the responsibility of WCI and Pelican Bay
Services District, so the funding for that will basically come from
those two entities. As Commissioner Hancock earlier mentioned, the
county's involvement is what we're calling the NRPA implementation.
It involves the exotics removal. Components are in attachment B
involving exotics removal. A total cost we're recommending of
$80,000. That should -- that targets about 80 percent of the -- and
we're talking about those funds being within the county's own
conservation area. That targets about 80 percent of the total
effort.
We think that we're in position to try to get some grant
funding and so that we can be able to accomplish the total exotics
removal. Working together with Pelican Bay Services District, their
exotics removal will be basically within the Pelican Bay district on
the east side of the berm versus the conservation area on the west
side of the berm.
Water and sediment monitoring, this reinstitutes the
monitoring that the board put on hold in November this year to look at
some additional strategies. We would like to be able to fund that for
next year. That's part of next year's budget. The exotics removal is
also part of next year's budget that you have received.
Within this current fiscal year, we'd like to have those
funds being released to continue with the monitoring this year and
even to purchase some -- some equipment to be able to purchase some of
the sediment monitoring that the panel recommended we perform within
the die-off zone. Fifty-four thousand dollars is shown in your
executive summary for dead tree removal. This is removal of the dead
mangroves themselves. I need to make a note here, since the executive
summary is put together in your budget book, this is the -- the
$54,000 is not an item that has been recommended within the county
manager's budget. The exotics removal and the water quality --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need to get -- that more
time? Say that again. Which is, which isn't? MR. LORENZ: Yes, the exotics removal --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the dollar value for that?
MR. LORENZ: Total -- total dollar value is $95,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the recommendation?
MR. LORENZ: Fifty-four thousand dollars for dead tree
removal and a thousand dollars for yards and neighborhood program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last year we funded the NRPA
at ninety; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ninety-three thousand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is roughly the same.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this request is for one
fifty.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The manager's recommendation is
roughly the same.
MR. LORENZ: To clarify that in terms of the budget
expense, operating expenses or cash outlay for contractual services
was $45,000 for the Clam Bay -- for the NRPA. The rest of the money
was involved in staff time which I've broken out on this executive
summary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of the problems that I'm
having, among others -- but one of them that I'm having is that the
NRPA is more than the dead mangroves, and I'm really troubled by -- I
-- I care about the NRPA. I want us to fund the NRPA, and I'm
troubled by if we are going to be pretending to fund the NRPA when
what we're really doing is giving the money to solve the mangrove
problem. I don't -- and I'm not a scientist, so I can't know that.
But I feel that there's so much going on here, and there's so much
political pressure here -- well, constituent pressure -- call it
whatever you want. I didn't mean that in a derogatory way, just
community concern.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean like the editorial in
the paper?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't read the paper today.
Did they -- well, never mind. It doesn't matter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know they love me but, anyway
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, NRPA is natural
resource protection area. For me -- I voted against it last year, and
the reason was it's just a feel good kind of thing. We set aside an
amount of money. We didn't have specific plans in mind. We just put
general money towards natural resource protection somewhere. The one
appealing part of this for me is it is a specific problem, and it's a
natural resource area that theoretically has been set aside and so I
-- I'm not going to commit one way or the other right now, but I have
a higher comfort level having a specific place with a specific problem
rather than just a feel good throw some money out there for natural
resources.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think the feel good for
me is maintenance and, you know, prohibiting -- preventing problems.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me -- let me address
that, if I may, because that, in my opinion, is exactly what has been
proposed. What has been proposed is removal of exotics. That's
clearly a maintenance issue. What has been proposed is removal of a
lot of the dead zone. The dead zone as it continues to die -- as the
area dies it feeds on itself and creates a situation that regrowth
cannot occur, that it actually expands on itself. So as we have a
smaller area start to die, it begins to drop leaves, foliage, so
forth, robs the area of oxygen and actually contributes to its own
expansion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question about that,
because I'm genuinely trying to get the science of this? And I guess
it's for you. Is that -- is that a process that would eventually
correct itself? Are we -- I mean, would nature eventually let it die
until it's ready for it to stop dying and then -- and then it would
begin to regrow and we're trying to accelerate the natural process by
removing the dead? I mean, it seems to me that it's logical.
MR. LORENZ: The worst-case scenario is that, as
Commissioner Hancock said, the system would -- as the dead area starts
to deteriorate -- and it's not so much the above trees; it's more the
lower biomass that exists in the root zone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it sort of --
MR. LORENZ: That's concerned, but that -- but that can
then deteriorate, produce basically toxins for new growth. It robs
the sediments of oxygen. And as those areas begin to deteriorate,
they subside. They get lower. And as they get lower, they get
deeper. So that system would then go into a series of ponds. And so
you would see where the areas where -- where you have dead zones now
could eventually turn into basically open water. That would be --
that would be the worst-case scenario.
Eventually, you know, in -- I mean, we're talking
hundreds of years, those areas would -- sedimentation would fill in,
get shallower --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're talking hundreds of years.
MR. LORENZ: -- in those deeper zones.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz --
MR. LORENZ: But that's the worst-case scenario, because
that's what you asked in terms of the picture.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When you say worst case as applied to
open water, what's wrong with open water? There's a lot of it in
there.
MR. LORENZ: It provides habitat for some additional
types of -- of values, but it's not as productive as a mangrove
system. So you're going to lose productivity in terms of ecological
productivity in the short term.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have the exact same
question. If the worst case is to have some open-water area, I don't
know if that's such a bad thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's worth $150,000 to prevent
when we've got healthy kids issues --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask another question. What is
our comfort level that this program is going to solve the problem? I
mean, Mother Nature is telling us she doesn't want mangroves there
anymore. And, you know, looking at those photographs up there on the
wall, it's -- it's going to be hard to sit here and try to pretend
that this is a wilderness area somewhere and natural forces are going
to prevail. Looking at those photos you can obviously see that this
is a fully developed area surrounded by a fully developed area, in any
case, and it's an isolated little pocket of mangroves. So why -- you
know, how do we know that if we spend all this money it's going to
work? And, secondly, along that same line, is there something else we
can do with the die-off area, some vegetation that could be put in
there that would be something that you could expect to survive with
conditions as they are?
MR. LORENZ: Let me give you -- give -- let me make sure
I get back to your question -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- to some of the extent of the system and
some of the concerns that we have.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lorenz, if you could -- but those are
the best aerials you all have brought up here in a long time. If you,
for the purposes of the people in the audience, could at least orient
everyone, show them where the strand is, show them where Vanderbilt
Beach Road and the Ritz-Carlton and that sort of thing.
MR. LORENZ: Vanderbilt Beach Road is right here
(indicating). Vanderbilt Lagoon is up to the top of the photograph.
The strand road comes down along here. This is actually the strand.
This is Bay Colony development here. Clam Pass, for the purposes of
-- of this, this -- this photograph about ends up about here, so
you're coming down to this particular point north to south. This is
Clam Pass, the sea cape area down.
The initial die-off zone was around 13 acres right --
doesn't exactly hug the road, but in this particular area. I believe
these are '95 photos -- '94 photos, so the initial area was this 13
acres in here. In '95 we started to see die-off in this particular
area, and we're also seeing impacts right now all the way down the
system through here where we see scattered black mangroves dying off.
I think the point of it is that the whole system --
we're seeing involvement in the whole system. The worst part of the
system, of course, is still up here. To answer Commissioner Norris's
specific question, of course, we can't give a hundred percent degree
of certainty that -- that any action is going to meet our success
criteria. But the problem we have right now is, first off, we have to
define those benchmarks and, secondly, do an analysis of the
alternatives to see how -- how successful we think that we can be.
That's where the money that WCI and Pelican Bay Services Division
needs to expend to get to that point of study and alternative analysis
to really give you a better answer to that question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that is probably one of
the most critical points. We as a board are not being asked to step
in and solve the problem. What we are being asked to do or what I am
asking is consistent with the NRPA to do those things that apply to
the maintenance and to the indicators of the system's health over a
long period of time. I'm not here asking for a blank check of 4
million dollars, nor would I ever, to fix the problem. The residents
in Pelican Bay and WCI Communities have ponied up their own money to
go after the fixes as they're designed.
What I'm asking is that as the board proceed in its
NRPA, that it approve a level of funding that allows that monitoring
to dovetail with their efforts, and that's -- that's really the extent
of what's in front of us today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of questions
I kind of need a refresher on, one for Commissioner Matthews. When we
discussed this last fall or early winter when we last talked about it,
you said you had seen some aerial photos. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: From 1952.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The '50s. Yeah, and I'm
trying to -- from both you and from our staff, how does that relate?
I mean, obviously the area was completely undeveloped then. There had
to be some cause of the die-off then, and I'm wondering --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was a very small die-off, but
it was a die-off.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a large -- and it's a --
you have to look at it actually from more than about 5 feet away
because it's a computer reprint. If you stare at it long enough, you
see a dolphin.
There's a 1940 topo aerial on the left-hand side. Then
there's one in nineteen -- I don't know -- it's fifty something. But
it's after Vanderbilt Beach Road was built and prior to any
development in Pelican Bay, and the restrictions in the northern part
of the system is already happening. You went from large open-water
areas in the 1940 photo to after Vanderbilt Beach Road was built it
starts growing in on itself. And in all likelihood it's due to a lack
of circulation in that area, okay. Then when you look at the 1973
aerial when there's some development of Pelican Bay -- it's late '70s.
It may even be '83. The difference between the one right after the
road was built and the one after development are not that different.
So that's where everyone points at development alone and says that's
the cause. I have to say Vanderbilt Beach Road was kind of severing a
major artery when that was built, and we're not going to undo that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the whole point. That
is my second big problem with today is that the county does have a
responsibility here; we absolutely do. But the way we ought to be
funding our responsibility for this area is through -- and I keep
saying this. Nobody will hear it. I think this is just a really
great idea, is that we should have an HSTBU that starts at Vanderbilt,
because of the interconnection of this entire system, that starts at
Vanderbilt and includes the Seagate Naples Cay area.
I talked to Mr. Weigel about the -- the legal
impediments to that since it encroaches into City of Naples property.
And we can't, you know, impose an HSTBU on city property, but I have
also spoken individually to some city council members who said they're
interested in talking about -- they see this system as one big system
and that the water doesn't understand the City of Naples line, you
know, and they're interested in talking about an HSTBU that
incorporates a portion of city property. And the people in Vanderbilt
Lagoon have been here so often talking about their problems that the
only reasonable solution to this is one that incorporates the entire
system and not just where the immediate problem exists.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far, I had
a second -- second refresher question from our old discussions on
this, and perhaps there's some new information anyway through all your
efforts. But one of the initial responses last year, what caused
this, was that they -- the mangroves had effectively drowned. They
had too much water, didn't have access to the gulf or whatever for the
water to get out. How much of that -- I mean, we saw an unusual
amount of rain last year. Instead of 46 or 48 inches that we usually
see, we saw 98 inches. How much of that could have been caused by
that anomaly?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the 1995 rainy season for January
through August was the third -- was the third highest on record. 1991
was the highest number on record, so the high water levels, you know
-- you are into return period of, you know, 25-, 50-year return
period of that, so we only have 41 years' worth of record. So the
acute -- certainly for 1995, since we were out on site. And we saw
it, we saw the observations, the -- the short-term effect of that high
water level was basically to effectively really drown the mangroves.
The mangroves, however, had been -- been stressed through the whole
system through -- you know, through a long period of time because they
were adapt -- they were unable to adapt to those high water levels.
There were certain mangrove systems on the west coast of Florida that
just like Clam Bay have the black base -- black mangroves have died
around those -- the high water events.
There's other systems that the black mangroves have --
observations were known that they did not die, but they were able to
increase their growth of the pneumatophores. These are the small
roots that stick up, and those pneumatophores grew very rapidly, and
that was their adaptive mechanism. So the long term -- the long-term
problem, these mangroves -- at least this is where our -- we're coming
down on it, they were not healthy enough to have these adaptive
mechanisms because of the problems in -- in the past. And the actual
high water levels themselves then drown the mangroves. Again, they
could not adapt to those high water levels.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz, I'm going to ask a
dumb question, but it's a historic one. I've got to ask it. Part of
the -- one of the reasons that we just finished spending 10 or 11
million dollars on our beach was because of tree roots that were out
in the water along the side of the water. And it's my understanding
that that was a mangrove forest 10,000 years ago and that the beach
eroded away and exposed these stumps. Is it logical to assume that
this is the Clam Bay mangrove forest here is an outcropping of that
old mangrove forest that's long been dead and that certainly if that
-- if that forest died thousands of years ago and man wasn't around
to save it, do we have something going on here that's very similar to
what was happening then? And I guess do we have a mangrove forest
trying to be a beach?
MR. LORENZ: Historically you're correct. The mangrove
system extended way out into the gulf. We're in a period of sea level
rise. And as sea levels have risen in the past hundreds of years,
that -- that the beach now is -- is moving landward, so -- so that is
correct. That is why you see those mangroves that are out there.
Man's -- man's effort here has accelerated the natural causes of
nature.
One of the things that we kind of liken this system to
is a bathtub. And when we're talking about high water levels, you can
get high water levels because you have the faucet turned on too much,
or your drain isn't big enough, and then your water levels start to
rise. So we're really looking at -- at -- at solutions that kind of
focus on the faucet and the drain or some combination of the two. I
wouldn't say the system is trying to go back to a beach, but I think
that -- that because of -- because of -- of -- of its location, I
think because of development in the past, the system has -- the drain
has gotten smaller, and the development has caused more water to come
into the system on a long-term basis, so the faucet has --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, I
don't think that's dumb at all when you say that. I think the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it just happened so long
ago, I'm just trying to put it all together.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, obviously man may have
had some sort of impact -- while obviously man may have had some
impact, Mother Nature does what she wants to do as well. I think your
point's well taken.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm just concerned that
while, yes, we can spend this money and WCI can spend its money and so
can Pelican Bay, but if nature is at work here, we're going to have to
spend a whole lot of money to defeat it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Losing battle.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, yeah, the coast line of
Florida on the west was 60 miles out 10,000 years ago. I'm not so
sure long-range planning goes that far in my book.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Over the next 20 years, we have,
contrary to what I've read in some local paper, a public park here. I
don't -- I don't understand who's given directions down on Central
Avenue, but there is a parking lot with a canoe launch, and people can
access the beach -- Clam Pass Beach. Tom, is it one of the top 20 in
the nation? This beach has been rated as one of the top 20 in the
nation and publicized as such. To get there you have to go through
the system over a boardwalk that this board spent considerable funds
in constructing and preparing. And, I know, don't get in a contest
with those, but we have a canoe launch. I'm taking Representative
Ralph Livingston out into the system by canoe on -- actually tomorrow
at one o'clock to show him what's going on, and the public has all the
opportunity to do that. This is one of the best parks we could ask
for, and if that's not enough initiative to at least be concerned
about its health then, you know, you can throw all the other reasons
out the window. I think for that reason alone the NRPA and its
indicators are important to fund.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Let's go to the public
speakers, Mr. Dotrill. I suspect we have one or two.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have about a half a dozen.
Dr. Stallings, you'll be first. Mr. Piesener, you'll be next.
DR. STALLINGS: Good morning. I'm Fran Stallings
speaking as a member of Commissioner Hancock's task force and also as
chairman of a technical subcommittee he appointed to address the
technical issues here. Basically what the technical subcommittee had
to do was to look at what was going on and somehow or other develop a
process that ultimately would translate into a series of steps that
could lead to items on a work scope that would solve the problem. On
the face of it is pretty simple because to put it on a one, two, three
perspective, we need to know where we are today. We need to know
where -- where we want to be tomorrow to solve the problem, and then
we need to know how to get there.
The monitoring that's proposed in the budget item here
is one of the very critical factors in knowing where we are today.
Now, we do have a good bit of information on the system, but the more
information we can get on it, the better job we can do of addressing
solutions. So that monitoring is very, very critical. Also the
removal of the dead mangrove debris will help slow the degradation of
the system. And, yes, there are other kinds of vegetation that would
come in, but unfortunately one of these is slimy green algae which is
not exactly the most desirable thing.
As far as where we're going, we have plans to bring in a
group of people who will establish benchmarks in the system or known
points and then will describe the parameters that are required at
those benchmarks to have a healthy system. And that sort of tells us
where we want to be tomorrow, in other words, what kind of salinities
do we need, what kind of nutrient levels, what kind of water
exchange. So knowing where we are today, where we need to be
tomorrow, then we can discuss how to get there. And these steps of
how to get there are things that are going to be funded apparently
through the agreement between WCI and the municipal taxing district
over there, and there are other people that can address that better
than I can. But what I do want to stress is that the step you're
being asked to take today is in reality a fairly small part
financially of the bigger solution. And it's a very necessary step
because this knowing where we are today sort of lays the foundation
for how we design the changes necessary to repair the system.
Now, one of the major steps that brought about the
degradation of the system was simply the building of the road out to
Vanderbilt Beach and the blocking off of the north-south circulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Stallings, what in this
proposal is related to correcting that problem? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Step 2.
DR. STALLINGS: The -- we have to know where we are
today. We've got to know where we want to be tomorrow. And one of
the things that we may have to do to solve the problem to get where we
want to be tomorrow is look at reestablishing that connection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the MSTBU that would be
for the whole system?
MR. STALLINGS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the point is in order to
permit that, you have to know how -- what kind of opening, where
should it be, how should it be designed. And steps one and two in the
long-term strategy are intended to get us there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, and I want to do that,
but I don't want the general taxpayer to pay for it. I want it to be
paid for out of an MSTBU.
MR. STALLINGS: Well, I think that's the direction it's
going in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this 150,000 bucks is general
tax money.
MR. STALLINGS: Well, it's pretty small potatoes
considering the overall problem and what it's going to cost to do it
and also considering the fact that the county did permit all of this
development, that the county built the road out to Vanderbilt Beach.
And as far as the alternatives are concerned, there's going to be many
different ways to fix this system. And what we have to do is find a
way that works best for actually restoring it and is that the most
economically feasible. And what you're being asked today is to help
provide the foundation of documentation that allows us to make some
good decisions down the road.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. STALLINGS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Piestner. We'll have Ty, I believe,
it's Agoston --
MR. PIESTNER: My name is Stephen Piestner, and I live
in Naples Cay. We live at the other end of the problem. I can't see
the damage from where I live. I have seen it. I've been at the
apartments. I've walked along the strand, and I've listened to so
many people who come to Naples, visit, and used that absolutely
wonderful beach and crossover. You know that it's one of the most
important parks that we have in the area.
I think one of the things that amazes me is how
colloquial we've become. No one is asking, Commissioners, that you
fund the answer to the problem. When I see what they have done in WCI
and in the services to begin the process of funding the enormous
amount of money necessary to make these repairs, I applaud it setting
aside the fact that the enormous amount of taxes that are paid by the
people in the area. But we live at the other end. And we know for
certain that if we don't attack the problem now, another year, 18
months, we'll be facing more of the problem at the other end of the
system. What's being asked is that you help to determine the nature
of the problems with a very small part of the total dollars
necessary.
For the hundreds of people who live at the other end of
the system in Naples Cay and Seagate, I hope that you seriously
consider and vote to fund this small part. We need the help of the
county. It isn't just your terms in office and those who came before
you and after, but the county has some responsibility in these
matters. It's clear-cut and the views of many, many of your
constituents. I hope that you'll fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston and then Hiss DeSilver.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for TAG. It
appears that there is a very strong environmental industry in the
county because according to the summary, they have recommended
spending some 1.1 million dollars without actually constructing
anything. And it also appears to me that Mr. Stalling who is, as I
understand, not part of Collier County, not a taxpayer, doesn't live
here, is on a committee dealing with the environment. Don't we have
any people of our own?
I tend to agree with Commissioner Norris when he points
to the fact that if the mangroves are dying, why don't we just allow
it to die. First of all, we have no knowledge or apparently the
expertise to make a guaranteed correction. We need public beaches.
We're looking for public access, public parks. Why don't we just
allow the mangroves to die, take it over, give it to the people that
live right around it. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. DeSilver then Mr. Varley.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm defining the word restraint.
MS. DeSILVER: Commissioners, I'm Claire DeSilver of
Hangrove Action Group, and I -- I think that much has been said that I
will not bore you by repeating, and I've said it before and others
have about all the details. I want to remind you that we have a very
precious natural resource. The mangroves have many functions. They
-- they're a fish hatchery. They are a place for birds. All of the
things that are precious in south Florida that we came here for are
going to be lost if we lose the mangroves.
Now, we've been attacked because we were feeding at the
public trough or trying to. Well, we've put our money where our mouth
is, and WCI has been attacked as being responsible as a developer, and
God knows, they are. But they're putting their money where they think
it can be helpful, and so they're -- they're putting out a million
dollars over three years. We are willing in Pelican Bay through our
MSTBU to put a half a million each year for two years and another
three-hundred-and-some-odd thousand for the third year and additional
after that.
We know that it's a vicious circle. You can't say,
well, we want guarantees, because we need to do the research. We need
to find out about the monitoring results, and that ends by being the
thing you do first that costs money. So we need money up front, and
we are providing it, and we're not asking the commission to provide
that money. But as has been said before me, this is a small but vital
part.
And also I have to say, which hasn't been said, that it
shows goodwill and caring on the part of the commission, that they
don't want to lose this tremendous -- five hundred -- you know,
somebody this morning said this little area that's -- it's 535-plus
acres. That's not a little area. It's not a little area anywhere.
But if it were elsewhere, it's very likely that there be a statewide
ruckus about it because you've got dead sticks. Such as a friend of
mine who was visiting overnight from the east coast was saying Madison
Hammock is a bunch of dead sticks after the hurricane. And that's
what we have out there are dead sticks.
Now, I also want to remind you that this is a hurricane
buffer. Mangroves are a buffer. If we have a major hurricane with a
major tidal surge, it can go not just through Pelican Bay, but on to
41 and maybe Pine Ridge and whatever. So you're talking about a major
system.
There was something that Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned,
and I -- I think I've lost it, but it was -- I don't remember what it
was, but it -- it was very important.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was brilliant. You just
wanted to mention how brilliant it was.
MS. DeSILVER: Well, it was a very relevant point. No,
I mean, I think the MSTBU has been covered, I mean, with this -- with
this major request, which I assume when it reaches whatever channels
of the county that you will approve it since it is not any money out
of your pockets, but out of ours. But in any case, don't lose sight
of the fact that we have this tremendous access that everyone puts
down, including our wonderful local rag.
We have -- to the north and to the south we have parking
areas. We've said it a hundred times.
MS. DeSILVER: I'm sitting. Okay. Bye-bye.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Varley, if you would, please, sir, and
then Miss Dykman.
MR. VARLEY: Good morning. For the record my name is
Alan Varley. I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. I'm currently the
chairman of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee, and I've been a
member of Commissioner Hancock's mangrove task force. I think that
the outline and the problem of both the mangroves and the Clam Bay
system have been very well presented by both Commissioner Hancock and
by Bill Lorenz this morning. My only comment is that I think that one
of the pities of it is because of the location of this and the
geography, it's hard to really get a perspective of what this die-off
really looks like, that if you have not seen it up close, I would urge
you to do that before you just write it off as being another political
football.
The Pelican Bay HSTBU Advisory Committee both --
supports both the conclusions that have been reached in this -- in
this proposal from Bill Lorenz and also the plan that's being
proposed. I'm not going to rehash all the details of it, but let me
just say that we in Pelican Bay had originally looked to the county to
fix this -- this problem. It was our reasoning that it was a county
conservation area, and as such it ought to be maintained and taken
care of by the county. It's become increasingly obvious that that is
not a realistic thought; and we have, therefore, worked very hard to
try to convert this into a partnership approach.
As you've heard, WCI has recently committed to helping
to fund the restoration cost, and the Pelican Bay HSTBU Advisory
Committee will very shortly be presenting to you a plan to -- for
Pelican Bay residents to tax themself and accrue funds for a
restoration plan. And we're very hopeful that the county will also
join us in the shared partnership plan. As you've heard, the
short-term program is underway. It's hopeful that there will be parts
of it that will be effective, that would be implemented before this
rainy season.
The five-part, long-term strategy that you have before
you I would look at just slightly different. It is asking for
$500,000 over the next year and a half to try to develop and design
and permit a workable long-term permanent plan. As the county funds
for this project are not immediately available, Pelican Bay and WCI
funds could be used to fund this -- this effort if we can just work
constructively together.
Believing -- let me just summarize. Believing that this
is really a shared county, developer, and resident problem, I'd like
to support the following: that, one, that you, the county, agree to
support a realistic NRPA program that will ensure the continued health
and the conservation area if -- or I should say when -- the area is
restored and that, secondly, the county agree to continue to actively
keep the Clam Pass open and to get an inlet management program
approved. Both of these are continuations of efforts that are already
current policy, and they really don't involve spending any funds on
the dying mangroves. And as the Clam Pass program is funded through
tourist dollars, it really is not a major expenditure for you folks or
for the county. It would give us the assurance that the county does
intend to maintain this area if we ever get it restored.
Now, thirdly, I would -- would support the -- what --
the developing concept, that WCI and Pelican Bay residents, again,
through their taxing themself would fund the development and the
permitting of this restoration plan, which would be coordinated by the
Pelican Bay Service Division and I would hope with some oversight by
the HSTBU advisory committee. At that point I would hope that the
county would agree to see in its wisdom to agree to help to share the
cost of the actual construction and the actual fix and then, as the
plan suggests, that they would actively maintain the area when it's --
when it is finally restored. This to me does not seem like an
unreasonable request to the county and county participation in
restoring a county-owned conservation area.
Finally, I'd just like to say the conservation area is
really too important and everybody in Collier County to let it become
a myopic monument to failed urban development. There is a cooperative
willingness by the developer and the residents of the area to assume a
substantial cost of the -- of the restoration, and I urge you not to
let this opportunity slip away. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Dykman. She's your final registered
speaker.
MS. DYKMAN: I'm Martha Dykman, president of Seagate
Property Owners. I think Miss Mac'Kie had something interesting to
say. I had said that we'd be willing to be part of an MSTUB (sic),
but that's going to take a while. We need to be working on this
problem now. The $150,000 would help work on it now. The only way
Seagate wants to be a part of an MSTUB (sic) is if we work with the
Vanderbilt people in getting a north entry opened up so we restore the
inland waterway that it used to be.
People in Park Shore -- I was at a focus meeting for the
city, and people in Park Shore also want it. We've got a dead end
coming from in the Moorings Bay-Park Shore area. It dead ends into
Seagate Drive. It's getting stagnant and smelling. In Seagate, you
know, we don't have near the wildlife we used to have since this
problem happened, and we -- you know, we wonder who's here to speak
for the herons, who's here to speak for the ibis, Who's here to speak
for the roseate spoonbills. You can't see those in the Park
Shore-Moorings Bay waterway with seawalls. You can only see them when
there's mangroves. You can see the green heron fishing.
And, Mr. Norris, with your -- with your people down in
man -- you know, Marco Island, I'm sure they value their mangroves.
If this was happening anywhere but Pelican Bay -- but it's the rich
against the poor concept. My husband's built almost every building in
Bay Colony with Boran, Craig, and Barber Construction. All those
electricians that go to work there are your tax people in your
districts. All the people that are putting the concrete block up
there, they're up there building. They make their money. They make
their income. It's not just a rich against the poor. All of us have
been involved in this in some way or another. You as county
commissioners have been involved in it in your -- in your funding and
in your -- in your tax receipts.
One house in The Strand costs 7 million dollars. How
much taxes do they pay for a 7-million-dollar house that backs up to
this mangrove area? They've got 15 lots and 7 million dollars. It
doesn't take long to add up how much Pelican Bay pays in property tax,
and we're asking you for a little piddly sum.
And if you're afraid of what -- the Naples Daily News
wants to stir this up. You know that they like to stir up the rich
against the poor. They're not real -- you know, do you want to -- do
you want to live in an area -- are you going to be proud of an area
that stinks and is dirty, and when people go across at the Registry
and use the beach and if all the mangroves are stinking and dead, are
you going to be proud to be a county commissioner of Collier County
when you let this happen? And every focus meeting I've been to
they've said that clean water and the environment is one of the most
important issues in this area. Well, what are you going to do about
it? Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to say two people
from -- from my district -- I mean, this is not a -- just Commissioner
Hancock's problem, and I don't think it is and haven't ever thought it
was. And two people from my district are here saying please give them
the money. I want you to know I couldn't care less what the Naples
Daily News says I'd say. If anything, I'm going to care a lot more
about what you say because I'm supposed to represent you.
But -- and it's not a rich against the poor, but it is a
question of priorities. And I can't get away from that Healthy Kids
program and that we said that even though this is an extremely
important issue, the health of our children, whether or not they have
health insurance, that's not something that the general taxpayer
should pay for. And guess what, private money came through. Thanks
to Commissioner Constantine's efforts and Representative Saunder's
efforts, private money came through. And -- and in this case some
private money has already come through, and my priorities for how to
spend general tax money, I'm going to spend it on kid's health
insurance before I spend it on mangroves.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Collier County builds ball fields
with the knowledge that they have to be maintained. We mow them. We
put clay on them. We rake them. We spend a ton of money every year
maintaining county parks. The county accepted title or actually a
form of a deed to this land with the knowledge that it was going to
have to be maintained, that a boardwalk was going to be built, and
public access to a beach would be guaranteed ad infinitum. What is
being asked today -- and anyone who knows me knows that I'm not an
environmentalist by any means, but I'm a realist. The county has a
value in Clam Pass Park, and what I'm aiming for today is to protect
the value of that asset. And the way in which we can do that and the
only reason I supported the NRPA is because of the public access to
the beach in Clam Pass Park. And we can protect that asset minimally
and dovetail that with the dollars coming from the residents of
Pelican Bay and from WCI Communities in such a way that -- that the
county is not at risk of spending all of our tax dollars to benefit a
small group of people. We're spending it to benefit a park in this
community that every resident has access to.
And for that reason I'm going to move approval of staff
recommendation to implement the NRPA at -- and I guess I have to
actually move for direction to staff to bring this back during the
budget cycle at the -- the recommended amount as indicated on page 3
of your staff report.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support
that. I'm going to make a suggestion -- just kind of pulling together
comments from Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Norris -- that I'm
in agreement with. And I think we can see the same thing, but what
I'd like to see is -- I think a number of people have said we need to
start addressing this now. If we're going to address it, we can't let
it drag on because the problem will only likely get worse. The -- I
don't mind if we put some money up now to start to address the
problem, but I'd like to pursue an HSTBU and then have that money paid
back --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from that. And I think
that way we can start addressing the problem now, but I think
Commissioner Hac'Kie's point is very valid. Yeah, there's access to
the park there, and you have a point. But if you look at -- that
whole thing isn't dying out right now. Hopefully we get to the point
now where it doesn't. But I'm not sure that carries the same argument
as Commissioner Hac'Kie's. And I think the idea -- you described a
fairly wide area, and there is a clear benefit, thus, the term benefit
unit. But there is a clear benefit within the area she described.
Now, we'd have to get some legal definition of that, but that's my
preference, and that allows us to move forward, do some work now, and
try to actually solve the problem. But, you know, it puts the
finances where the benefit is greatest.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd -- I'd support, too, if
-- if Mr. Weigel would tell us that we can -- some sort of a loan to
this future HSTBU.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's exactly what I think
Commissioner Constantine was saying. Commissioner Matthews, you had a
question?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I do, a couple of
questions, because I keep hearing the public say that this is a
conservation area that the county accepted and we agreed to maintain
it and all this stuff. I want to go back in time a little bit to --
not 10,000 years in the Stone Age, but only about 20 or 22 years and
when Pelican Bay or WCI, Westinghouse at the time, was getting its
permits. And help me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought that this
conservation area was created as a condition of getting their permits;
is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: I believe it was part of the federal and
state --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless they conserve that,
right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And then there was a further
condition put on it that that conservation area be donated to the
county instead of held in private hands, because there was an
assumption it would get better care, and obviously as a result of that
we're having public discussions about it now, which may not have
happened if it were not given to the county.
The other point that I want to try to make is that we,
this board -- not these five people, but this board for the last eight
or nine years, has been struggling with the Naples Park issue, which
we think we're moving ahead on that. And we were hearing people who
live in Vanderbilt Lagoon complain about the proposed drainage in
Naples Park, so I agree wholeheartedly. This thing is an HSTBU that
affects that entire coastal area, in my mind, west of 41 and -- and
that this is a symptom of a problem and -- and the problem is much,
much larger than 35 acres of mangroves that have died. It's much,
much larger.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't disagree with the idea
that this may be an HSTBU. The problem is what's it going to do. Why
are the people in Vanderbilt Beach or Seagate going to vote to fund a
solution that may not recommend a reconnection or a connection of a
greater degree? I think we've got the cart in front of the horse a
little bit on discussion of the HSTBU because we don't really even
know now what the solution is and will it benefit Vanderbilt Beach and
Seagate. Once that benefit is apparent, I think the basis for
extending some type of a taxing unit is obvious.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you honestly think that
we're going to spend a couple thousand dollars on a study and they're
going to come back and say don't do anything?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I think it's going to come
back with options. The options are going to be these are recommended
alternatives that can be pursued. Opinions will be rendered as to
what degree of success each will have, and a cost associated with each
will be given at that time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- another comment I'd like to
interject at this point is this issue asking the county to put up
$150,000 has -- has come to the board before in agreement with Pelican
Bay Services District. That's, I understand -- understood one man to
say two weeks away or so forth, and we don't have in our package an
HOA or an agreement from WCI that they will fund this. I mean, we
could be sticking $150,000 out there to start a process, and the
private money that's out there may not come forward because there's no
contractual agreement to bring it forward. I'd like to see everything
come together at one time.
MR. WARD: Commissioners, for your records, Jim Ward,
administrator of Pelican Bay Services. Let me address Commissioner
Hac'Kie's concern first, and then I'll address yours, Commissioner
Matthews. I think in terms of the overlay HSTBU when this problem was
first brought to Pelican Bay Services, you know, six or eight months
ago, the first idea that actually popped into my mind was to do just
that, to create an overlay HSTBU of the Vanderbilt area and the
Seagate area in order to address the overall problem that you have
along that whole area. And I actually think in the long term, longer
than the next two or three years that we're actually looking at, that
is a good idea. However, we have a significant, serious problem in
the Clam Bay system right now. And I think in terms of what this
community is looking for from the commission is that we be allowed to
proceed to implement some sort of a solution within the Clam Bay
system to reverse and correct some of the die-off of the mangroves and
to not only do that but to restore some of the hydrology and some of
the other problems that we know we have within Clam Bay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why should that be paid for
by taxpayers outside of the existing PUD?
MR. WARD: Let me finish where I was headed, and then
I'll get to your issue. I think in terms of the Pelican Bay community
we can go and provide a lot of funding in terms of trying to help you
in the creation of a long-term overlay HSTBU. But I think, quite
frankly, to do that right now is premature in the stages, and we need
to focus in on solving some of the immediate problem. Otherwise the
solution is going to cost millions of dollars more than what we think
it's going to cost at this point.
In terms of the hundred and fifty thousand dollars NRPA
or the hundred thousand dollar NRPA, whatever that may be, from my
understanding of the discussions at the board level a year or so ago,
all that is really doing is funding some of the removal of Brazilian
peppers in that system, which I think we've all recognized need to be
removed, and additionally funding thirty or forty thousand dollars for
some water quality testing in the -- in the Clam Bay system. So I
think those are very small steps in terms of the overall NRPA issue
itself. So from -- from our perspective, the community's perspective,
we would like to be able to proceed with some of the actions that have
been recommended to you in terms of putting in the Pelican Bay money
and putting in the WCI money.
And, Commissioner Matthews, there is a commitment on
behalf of this community at this point to fund a half a million
dollars in the next couple of years over that. And there is a
commitment out of WCI for a million dollars to do that, and I think
that can be formulated or codified in whatever action the board wants
to -- wants us to take in that regard. So I think that commitment
from the community and from WCI is there. But we would strongly urge
you that at least as far as this recommendation is concerned, that you
look at what staff has recommended to you in the context of the
overall Clam Bay system. And the ninety-three thousand dollars or the
hundred thousand dollars, whatever the number is, is really just
Brazilian pepper removal and additional water quality testing, but all
of the costs at this point are really being undertaken by WCI and
Pelican Bay Services Division.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, for the immediate addressing
of the solution, how much is PBSD putting up -- willing to put up?
MR. WARD: We are recommending to you in our '97 budget
a half a million dollars.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And WCI?
MR. WARD: Has agreed to fund a million dollars over the
next three years for that program. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WARD: My long-term budget has a half a million
dollars for the next three years in it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Given those figures and the
amount of money committed, how can you sit here and tell us that this
is not going to go forward if the county doesn't come up with 93,0007
I mean, that's just too small of a portion of the whole pie to delay
the project.
MR. WARD: I'm not telling you it is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WARD: I think it's just a small -- you know, a
small step towards the overall solution for just the Clam Bay system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make just a final
point, and then Mr. Ward has done what I tried to do 30 minutes ago,
was separate the two. The long-term solution is not what you're being
asked to fund today. What you're being asked to fund -- that
information is going to be useful in determining that long-term
solution, but -- and I'm going to direct this specifically to
Commissioner Mac'Kie. When you voted to support the NRPA, you voted
at that time to support removal of exotics, water quality monitoring
and so forth. You're being asked today to do the exact same thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to vote for that
again when it comes up in the regular budget. But the fact that it's
pulled out as something special about the mangroves has red flags
waving for me. I want to support this NRPA. I'm going to keep
supporting this NRPA, but I want to do that in the budget process. I
don't want to do it because of the Pelican Bay mangrove problem. I
want that to be resolved through the MSTBU.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And my motion was to give
direction to staff to bring it back at the recommended level in the
NRPA program that's presented to us today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to look at it in the
budget process. I'm going to be hard-pressed to -- I'm going to want
to know why the manager is recommending ninety-five and you're
recommending a hundred fifty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we let Commissioner Hancock
restate his motion, and let's see if we're going to take any action.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one quick
question, and that is you mentioned there are going to be a number of
different alternatives with all the different facets. What's the time
frame we expect to have those alternatives.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's going to be at the
conclusion of step 2 in the five steps that are long term.
MR. WARD: Commissioner, we'd like to have at least some
recommendations back to you within the next 12 months as to what some
of the solutions are within the Clam Bay system.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WARD: And I -- you know, I think that's optimistic,
quite frankly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To restate my motion, my motion
was to direct staff to bring back in their budget discussions the
amount of $150,000 to fund the NRPA according to staff recommendations
contained in the report we have today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the motion is simply to
bring -- to have staff bring the discussion up at the budget hearing --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to do this again?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. To be quite frank, the
reason for doing it today was not to belabor a very difficult budget
hearing with this same issue again. And if there are not three people
on this board that are willing to consider a level of $150,000, I
think staff needs to know that now, and the people here need to know
that, you know, so -- so we can avoid spinning our wheels and having
this argument once again. And that was the main reason for bringing
this up today was to give credence to the budget discussion and its
pattern rather than, you know, trying to bring up a lot of technical
information in an otherwise nontechnical discussion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, my question related to the
motion then is for Mr. Dotrill. What part -- what's your
justification? I mean, this is like a budget workshop question, but
what's your justification for not recommending the 50,000 of the
150,0007
MR. DORRILL: I'll need some help from the staff here.
I've looked at probably 200 budgets in the last 31 days. I had a
concern about the educational program, for one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. He said the 54,000
to remove the dead trees is not a recommended budget item.
MR. DORRILL: And my response for that was that, if I'm
not mistaken, we had -- did have exotics removal budgeted in the prior
year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did.
MR. DORRILL: And my response to that was try and
maintain the board's original exotics removal program direction that
you gave us before we lurched into some new direction which was
replanting or replacing dead mangrove trees.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what I want to support is the
continuation and expansion, but the continuation of the prior
program. So I'm -- I'm looking for some way to -- to give
Commissioner Hancock some indication of what it is I'm going to be
willing to support in the budget process. And it sounds to me like
probably the dead tree removal is too specific to the mangrove problem
to be funded in the NRPA.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But, Commissioner Hac'Kie, we
also just two or three months ago took -- what was it, Mr. Dotrill --
some thirty, thirty-two thousand dollars of the forty-five that was
allocated to exotic removal and used it for something else.
MR. LORENZ: That was for the short-term studies,
correct. We have roughly $11,000 left in this year's budget. The
recommendation in your executive summary for the $11,000 is to
continue with the water quality monitoring within this fiscal year
that was put on hold. The budget that we've requested is $80,000 for
exotics removal. That's 35,000 more than what we budgeted for this
year. That is recommended in the manager's budget. The $15,000 that
we're recommending for next year for water quality monitoring is --
was contained within this year's budget, so that's a continuation of
what was approved for this year. The $54,000 for dead tree removal, I
think there's two reasons: One, that is very specific to the -- to
the Pelican Bay individuals because you can't -- from aesthetics
standpoint countywide you can't see that. You can only see that
within Pelican Bay; but, secondly, from an environmental standpoint,
the environmental benefits are somewhat marginal, so I think that
that's -- the $54,000 is -- is not a high priority from staff's
perspective.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's the punch line. That is
not a high priority from an environmental perspective. Therefore,
that 54,000 is not something that I'm going to support in the NRPA.
But for anybody counting -- so I'm not willing to second that motion,
but I'm willing to make or second a motion that indicates support for
a $95,000 contribution to the NRPA.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Is there a second for the
motion on the floor?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is Commissioner
Mac'Kie's motion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. Commissioner Hancock has a motion
on the floor.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A hundred and fifty is on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion then dies for lack of a
second. Is there a substitute motion?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion for 149,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is going to take a while.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, would you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's like the end of an NBA
game. Time out.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I find -- I'm a little
confused about the process of -- of, you know, making a motion now to
indicate that in the budget process I'm going to support a $95,000
funding level for the NRPA. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you know what I'd like to see
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a motion then.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I liked what Commissioner
Constantine was talking about, and that is to advance the money
predicated on it being repaid by the formation of an MSTBU to get
these programs started, but the people who are going to benefit from
the program are going to pay for it, and I also would like to see
interlocal agreements come forward from -- from the district, and I'd
like to see an agreement from WCI, all of that kind of come together
at one time so that we're looking at the whole ball of wax and not
simply pieces of it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second
it. That's what I support.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the dollar figure you're
interested in looking at at the budget hearing?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe the dollar figure you
would be seeking would be the fifty-four thousand because the
ninety-five is part of the maintenance. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not having any -- any
particular problem advancing the money so -- so long as we have
assurances that it is paid back and -- and if the Pelican Bay --
Mr. Ward, if you want to assure that if this MSTBU that we're trying
to form is never formed, that you would take it to your constituency
to repay the 54,000, I mean, I've got no problem with that.
MR. WARD: I would prefer that you delay action on the
creation of an overlay MSTBU at this point. It will hamper, quite
frankly, our efforts in the restoration of the Clam Bay system. So --
well, I -- although I haven't, you know, talked to the community about
this, my gut reaction would be I'd rather not have the money if it
comes with an overlay MSTBU than I would have the money, so to speak.
So that's my only caveat --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you'd rather not
have the money, that satisfies the issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can fix that real quick.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The point he's making is that to
fund it in anticipation of something that may not exist is probably
more cumbersome than just not getting that 54,000 at all because the
Pelican Bay Services Division can go in there and start dead mangroves
with DEP's permission tomorrow if they want to. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But let me try to sum it up here.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of support on the board for just
outright public funding for the solution. There doesn't seem to be a
lot of support for that. There is support, in my opinion, here it
looks like that if there's some sort of a repayment mechanism, then we
can talk. But absent anything else, I think we should just wait for
the budget hearings at this point.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to direct staff to bring
back an amount of $95,000 during the budget.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's one. Okay. Four to one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't hear you guys vote.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Was that a -- are you a yea or a nay?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm a nay. I think the money is
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just before we leave this subject
completely, can I ask the county attorney what -- or maybe you don't
want to answer this question today, but can you give us a
recommendation on if we wanted to start the process of creation of an
overlay MSTBU or an MSTBU that's expanded on the north and south how
that happens and when it could happen and how quickly we could get it
done?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I can give you considerable
information, I think, today. And that is if the board is looking at
directing staff to create -- I should say provide an outline of an
area that could be considered for an HSTU or HSTBU, we could come back
to you with that. To the extent that it includes boundaries within
city limits, that will require pursuant to statutory obligation that
the city be involved and approve through its own ordinance its
territory being included within an HSTBU.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they've indicated a
willingness to discuss that?
MR. WEIGEL: I think a distinction that you're
approaching today is that the purposes for this potentially proposed
HSTBU would be rather limited to distinguish it perhaps from the
rather broad purposes and functions of the Pelican Bay HSTBU. The
reason I mention that is because if one were to include areas that are
outside of the current Pelican Bay HSTBU into the Pelican Bay HSTBU
for ease of creation, although it's not greatly -- greatly easy to do,
they -- those areas that are outside the current HSTBU would be
essentially taxed for all the purposes and functions, not merely
mangrove concerns, that -- because there have been so many additional
things that the taxes are levied for within the Pelican Bay HSTBU.
we're talking about a separate HSTBU that may include and would
include --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for clearing this up.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the gist of it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the timing?
MR. WEIGEL: The gist of it is that if these people are
to be included in a larger MSTBU, the taxes that would be specifically
earmarked for this mangrove --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the interconnection of the
system.
MR. WEIGEL: For the system would result in a -- in a
concurrent reduction in their taxes that are earmarked under their
current MSTBU. That's the good news that comes with that, that
they're not double taxed to do this type of thing.
MR. DORRILL: You need to have that no later than
January the 1st of 1997 so that taxes could be collected in the fall
of that year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just like to point out
that people have a tendency to want to know what they're being taxed
for, and until you can tell them what they're getting for their
dollar, you're probably not going to be received with open arms, but
good luck to you.
Item #8A2
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION (HPO) BUDGET FOR GRANT YEAR 1996-97 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Moving right along then,
8(A)(2), budget amendment for the HPO.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is pretty
simple. It's just their annual budget via grants for the -- MR. PERRY: Coming year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- fiscal year which runs
July through June; is that correct?
MR. PERRY: July 1st -- for the record, Jeff Perry from
the metropolitan planning organization. Yes, this is our July 1
through June 30 fiscal year budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion to approve the
item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
We're going to take a very short break keeping in mind
that Commissioner Hac'Kie has to leave shortly, so please come back
quickly.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-272 APPOINTING LES DICKSON, GARY HAYES, HUHBERT GRESSANI
AND RICHARD JOSLIN, JR. TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our county commission
meeting. Miss Filson, our next item -- our next item is 10(A)
appointment of members to the Contractor's Licensing Board. This is
the board that's been looking for a roofing contractor?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one here.
MS. FILSON: There's currently no --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can't hear you, Miss Filson. Ladies
and gentlemen, could we have some quiet here. I can't hear Miss
Filson. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: This item is to appoint three members to
serve three-year terms and one member to fulfill the remainder of a
vacant term. And you are correct; there is currently no roofing
contractor on this board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The committee did not recommend
who they wanted for the one-year term?
MS. FILSON: This is a quasi-judicial board, so we do
not take recommendations from the board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. And do we have a
motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move
that we appoint Les Dickson, a roofing contractor, and Gary Hayes and
Humbert Gressani to three-year terms and Richard Joslin to the
one-year term.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Okay. Miss Filson, are you clear on who gets which term
there?
MS. FILSON: Yes. Mr. Joslin will fill the remainder of
the vacant term, and the other three will be for three-year terms.
Item #10B
PRESENTATION REGARDING HEALTHY KID'S PROGRAM - REQUEST SUPPORTED AS
OUTLINED IN LETTER IN THE AGENDA PACKET, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THIS IS NOT A COHMITHENT OF TAX DOLLARS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item is 10(B), the Healthy
Kids program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little brief summary. On
the 21st of Hay Representative Saunders was here and requested the
board commit $90,000 a year starting the first year, and by a vote of
three to two the board declined that. The reason I voted against the
funding at the time was while the program is a very good one,
obviously I had a belief that perhaps private sources -- well, it
became obvious where we were headed with that. But at that point I
think Representative Saunders was going to withdraw the item, but --
and that was when we continued it, but the point being there was an
opportunity to raise that money without hitting the taxpayer with it.
So I've pursued that. I've got a commitment from Naples Community
Hospital for that, and I know each of the board members has a copy of
not only the little memo on that, but also the letter from --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I have a -- actually some
information on that to put it in some perspective that might be
beneficial for the entire board, so I do want to present that, if I
might.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you mind if I just finish
my comments?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think if you read through
the letter from Ed Morton, there had been some concern that in some
way after saying I was not in favor of raising the 90,000 from tax
dollars annually that I was making us a commitment to -- for hundreds
of thousands annually in the out years, that's not necessarily the
case. I think what we're trying to do is make a commitment to help
raise those funds.
As I've said in my memo here, I have a very, very high
comfort level that that can be done, that we can do that. I've had
some preliminary discussions with some of our corporate neighbors in
the county and -- and there is some interest there. We also have
other medical facilities who are interested in coming to the area. If
they did, I think it would be appropriate since they benefit if there
is less indigent care to be taken care of.
So I'm very comfortable that we'll be able to do that in
those years three through five, but it is certainly not necessarily a
commitment. The one thing Commissioner Hancock had said is we can
look at the health budget and see if there is some expenditure that's
more appropriate. And those are the things we can explore in years
three through five. But much like I had the comfort level that we
could raise the private funds here, I have a very, very high comfort
that in years three through five we'll raise those privately as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Representative Saunders.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board. I sort of feel like a bad dream. I keep coming
back here, and I apologize for that.
I want to start off with giving to -- giving each of you
a letter that was drafted by Rose Naff, executive director of the
Healthy Kids Corporation. This is a letter that she sent to the
editor of the Naples Daily News, and there are a couple of things in
here that I think are important. It takes a community with
considerable foresight to make a commitment to a program which while
it does have immediate benefits ultimately proves its full worth years
down the road. In deciding to implement the Healthy Kids program this
fall, Collier County has shown such foresight. As executive director
of the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation, I would like to express our
enthusiasm for our upcoming work to improve health, school readiness,
and futures of children in Collier County starting this November.
Credit should be given to local representatives who have championed
this program. Then she goes on to say that families in Collier County
will get information about Healthy Kids when school starts this fall.
Then she encourages families to call 1-888, which is a toll free
number, FLA-KIDS. And I wanted to give this letter to you because it
indicates that we are on board for implementation of this program in
the fall of this year. As a matter of fact, we could have as many as
twenty-six hundred kids, as it turns out, enrolled in insurance by
December of this year.
In -- on Hay 21st I had made a presentation concerning
the Healthy Kids program, and I asked the county commission to commit
the $90,000 a year in local tax dollars, and I did that because I felt
that as the local match rises to 720,000 in year five that we needed
that commitment. Every other county that participates in this program
does provide some level of tax dollars for this -- for the program.
That's why I felt that it was necessary to consider that here. But a
lot of things have happened since Hay 21st. The commitment from -- as
evidenced in the letter signed by Commissioner Constantine to raise
those funds when there is a shortfall in the years three and beyond,
certainly puts this program on a financial -- financially secure
footing.
The -- in addition to those conversations that have
taken place since Hay 21st, a lot of work has been done with the
Healthy Kids Corporation. I want to thank the NCH Health Care System
for providing some staff and direction and assistance in developing
the insurance package and developing the competitive bids that will be
used in -- in soliciting bids from insurance companies. They've been
incredibly helpful and interested in making sure that this program
works in the community. In addition, we've been in close contact with
Rose Naff. They had a board meeting on June 24th, and if necessary,
I'll be there for that meeting to make sure that our application is
favorably considered by the Healthy Kids Corporation.
Now, there's been some other developments in reference
to NCH Health Care System, and I want to thank the entire commission
for your efforts. I know three commissioners have had direct contact
with the NCH Health Care System. The other two commissioners, I'm not
sure if you had direct contact, but I will say that you've had
indirect contact. Your expressions of interest -- expressions of
interest from this entire board has resulted in this community
realizing how important this program is. So I think each and every
one of you is to be congratulated for that. What we have from NCH
Health Care System now is as Commissioner Constantine had originally
stated. They are willing to pay for the first two years of the
program, $270,000 total without any conditions whatsoever. But after
some rather lengthy ongoing negotiations with NCH Health Care System
and again with the -- with the contact from all the commissioners, we
have gotten from NCH Health Care System the commitment to put $150,000
a year in this program for every year that this program is in
existence in Collier County as long as NCH Health Care System is part
of the provider network for this system. What that means is we have a
tremendous base in years three and beyond; and, again, it's each of
you that is to be credited with making that happen, making this
community aware of this program and moving forward with it.
The commitment that we have from the commission is -- or
that we're asking for from the commission today is evidenced in the
letter that is part of your agenda packet. And it's as Commissioner
Constantine said, a -- a commitment to assist in the raising of funds
in years three and five -- or three and beyond if there's any
shortfall in the local funding. Now, what I'd like to do -- what I'd
like to ask the commission to do is to approve that recommendation of
Commissioner Constantine, and then I'll take this to the board of
directors of the Healthy Kids Corporation on June 24th as the
mechanism to assure that there is substantial support from the local
governing body in Collier County. This is not a -- a commitment, as
Commissioner Constantine, has indicated, not a commitment in terms of
tax dollars, but it is a commitment in terms of assisting -- rolling
up your sleeves, if you will, and assisting and making sure that this
program is funded in years three and beyond. The Healthy Kids
Corporation needs to have that assurance that this program is going to
last for a long time in Collier County. And this letter signed by
Commissioner Constantine, I think, provides that.
The pertinent paragraph basically says that -- and this
is from the NCH Health Care System: Based upon our discussion, NCH
Health Care System agrees to provide a hundred percent of the required
matching in years one and two conditioned upon a commitment by the
Collier County Commission that any shortfalls in future years in
obtaining local matching funding from private sources will be raised
by the Collier County government. If the board approves this, then
this will be presented to the Healthy Kids Corporation, and we are
assured of having this program working in Collier County for as long
as Healthy Kids Corporation is funded by the Florida legislature.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I understand this,
Representative Saunders, we have the first two years fully funded by
the hospital, but not only that now, we have 150,000 every year
thereafter?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct, absolutely
correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I just think that that's a
wonderful -- because that was my concern, was the worst thing that we
could do would be to start and then have to stop. So just, again, a
huge thank you. I'll tell you from my little bit of research in this,
although what you say is valid, Commissioner Constantine, about their
having an interest in reducing indigent care, the stats from the
Healthy Kids state program say that only 1 percent of what's provided
through the Healthy Kids program will relieve a burden that's
otherwise carried by the Naples Health Care System through the
hospital so that this is 99 percent just pure community interest, and
I just think that has to be -- can't be commended strongly enough.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's absolutely correct.
And just to kind of wrap up my comments, again, I want to thank the
NCH Health Care System. I want to thank the Collier County
Commission, each and every one of you. I want to thank the members of
my health care advisory committee and all of the citizens that have
participated in making this program a reality for Collier County.
There are no silver-bullet solutions to all the problems
that are facing people in Collier County and throughout the state.
But what you do have is volunteers and public servants like yourselves
every day taking small steps to solve major problems. And once we get
this program implemented in Collier County, we can all say that we've
taken one important, albeit small, step in solving a -- a health care
problem facing those children. And you'll have the benefit of -- of
twenty-six hundred families being very thankful for the efforts that
this commission is taking in this commitment, and I would ask the
board to favorably consider that this morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of comments. And
one is thanks in particular to Ed at Naples Community Hospital. I
think this demonstrates the benefit of having a community hospital
which not every community nowadays has, but also this -- as I said,
Hay 21st, this is kind of the best of all worlds. It benefits the
kids, benefits the hospital, benefits the county; and if we can do
that without taxpayer dollars, then that is absolutely the best-case
scenario, and we've been able to put that together.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd like to move that we
approve Representative Saunders' request and with a particular
commendation that this is a program that is funded out of -- out of
the state taxes that we wouldn't have known about and we didn't know
and that you brought to our community. I just want to thank you for
that and commend you for it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I read the letter from Hiss
Naff -- and I already understand the first two years have been
committed to by funding by NCH, the letter from Mrs. Naff makes it a
foregone conclusion that this program will exist in the fall. That
raises for me the question why this board has to take action at all on
this matter.
The second mention I have is simply that you may want to
withdraw your accolades from my participation on this after I'm done.
But this is one area that I have a difficult principle with, and that
is that government is now stepping in, and the state government has
already stepped in and said, well, we're going to go ahead and begin
providing insurance for people. I have a problem at the local level;
and I, indeed, have a problem at the state level of assuming the
responsibility of providing insurance for the residents of this state
or the residents of Collier County. It's a principle difficulty I
have with it, and no matter how great this sounds -- and Healthy Kids
sounds great -- I'm a little worried about the expanding role of
government in providing health care insurance for people.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But this is providing the
opportunity to buy health care insurance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is subsidizing the other
portion of that, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is it not?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's providing a group for these
people to participate in that isn't an employer group.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a government subsidy
if it doesn't have government dollars. Let me give you just a
parallel example and then, you know, you probably --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we let Commissioner Hancock
make his statement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm not attempting to
dissuade anyone. All I'm saying is that it does have government
dollars. It's coming from the state from our state taxes and every
other county's state taxes, and I just have a principle difficulty
with government stepping into that role. By the same token, I have to
commend you, Commissioner Constantine, for doing what should have been
done prior to this being brought to the board, which is going to the
health care provider in this community and taking those steps first.
I'm not actively going to oppose this but, again, I have a base
problem with the principle, and for that reason I probably am not
going to support the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- we phased out contract
services and different contract agencies doing different social
services as part of the county budget. What I said -- I think you
said something similar at the time, Commissioner Norris, was that it
wasn't that we didn't support those efforts; but much like what you've
just, said we didn't know that it was government's role to be doing
it. What I had suggested a couple years ago when we were trying to
get to ground zero is that each of us -- and I think to some extent
each of us do actively participate in different charities, whether
that be the Shelter for Abused Women or Special Olympics or whatever
and raise funds and help out in any way we can, and I think we've done
that. And I think just by the nature of our position and of our job,
it gives us the ability to do that that we might not otherwise have.
And so we can help out the community without spending tax dollars.
And I understand your point. There are some state tax dollars in
there. But I saw this as an opportunity for us to do kind of a
parallel thing, help out on the Healthy Kids program without doing it
with -- with local tax dollars. And I think long term, again, each of
us has that ability, and whomever future commissioners are have that
ability just by the nature of the position to get out and help raise
that money.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is a second for the motion. Mr.
Dotrill --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hake a motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move that we accept --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Representative Saunders'
request.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have four speakers. You're welcome
to come up here and try to talk us out of approving this if you'd
like.
MR. DORRILL: Ty Agoston. After Mr. Agoston we'll have
Hiss Slaughter, if you could stand by please, ma'am.
MR. AGOSTON: For the record I'm Ty Agoston. I live in
Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for TAG. In an environment where
even Mr. Clinton is for downsizing government, I think the board is
kind of embarking in a route that will involve us, as the state
government is already involved in. As Mr. Hancock mentions, it is our
money, and we are just opening the door and picking up a commitment
for the county that if the board or its members individually cared to
undersign the responsibility for providing $720,000 down the road,
that's a kind of a large amount of money, and nobody will undersign
it. So you sign for it as the county. You speak for the county.
Consequently, you're obligating us or our children, if we have any, to
pay for the obligation you are incurring. That's all. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's an optional program, sir,
that we're not obligating children to participate. They can opt in to
purchase the insurance.
MR. AGOSTON: But you're obligating the county to pay
for it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, absolutely not. Your state
legislature has already obligated you to pay for it, and you can
either send that money to other counties, or we can have some of it
here in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a quick question. Does it
obligate me to get on the phone in two years and round up money?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Slaughter and then Hiss Varner.
MS. SLAUGHTER: I'm a member of TAG. I'm not
necessarily speaking for TAG, however. I'm opposed to it because it's
another of those open-ended government programs that has no end in
wrong just like Hedicare, Social Security, and all the rest of the
programs. They start out small, and they're supposed to be just a
small thing, and it's contained, and people can voluntarily go into
it. Pretty soon the state says, well, we're not funding it anymore,
but you're obligated and then -- plus the fact that state, that's our
money, too. Sometimes people forget that our taxes go to the state,
local, and federal. So any of it we're all paying.
And because it's morally wrong -- who is responsible for
children? The parents are responsible for children. Whatever
happened to that idea? It's the way I was brought up, my parents were
brought up, and I grew up in the depression. I know what poor means.
And I know what it means to be left a widow with three small children,
too, and to have to take over. And I never asked for a handout, and I
think that it's a disgrace that people are asking for so many
handouts, and so many people are saying, oh, we'll give you a handout,
but then you're responsible to us. You stay a child, and we'll take
care of you. It is destroying the moral fiber of this country, and it
is destroying us financially, and I think it's time it stopped.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Varner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I just was going to
say I agree with everything she said. I just know that it applies
here, but I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.
MS. VARNER: Hello. I'm Jane Varner, and I'm speaking
for myself even though I am a member of TAG. I want to commend you,
Tim Hancock, for expressing well a different philosophy. We've been
going in the wrong direction. I -- I commend you, Mr. Constantine,
for looking to the private sector; but you seem to be taking on a good
deal of responsibility in the public sector for carrying out this
chore or task which seems to go on for many, many years. These
programs have a way of growing and growing. We never seem to realize
down the road how expanded they will become, how many people will be
on it. The ramifications of all the -- every program that was started
in the Great Society seemed to be innocuous and well-intentioned and
so forth, but they just had a way of growing beyond what they were
intended. And I know this is coming from a state level, but there is
quite a bit of health reform going on in different areas. I don't
know what's going to be coming up down the road that may be addressed
at a different level or -- or just how involved we want to be in all
this.
Erma made some good points. One of my problems is is
that when government does these things for other people, individuals
seem to kind of let others do it for them. You don't give long-term
thought to what you're doing. You don't give long-term thought to how
many children can I afford. It's too easy when someone else, where
it's other people in the private sector or whoever, when they are
picking up your load, all of a sudden you have a different attitude
about what your responsibilities are as an individual.
And I was hoping that maybe this country was turning
around somewhat to asking individuals to look personally to their
choices so that they can determine down the road what am I doing, to
think more about what they're doing. I know that a lot of times it
sounds mean-spirited to say no to some of these programs, but actually
what we are seeing that's been happening in this country has not been
kind, and I think we're seeing the results of that. This country
cannot continue unless individuals take more responsibility for their
choices and their children.
So I realize right now we're not taking this on at a
government level at this point, but I -- I'm just hoping that it
doesn't grow into more and become an expounded and eventually a
responsibility of Collier County government. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Zichella and then Ms. Barsh.
MS. ZICHELLA: Yes, Kate Moss Zichella, and I am with
TAG, and I speak for TAG, but I don't think those are the only people
I speak for. I'm active with the Christian Coalition; they are very
concerned about this.
There is such ignorance in the community about this
issue. Mr. Constantine, you are getting into something that you
cannot even begin to understand what you really are getting into. And
if this is not a government program, what are we doing here? If you
want to go out and do private fund raising, I think that's great. I
do plenty of it. Go out and do it. But don't drag the whole
community and put the government weight behind this program because
it's just ridiculous. And I hope this afternoon when you hear the
people from Golden Gate that you care as much about their business
interests as you care about Naples Community Hospital. I heard you on
Loveday and Lytle this weekend, and I was appalled. I was shocked at
what I heard. The idea that our commissioners are going to use
political influence to raise money is ridiculous, and I don't think
that everybody agrees with it. In 1991 we had a children's tax; it
failed two to one. If people wanted to do it, they would have done it
then.
This grant proposal that you finally have gotten only
because of nagging, the people come up here like Hr. Saunders was just
on a letter. Because he says it's good, we're all supposed to jump on
the bandwagon with no information. Well, after I picked up my copy
that Miss Hac'Kie was able to get for us -- and she had some
difficulty getting that -- I then called -- I noticed, first of all,
the list that's on there. Congressman Porter Goss was not on this
committee. He has had contact with Mr. Saunders' office since then,
and Mr. Saunders said, oh, he was inadvertently put on -- his name was
inadvertently included, and he would correct the record. So I'd like
to correct that publicly. And I think there may be also some question
about the consensus of that entire health committee as to whether or
not this is such a great thing.
I'm very insulted. The date of the letter on the
proposal is Hay the 8th. The chairman of the school board, Miss Cook,
signed it on Hay the 15th and this -- and committed in that proposal
that the Collier County Commission is going to provide the funding.
That's before this issue was even heard, so I find that very
insulting. And as of six o'clock last night when I spoke with -- and
I'm forgetting her name right now -- the gal up there that's handling
our file in Collier, she was unaware of any $150,000 yearly new
commitment by the hospital after that point. As a matter of fact, she
doesn't call it Naples Community Hospital.
I also have at least seven pages of the grant that Miss
Mac'Kie received -- well, additional pages that she did not receive
that I received last night at six o'clock by fax. And within those
I'd like to point out that one of the ways to distribute it is -- it's
kind of interesting: financial aid counselors at Naples Community
Hospital -- this is how you can promote and get the most number of
people using the program -- might provide information to families at
the time of hospital admission, during outpatient hospital contacts,
community organizations to include the Redman's (phonetic) Christian
Migrant Association, local HRS county public health unit, physician
practice groups, federally qualified health centers, economic
assistance offices, and the Chamber of Commerce might disseminate
information packets to families within their organizations. The
Chamber of Commerce will be provided with information on Healthy Kids
to include in employee paychecks, and advertisement in the newspaper,
local television. It goes on, and then there is some other members
that are working on this thing that are apparently not in what we
received yesterday.
Now, in addition to that, this is from the NEA's 1995
legislative agenda, comprehensive school health programs and
services: The National Education Association believes that every
child should have direct and confidential access to comprehensive
health, social, and psychologic programs and services. The
association also believes that programs in the school should provide a
planned sequential K through 12 health education curriculum that
integrates various health topics, on and on. And they believe that
the services in the school should include counseling; developmental
guidance; broad-based interventions and referrals; comprehensive
school-based, community-funded student health care clinics; and if
deemed appropriate, family planning counseling and access to birth
control methods and instructions in their use. It goes on with a
number of things. Association supports the adoption of a
single-parent health care plan for all residents of the United States,
its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
So there -- that's why I say, Mr. Constantine, I don't
really think you know what you're getting into and what you're
committing to. There are a number -- nearly every page in here that I
could go on to tell you where there are huge problems. Number one,
one of the commitments in here requires that surveys be provided to
every student in the system whether or not they participate in the
program and that we collect them. That's, again, school board
policy. But there are a number of things that I would be happy to
share with you at another time. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh. She's your final registered
speaker.
MS. BARSH: Good morning. I'm Frances Barsh. I'm a
resident, voter, and taxpayer in Collier County. I have been
listening to the debate this morning, and I think that Miss Zichella
has perspicuously brought up the problem that you are going to be
facing in the future. This is the tip of the iceberg. What you are
being asked to do now is the tip of an iceberg. Ninety percent is
still unknown to you, so it is -- behooves you to tread very
carefully.
Healthy Kids, all of this -- this wonderful feeling --
this do good provides a wonderful feeling. It is almost an outgrowth
of a philosophy, a Christian ethic philosophy. But when you think of
what the basic Christian philosophy began with, was not a policy to
get into politics to raise taxes or use other people's money to care
for the poor. It was a philosophy to care for each other without
government person to person, not agency, not corporation, but person
to person. It seems that what has happened is that charity has become
and is becoming an ever greater industry, and you are being asked to
support a new type of industry which in effect makes people helpless.
Think about it.
I would like to bring up some figures. In 1994 -- '95,
the Catholic Charities of the United States received 1.5 billion tax
dollars, not million, billion tax dollars. What are they doing with
it? They're supposed to be helping the poor. So the government --
the taxpayers have already paid up. Why not go and ask these people
to do their job? Why not ask Salvation Army to do its job? Why not
ask the people that are coming here to do their job and to look up
foundations that specialize in funding such projects. The Foundation
Center is a wonderful resource in New York City. All you have to do
is pick up the telephone and ask for the information and roll up your
sleeves and do some grant writing and grant research. It's very easy
to come to the commission, to come to the state, to come to the county
and ask for funding, very easy. The hard job is to do it on a one on
one.
And it behooves you to let people take care of their own
children, to let people have that responsibility and, in effect, that
joy of bringing up a healthy child. I, too, was a single mother. I
was widowed at a very early age. We had hard times, but my children
were taken care of. They are healthy. They are productive, wonderful
human beings, but we did it in the family. We didn't depend on
county. We didn't depend on state. We didn't depend on federal. We
depended on each other face to face. Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Mac'Kie, if I could get you to
include in your motion that -- that the motion does not anticipate
either now or in the future the use of county funds to fund this
program, I'll support it. Otherwise I will not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's clear in
there. The one thing I need to ask Representative Saunders after the
next-to-the-last speaker, does Healthy Kids program -- I've got the
packet here. Does it in any way support, or is it in any way related
to an effort to get a single health care provider service for the
entire United States and Puerto Rico?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No, this program -- there are
two points I want to make. One is that this has nothing to do with
any legislative package that's prepared by the National Education
Association. I assume that that's what she's talking about. This
doesn't have anything to do with education. It has nothing to do with
abortion or any of those things, condoms in the schools. It has
nothing to do with any of that. It's only private health insurance
for school-age children so that they can get their inoculations. If
they break their arms, they can get those fixed with insurance. It
has nothing to do with anything dealing with those very difficult
issues in the school.
The second thing also, I just wanted to take the
personal liberty of letting you know that Karen Walker from Porter
Goss's office is on the committee. Before her was Kaylene
(phonetic). Kaylene gave birth to a child, was not able to attend a
couple of the meetings. People from TAG are welcome to come to the
meetings. Anyone's welcomed to come to the meetings. So I consider
that to be a personal attack in terms of the membership, and I needed
to clear the record on that. And with that I would ask your favorable
consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I'm happy to say that at
this point the county's not making any commitment to fund any portion
of this program in the future, but I don't want to cut off the
possibility of coming back for that discussion from a future board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what's -- and I -- let
me try to paraphrase that if I can. You tell me if I'm saying the
right thing. But what's proposed here, what's laid out here, what
I've laid out here, doesn't make that commitment, doesn't -- we don't
have the authority to say the board is going to do X, Y, Z in eight
years or is not going to do X, Y, Z, you know, won't ever fund. But
that's not what this is asking for. Now, if the board takes up the
topic in five years and changes their mind, we can't prohibit that.
But that's not in any way what's being asked for here. There's not
one tax dollar being asked for or committed in this proposal.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I'm asking for before I will
support the motion is simply a commitment today that we are not going
to do that; we are not going to either now or in the future ask for
public funds from Collier County. And I know you can't commit future
boards. But if I don't get that commitment here today from this
board, I'm not going to support the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not willing to say that we're
not going to have -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then I'll call the question. All
those in favor signify by saying --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We didn't have a second yet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is a second. There was a second
right here -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw the second so
we can have further discussion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hr. Chairman, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, ma'am, you may not. There is no
rebuttal.
HS. ZICHELLA: Can I respond to something Hr. Saunders
said?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is no rebuttal, Hiss.
MS. ZICHELLA: Only for Mr. Saunders?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What my motion is that we support
the application as it is before us today, and I clearly acknowledge
that Mr. Constantine's understanding with the hospital only commits
this board to help raise money from private sector in the future. But
I'm not willing to make as a condition that -- that we won't, you
know, ever consider applications for funding by the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Commissioner, I'd ask
you to support it because the proposal --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can't do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I won't waste my
breath.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think people are beginning to
sense the insidious side of these --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews is trying to get
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
interrupt.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just have a question for Mr.
Weigel. He's our attorney, and I do have a question whether this
letter is -- is a commitment from this board on behalf of the Collier
County taxpayers to -- should there be a shortfall, or are we
promising funding?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You're referring to the letter dated
May 23, 1996, on --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- NCH stationary --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: -- is that correct? Well, Commissioner
Constantine as signatory to the letter has indicated what his
understanding --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's my understanding we're
being asked today to endorse this letter as a board, and I'm
questioning the legality of what we're committing to if we endorse it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the question I think you're
looking at is in the second paragraph of the letter. In fact, it's
one long sentence that the last two lines say any shortfalls in future
years in obtaining local match funding from private sources will be
raised by Collier County government, and Commissioner Constantine has
already created the record of what his understanding is of that.
Commissioner Saunders has commented to it. There is nothing on
today's record from Naples Community Hospital of their understanding
or recognition that if the commitment of that letter and of that
sentence clearly means no tax dollars, so the record -- the record
could be clarified, I presume.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try because the -- I
think what the motion is asking is that we approve the request here.
And if you read -- I understand your question, Commissioner Matthews.
And if you read the bottom paragraph on the first page of my
memorandum, it says, it was asked that Collier County assist in
raising local match dollars in years three through five of the
program. The key word is raising, and this is the thing that may give
you some comfort, Commissioner Norris. It does not mean that the
county will provide the balance in the out years, and I think I
reiterate that on the next page.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that memorandum, as an
interpretation of what's meant by raising, is included as a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I just wanted to clarify
from our attorney what this letter means. If we as a board endorse
Commissioner Constantine's signature on this letter, are we committing
Collier County tax dollars to this program in the out years, and
Mr. Weigel is saying, no, we are not.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Mr. Weigel is saying that it appears
from the statements of the county that, no, we are not. But as a
document that is signed by two parties, there is nothing on the record
from Mr. Morton, the other signatory, on behalf of the hospital that
they recognize the definition of statements that have been created by
the board today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Morton, can you make that
acknowledgment on the record, that you recognize that the county's
commitment is to help privately raise the funds and that the county's
commitment does not include a commitment for tax dollars? MR. MORTON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He indicated in the affirmative.
Is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That should answer your
question, Commissioner Norris.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I'm asking in order to support
this motion is very simple. If you don't ever have any intention of
ever having tax dollars involved in this, it should be a simple matter
for you to say that on the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have any, and I'm not
willing to say that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then I'll call the question.
Do we have a second?
Then the motion dies for lack of a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. We're not going to move
on to the next item. We can still have opportunity for another --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe -- I believe that I'll call
-- I'll call the order here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe I'd like to
continue discussion on this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just second the motion because
it's -- I'm endorsing your plan, your program. Please second the
motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may not be necessary.
Representative Saunders, is the board's approval necessary for Healthy
Kids to begin in the fall?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's necessary for the hospital
to give the money. That's a condition. It's what's in their letter.
Excuse me.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'm not sure I can answer
that. I can give you my best guess that what the Healthy Kids
Corporation board looks for is local government commitments to ensure
stability of the program. They've got that in every county where this
program is in existence. Whether they will fund this program without
some commitment from the board, I presume that they probably will, but
I can't make that absolute guarantee. You'd have to ask the board
members that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a substitute
motion that hopefully will clarify this to your comfort. Perhaps not,
but we'll make an effort. I'd like to make a motion that we support
the item as outlined by the memorandum included in your packet that I
circulated and further supported by the letter. And I would for the
record and for your comfort indicate on there that this memo clearly
indicates that is not a commitment of tax dollars and that a
representative of Naples Hospital has clearly indicated that's not a
commitment of tax dollars and that that's not what's anticipated in
those out years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further comment? If not, all
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- as I indicated --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have a good graduation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. And I would ask if
the board would consider continuing the balance of the BCC items until
I -- I can be back at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're okay with the
advertised public hearings?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The advertised public hearings,
there's one that requires four votes and I would like to participate
in if that could be postponed, but the others are all three-vote
hearings, so that's my request if you would consider it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd make a motion that we --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- do that if the chairman
doesn't mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can do that. We'll probably have
to take a lunch break anyway.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Shake hands for us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I going to lose everything
today or --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a
suggestion? If we're going to take a lunch break, we have a number of
people here from -- how many people are here from Walden Oaks on the
-- I don't know if you want to take anything out of order, but maybe
we can get that before we take a lunch break.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I make a comment? We have
deferred the Lake Trafford issue until after lunch. So if you want to
take a break, you're free to leave.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've deferred the Lake Trafford
issue, which is the BCC items, until after Commissioner Mac'Kie comes
back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. Sure.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just letting them know they
can go eat.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Let's see, item 12(B)(3)
requires four votes; is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it does.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-28 AmENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-11, THE
COLLIER COUNTY BEACH AND WATER SAFETY AND VESSEL CONTROL ORDINANCE BY
AmENDING SECTIONS THREE AND SIX TO PROHIBIT ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES FROM
OPERATING ON OR OVER MOST SALTWATERS IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY -
ADOPTED WITH AmENDMENTS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We will skip that one then for
now at Commissioner Mac'Kie's request and move to item 12(C)(1),
ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 89-11.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm
turning to that in my packet right here. This is the ordinance that's
been drafted and advertised for public hearing today, the ordinance
known as the Collier County beach, water safety, and vessel control
ordinance. And as Mr. Dotrill indicated, there was a typographical
directional misquote that was -- should have been west rather than
east, but the title as advertised and the ordinance as advertised is
absolutely correct in what it has attempted to do is amending a
section -- two sections of the current ordinance known as 89-11 as
amended specifically to prohibit ultralight vehicles from operating on
or over most saltwaters in unincorporated Collier County.
As a prefatory remark, I'll note that this was
advertised and brought before the board today as well as 12(C)(2)
without going through the Development Services Advisory Committee,
which does have the -- as a committee the advisory review capacity to
review matters that would affect code enforcement boards. This
ordinance amendment that's provided here specifically referring to
ultralights upon a violation would be a matter of code enforcement in
the future.
I would ask you to turn to page 5 of the agenda item,
also shown as page 4 of the ordinance itself, in the agenda packet.
You can see the underlined and stricken-through language specifically
of a previous section that existed in our beach and water safety
vessel regulation ordinance. The modifications there specifically
include ultralight vehicles and references a definition under the
federal regulations so that there's no mistake. It is ultralights of
whatever type and nature as defined either by the federal government
or in our own ordinance, which we have our own ultralight definition
and always did in our ordinance.
What it provides is that in the areas west of a
southerly projection and -- gosh, could you pass that out, Neil, to
the board?
MR. DORRILL: Do you need one?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I've got plenty here. -- in an area
west of a southerly projection of a north-south line dissecting County
Road 92 known as San Marco Road and the Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41, that
it -- of an area westward of there no person shall operate an
ultralight from or over or take off from saltwaters except in the
proviso of they are more than a horizontal distance greater than 500
feet from the nearest shoreline of the main -- of the mainland or an
appropriate barrier island.
As you can see from the handout that's been provided you
-- and those handouts are also outside the -- the boardroom for the
public -- the areas of saltwater including off of the beach -- the
beaches of Collier County as well as those areas of saltwater that
include residential canals, bays, under bridges and things of that
nature are where there is a restriction or regulation or prohibition
of the operation of ultralight aircraft.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to respond to
those.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
MR. DORRILL: Two speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, we have some speakers
obviously?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Huttinger. Mr. Carsillo, you'll
follow this gentleman.
MR. HUTTINGER: Thank you, Neil. My name is Charlie
Huttinger. I serve on the beach renourishment committee and the beach
monitoring committee. I've had a number of complaints about the
ultralight operation on Marco Island. They fall into two categories,
noise and safety. The airplane was being operated closely in shore,
taxied onto the beach, and picking up passengers and taxiing among
swimmers. It's no longer doing that, but it's still flying too close
to the beach and at too low an altitude. The noise is not so hard to
solve; they can be further out, but the safety is something else.
I learned to fly in 1947. I retired in '85 with 25,000
accident-free hours, so I think I can speak to safety.
And I think that this is a sport airplane, shouldn't be
in a commercial operation. Now, I assume that you've read 103.7 of
the FAR, and it's pretty clear that it's supposed to be a sport
airplane. It's for single occupancy. It goes on to say that no
person may conduct operations -- well, let's see what -- I had a
couple more here that are -- that are very pertinent.
For one thing, no person may operate an ultralight
vehicle over any congested area or city or town or settlement or over
any area open -- or open assembly of persons. And I say the beach is
an open assembly of persons. And no person may operate an ultralight
in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property. And
for those sorts of reasons I think they should be banned from
operation. Anybody want to ask me a question?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an FAA regulation?
MR. HUTTINGER: Yes, sir, it's 103 -- and I've marked
the appropriate pieces if you'd like to look at it. It's a very vague
one. It's the vaguest one I've ever seen, but the reasons are in
there. And it's supposed to be a sport aircraft. It's not a
commercial endeavor. And I'm not trying to put anybody out of
business, because it's hard to make a living in the aviation business,
but it's not the right vehicle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Huttinger.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
MR. CARSILLO: My name is Nick Carsillo, and I'm from
Marco Island and president of the Collier Bay Homeowners'
Association. I'm here to discuss Ordinance 89-11 and its amendment,
which you do have in front of you. I have not had the privilege to
read the entire amendment, but I do know what it contains.
We have the problem on Marco, which has to be addressed
quickly and completely to secure the safety and the well-being of all
Marco residents and its visitors. As Marco grows different
mentalities enter our community which seem to test the codes by which
we live which are established by the county. At this particular point
there are no codes that address this particular problem.
We also have a helicopter situation which I hope somehow
will enter into the scheme of things where an individual has a
helicopter company, and he's landing and taking off from an empty lot
on Marco Island. Now, this man has been approached by the county
sheriff's department, and he is very willing to stop doing this and
land in an appropriate place. But it's the type of philosophy as we
grow that we have to address laws and ordinances to deal with these
different approaches as we go down the line. This one needs help real
fast.
Unfortunately, the taking off from empty lots and the
open waterways of Marco Island cause, in many people's opinion, a very
serious, serious safety problem. I'm not quite sure about the
insurance regulations, but I am told by powers to be that buying
insurance to cover the crashing and landing and taking off of this
type of an aircraft basically doesn't exist. So what we have is a
possible exposure to the county of this thing flying around over the
houses, over the condos, in the congested areas, of landing and
crashing, and the possibility of death surely accompanies that type of
a tragedy.
I have received hundreds of complaints from condo
owners, homeowners. And we have tried very unsuccessfully through the
FAA and Joe Coriatchi (phonetic) of MICA to get regulations which
guide and -- and direct how you fly one of these instruments, and
there's -- none exists. There's just no control over this type of
thing according to the FAA.
Now, the FAA sent down an investigator to check our
problem and said the best thing to do and the only thing to do is to
have an ordinance within your county because we don't address these
problems. And he went back with the idea of addressing it to see
whether or not at least in the State of Florida that the FAA can look
into the situation and see if some sort of an ordinance can come down
from them, but that's a long way down the line.
The code enforcement department, the sheriff's
department are -- their hands are tied. They cannot do anything to
protect the people of Marco Island. And with this amendment -- and,
again, I haven't seen it, but I have been working with the county
attorney's office on occasion -- I hope that we address the issue to
an extent where it -- it actually will prevent anyone from having a
flying instrument or -- or aircraft landing and taking off in canals
and on the bays of Marco Island.
Now, I hear that 500 feet is the number that has been
chosen from the shoreline. Collier Bay is about a thousand feet to
fifteen hundred feet in diameter, and I hope this doesn't mean that
somewhere in this gray area this instrument can land and take off.
Now, this aircraft is kept in a canal on a lift of some sort, and he
has to go up and down this canal, and the noise factor is driving the
neighbors crazy. And they haven't been able to seek any source of
relief from this from the sheriff's department or code enforcement.
And that's why the amendment is being requested, so that we can put an
end to this inconvenience of this type of flying craft in a canal.
To me it's sort of mind boggling that anybody would want
to drive one of these things up and down a canal and assume that he's
not bothering anybody, but that's where we're at. I hope that you
find that this type of an amendment should be approved in order to put
the safety back in the hands of the county. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. CARSILLO: Anybody have any questions?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, are there any other
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Those are the only two.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close the
public hearing --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we obviously can't adopt a
ordinance for the sake of inconvenience, but when I was in the Coast
Guard at Fort Myers Beach we fished out a couple of ultralights in
commercial operations, and I think we can recognize an inherent safety
question here, particularly with the flight frequency of a commercial
operation. And for that purpose, the purpose of public safety, I'll
move approval of the proposed amendments to Ordinance 89-11.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
MR. FLOCKERZI: Excuse me. I had put in an application
to speak. I don't know if Mr. -- MR. DORRILL: I don't have one, but if he's registered
-- on 12(C)(1)?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion
to reopen the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can do that.
Do you have him?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I don't have him here, but I
don't know what's happened to him. But if this gentleman says he'd
like to speak --
MR. FLOCKERZI: That's me right there (indicated).
MR. DORRILL: Okay. That's the next item. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reopen the public hearing.
MR. FLOCKERZI: Thank you. My name's Dale Flockerzi,
and I'm a multi-engine instrument rated pilot and instructor of
ultralight airplanes. I operate the ultralight airplane that this
last gentleman was talking about in the surrounding waters of the Gulf
of Mexico and near Marco Island. I am here to voice my objections to
the proposed ordinance amending Ordinance 89-11.
Federal law clearly dominates the field of aviation
rules and safety. First I'd like to point out that I have
successfully passed the test prescribed by the FAA which regulates
instructors of ultralight trainers, and I'd also like to point out
that an ultralight by FAR, Federal Aviation Regulation, by 103
definition, among other things, is a single-seat aircraft. Therefore,
the aircraft that I operate is not an ultralight but is called an
ultralight trainer and operates under an exemption issued to the USUA
by the FAA as long as the person operating it has passed tests which
qualify him as an instructor. That exemption number is 4274-F under
regulatory docket number 24427.
Page 1 of the executive summary says here that
ultralight aircraft are operating from saltwater areas in a vicinity
of Marco Island are flying to and from beach areas, including flying
over areas where persons congregate. This is -- the subject operation
presents potential serious hazards to persons and property on the
ground in the area described.
I am the only person operating an ultralight in Marco
Island. Therefore, I assume that the person described here would be
me, and the statement is totally inaccurate, and these things have not
happened. At the present time we operate off the bridge of Marco
Island. We fly up the river and down along the beach further than 500
feet away from -- from the beach and never fly over -- over congested
areas.
Safety of aircraft operating in water is addressed in
Federal Aviation Regulation Section 5, dash -- 7-5-6, paragraph B,
which states, seaplane pilots must have a thorough understanding of
the right-of-way rules as they pilot their aircraft versus other
vessels. Seaplane pilots are expected to know and adhere to both the
United States Coast Guard inland navigation rules and FAR part 91-15
right-of-way rules. Water operations, the navigation rules of the
road collision avoidance rules as they apply to aircraft on the
water: A seaplane is considered a vessel when on the water.
On page 1 of the executive summary it states that the
Collier County law would not conflict with federal law but, indeed, it
does.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, it doesn't.
MR. FLOCKERZI: And part 103 clearly states when, where,
and how '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can continue to operate it as
a vessel on the water. It does not conflict with that.
MR. FLOCKERZI: On the water, true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. FLOCKERZI: But we're talking about '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get it out to where it's safe to
fly and take off.
MR. FLOCKERZI: Exactly. Which is what we've always
done.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we don't have a problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. The ordinance
says you cannot operate it within 500 feet of shore. That means
taxiing or anything else.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I stand corrected.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please go ahead.
MR. FLOCKERZI: Okay. May I continue? Part 103 clearly
states where, when, and how an ultralight aircraft can be operated.
Furthermore, part 91.115 clearly states right-of-way rules for water
operations. In part 91-1.19 addresses minimum safe altitudes. So,
therefore, I have to adhere to federal law. I do not operate over
congested areas, which is defined in the dictionary as overcrowded.
So if I was to operate over overcrowded areas, that would mean Marco
Island, which I don't anyway because we stay strictly over the water
and areas that -- allowed by federal law, and we always stay within
gliding distance of a landing spot on water.
Item 29 in the executive summary states that ultralight
aircraft in unincorporated Collier County or landing ultralight
aircraft on the surface of saltwater near beaches or taking off from
the surface of saltwater near beaches and over congested areas. These
ultralights have been free flying low altitudes over or near
individuals or other private and public property, and there is no
opportunity to prevent accidents or -- and/or death to the operator of
the ultralight airplane. This is not true either. Since I'm the only
one operating there, I know that that has never been done, and we are
regulated by federal law when it comes to that. I ask the indulgence
__
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your time has expired, sir.
FLOCKERZI: Okay. You guys took up some of my time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine, if you can wrap up in ten
seconds or so.
FLOCKERZI: Okay. Well, I ask your federal decision --
to stay out of federal law and rule against this amendment to this
decision.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, just a yes or no
question. Have you or your staff reviewed this proposal for legal
sufficiency?
MR. WEIGEL: We drafted it, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Ms. HcKnight.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's the next item.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Or Mr. HcHichael.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Alice, you speaking on
ultralights?
MR. DORRILL: This gentleman would then be your final
speaker.
MR. McMICHAEL: My name is Robert McMichael. I'm part
owner in the ultralight, and I feel as if I've been led down the
garden path here by the county commissioners, by the code
enforcement. I had an occupational license, and the time to do this
was before I got in business and before I spent $25,000. About a
month and a half ago I called Mr. Norris and told him why don't we get
together and talk about this. He said, no, we don't want you down
there, we're going to change the law, and that's how it ended. I
don't think that was exactly right the way this should be handled, and
if I have to, we're going to go to court over there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine, we'll see you there.
MR. McMICHAEL: Fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I will amend my
motion based on the input we just received to include ultralight
trainers also.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that -- is that acceptable, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No problem whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We think -- thank the petitioner for
pointing that out, that omission in our proposed ordinance change.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question for Mr.
Weigel, and this is the difference between these ultralights being
vessels when they're in the water. That's -- can you clarify that for
me? I mean, the gentleman brought it up. I want to make sure that
we're handling both ends of this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our ordinance says you can't operate
one within 500 feet, whether it's in the air or on the water, and
you're operating it; is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And also for the record I
don't think there's a deficiency in the ordinance as far as ultralight
or ultralight trainers, but -- but we're happy to make that addition
to it.
One thing in regard to Mr. Carsillo's discussion
concerning helicopters, this does provide within the ordinance and
where it's not changed, but it's in the very area that we're looking
at here. It refers to all aircraft including seaplanes and then goes
on to discuss -- it goes on to discuss ultralights. There are certain
constraints within this particular ordinance because it is a beach and
vessel regulation and water safety ordinance. So if there are
helicopters that are not within the proximities of this ordinance
application to beach and water, i.e., landing on residential areas
that are not within that area, that would not be addressed in this --
in this ordinance amendment as created.
I will say that as we went forward with our direction to
create this ordinance, we took upon ourselves, the county attorney
office, to draft a mock-up, stand-alone ordinance that has nothing do
with beach and water safety regulation which addresses aircraft and
helicopters and all of those things. So we've done the research. We
know what can be done if there's any further direction from the board
in that regard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. I'll close the public
hearing again, and we have a motion amended and a second accepted on
the floor. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
There are none.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 96-29 AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-17, THE COLLIER COUNTY NOISE
ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION SIX TO REDUCE THE SOUND LEVEL LIMIT
WITHIN A COMMERCIAL OR TOURIST CATEGORY THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN 1000
FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE OR OCCUPANCY ZONE - ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS
Should --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we do the one item and
then --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do the noise ordinance --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item anyway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and then take a lunch break. By
that time perhaps Commissioner Mac'Kie will be back with us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by way of introduction
on this next item, in 1993 I proposed and the board approved a change
to our local noise ordinance which dealt primarily with music and
entertainment establishments and for the most part solved that
problem. Unfortunately, the current writing, there are some
loopholes. We have had a particular problem, and there are some areas
that have had difficulty. I'm hard-pressed to think of a problem that
has been more frustrating. This has dragged on for a long time. But
the idea here is in the county obviously from this point forward we're
careful how we zone. But not knowing the extent of growth what
happened, there are certain areas where either commercial or
industrial areas directly abut neighborhoods. And what we didn't take
into account, there is a part of our noise ordinance that is separate
from the music part. And what we're looking to do is simply lower the
allowable decibel level from 65 to 60, which really will make those
neighborhoods a little more livable than the situation is now.
It's important to point out that if you're not familiar
with decibels, it's not necessarily to scale when you say 50 to 55, 60
to 65. If we sat quietly right here in this room and no one said
anything, just the air conditioners and those things are like 48, 49
decibels just as your standard noise reaches there. But we need to
find a level where businesses can go and do their thing but not be
impacting the neighborhoods that are directly adjacent. So we've
limited this to just those that are within a thousand feet, and I
think this will close that final loophole in what we were trying to
achieve a couple of years back when we altered the noise ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: One, Ms. McKnight. Yes, ma'am.
MS. McKNIGHT: My name is Alice McKnight, and I'm
president of the Walden Oaks Homeowners' Association. We abut the
King Richard's, which many of you know, I hope. And if don't, you
better get out there. Anyway, Tim has been working with us constantly
on it for about the last year. We have had the problem for two
years. The noise is so loud from the speakers and from the track, and
the track was expanded two years ago. We were never contacted. It
had no permit, and it was given a permit after it was expanded, and
all of this is hearsay and everything because now we really have --
this problem is serious because we have property devaluation very
serious in the Walden Oaks area.
We presently have over 200 homes. We will have 300
homes within the next two years. People can't even sell -- they can't
resell their properties. They're taking $20,000, $25,000 deducts
because you can't show the property during the afternoon. You can't
show it at night because the noise level is extreme. And we have
people telling us all the time I wouldn't have bought out here if I
had even know it existed. So it's an unfortunate thing.
Our developer told us originally when it was formed in
1989 when the development of Walden Oaks was there that it was going
to be a miniature golf course. Well, it's not a miniature golf
course. It's a very loud car track, and it has been expanded, and it
is right in our front yard. You can't sit at the pool without this
hottendons noise. You can't take a nap in the afternoon unless you
close the windows. You can't sit on your lanai in the evening because
this noise overpowers your conversation.
We appeal to all of you today to consider the lowering
of this noise -- noise ordinance because we feel that if there is
anything that's bothering residents such as a noise ordinance, that it
should have been addressed and completed and finished two years ago.
So we ask you to please do something about it. Our homeowners'
association has asked me to -- let's run ads -- full-page ads in the
Naples Daily News protesting this noise of King Richard's. Well, it's
costly for us. Certainly it's not good for you either. We ask you
today to please consider lowering this noise ordinance. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know this board hears all
the time from different communities that either things smell -- she's
not exaggerating a bit. If you're at the lanai, if you're at the pool
area, if you're anywhere, it's not good.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question before we
vote on the item. When we were adjusting the noise ordinance a couple
years ago, we heard from citizens in East Naples and North Naples
about shopping centers in the early morning hours with the delivery of
goods and so forth for the day, and I guess my -- my concern is this,
of course, is going to extend to those shopping centers in the early
morning hours that trucks and so forth are coming and going.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This actually will have
minimal impact on that because this is strictly changing the daytime
hour. It will not lower -- most of the truck activity for deliveries
and all had been prior to 7 a.m., so it will not make a big change,
although I know enforcement has worked better since we made that
change a couple of years ago on those.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's actually a solution that we had
gotten a little better voluntary cooperation on rather than having to
take some action.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a motion? I'll second
the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At night.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At night. I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(Applause)
We'll take a lunch break. Be back at 1:30.
(A lunch break was held between 12:19 a.m. to 1:35 p.m.)
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 96-273 RE PETITION CCSL-96-1, DOROTHEA ZYSKO OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OVERFLOW STRUCTURE PIPELINES AT CLAM
BAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene the county commission
meeting for this afternoon. Mr. Dotrill, I believe we're ready to go
to 12 -- 12(C)(2), petition CCSL-96-1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have that as 12(C)(3). Is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(C)(3). I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that on this item --
I spoke to the petitioners before they left. They may have had some
difficulty in coming back for it, so it's really not a -- a big item.
Our staff may be able to present it.
MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your
planning services staff. This item is a follow-up on something that
had been dealt with previously, and I -- and I understand the
petitioners were unable to stay. I don't see them returning to the
audience. If you'd like, we can go through the presentation, or we
might wait a moment to see if they want to come back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't believe they're going to
be here, Mr. Arnold, and I can probably expedite the presentation with
just saying that if -- if you may remember in the short-term solution,
one of the things that Pelican Bay services division was going to do
is attempt to permit an overflow structure. This is a request for a
variance from constructure -- excuse me, coastal construction setback
line to allow for this overflow structure. And that -- that's really
the crux of the request. I don't believe -- and you can correct me
if I'm wrong -- but I don't believe it's an impediment to people who
want to walk the beach as it's designed and so forth. It really is
not conflicting with that.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve petition
CCSL-96-1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 96-274 RE PETITION SNR-96-5, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM ELKCAM
CIRCLE TO ELKCAM CIRCLE EAST FOR THAT PORTION LYING EAST OF BALD EAGLE
DRIVE AND ELKCAM CIRCLE WEST FOR THAT PORTION LYING WEST OF BALD EAGLE
DRIVE IN THE MARCO BEACH SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE
We'll move on to next item, 12(C)(4), petition
SNR-96-5. Name change on Elkcam Circle.
MR. REISCHL: Elkcam Circle. Fred Reischl, planning
services. This is request by the building review and permitting
department to change the name of Elkcam Circle to Elkcam Circle East
and Elkcam Circle West. The street apparently today has --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, this makes a
tremendous amount of sense to me.
MR. REISCHL: And to our staff also.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I like to hear that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are some speakers. Mr. Parker.
MR. REISCHL: And I did receive phone call -- three
phone calls in opposition and two phone calls in support, so there
were mixed feelings that I received.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was -- what was the
nature of the opposition?
MR. REISCHL: That they would have to change --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The address.
MR. REISCHL: -- stationery, letterhead, et cetera.
Staff, however, believes that next month ZIP codes are going to
change. This would be an opportune time to make a change.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any other name changes we need
to do we can do them before July 1.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, now would be a good time.
MR. REISCHL: I'll -- I'll let the addressing department
know, and they can check through that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then we can do it all at one
time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sure even the postal service is
going to enjoy this name change.
MR. REISCHL: Yeah. The postal service had no
objection. 911 coordinator came out in support.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If any of the speakers would
like to come up and try to talk us out of this, you're welcome to do
it. You're first, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Parker. Mr. Kingsbury, you'll be
next.
MR. PARKER: My name is Jerry Parker. I represent Marco
Presbyterian Church. Our request is simple: That rather than be
Elkcam Circle West it be West Elkcam Circle. This has been the
designation that we have been instructed to use by the postal service
for some time. We've recently completed a major expansion on our
church including a very expensive sign in the front which has West
Elkcam Circle on it. All the letterhead and all that, that's no
problem to us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. PARKER: But if -- if it could be West Elkcam Circle
rather than West -- than Elkcam Circle West, it -- it would suit us
much better.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any compelling reason, Mr.
Reischl, to go one way or the other?
MR. REISCHL: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. PARKER: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kingsbury.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's just yielding. They're all
yielding. They're not going to come speak so you --
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion -- I'm sorry. Did you
want to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I just want to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was gonna --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- clarify whether we should make it
West and East Elkcam Circle or put the west and east at the end. Does
it make any difference? Mr. Weigel, do you have any advice on that?
Mr. Dotrill, this make any difference?
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe it does as long as it's
clear for --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any reason not to do it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since a preference has been
stated and there doesn't appear to be any difficulty or opposition --
is that correct, Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any difficulty or opposition to
making it East Elkcam Circle, West Elkcam Circle?
MR. REISCHL: No. I was just reading what -- the post
office had a recommendation here. The post office is using the
suffix, not the prefix, Elkcam Circle West, Elkcam Circle East.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They'll get over it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure it matters.
MR. REISCHL: That's unofficial. The post office was
just using those. Obviously it's not on the plat.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm -- I'm not sure it
matters because Longshore we have Longshore Way West, Longshore Way
North. We'll have a south if we don't already and a -- and a east.
And some people say East Longshore; some say Longshore West and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, I -- I -- it doesn't seem to
make much difference so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think anybody's having
trouble getting mail.
MR. REISCHL: I think the main thrust was getting --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not because of that?
MR. REISCHL: -- emergency personnel to the correct
address.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not because of that, right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion that
we approve SNR-96 -- SNR-96-5 with the only change being that east and
west be used as prefix and not suffix.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #12C5
ORDINANCE 96-30 RE TDR-96-1, MS. CATHERINE E. KIDON OF TREISER, KOBZA &
VOLPE, CHTD, REPRESENTING SOUTHWEST MOTELS CORPORATION FOR AN
APPLICATION TO EFFECT A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - ADOPTED.
EMERGENCY DECLARED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO AMEND ORDINANCE 91-102 RE
NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE TRANSFERRED AND BROUGHT BACK AT 6/18/96 MEETING
Next item is petition TDR-96-1.
HR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your
planning services department. This is a request by Catherine Kidon of
Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe requesting the authorization of transfer
development rights on property. And this is one of the first transfer
development rights that we've brought before you which may make it
somewhat of a policy issue. But the Land Development Code gives us
authorization to administratively approve transfer development rights
under the formula that is in the Land Development Code.
And the action that's before you essentially is to go
ahead and create an ordinance that would transmit the title of the
property that is the sending zone under the name of the Conservancy.
And this would, in fact, raise the maximum hotel units from 93 on the
subject site to 102 units on that site.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, our booklet with the maps
in our back-up, I'm having a little bit of difficulty telling exactly
where this -- the --
MR. ARNOLD: The sending zone?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- the donor property is.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a copy of the future land use
map with me. I apologize. But this property is located in an area
that's currently designated conservation and appears in green on our
future land use map.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's conservation and ST?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's an ST overlay on it?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, there is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- I'll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. It -- it just looks like, you
know, we're -- we're trading -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unusable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- trading completely unusable land
somewhere, and I don't -- you know, I'm not sure where it is. But
we're trading completely unusable land to increase density within the
urban area. I'm not sure that that's what the board wants to do.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I appreciate that. We have -- at
least at the staff level have also discussed this issue and wish to
bring some amendments to this section of the code back before you at
some near Land Development Code cycle because we too would like to
fold this in with some other things we may be using to look at the
density issue as well.
But I think in this particular case I think the argument
would be and the application of the transfer development rights is
such that we are forever now preserving that land from being
developed, albeit it can only be developed at one unit per five
acres.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the phrase transfer of
development, if we dissect it, would think that you could have
development here but we're going to transfer that development
somewhere else.
MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what you say on the
second page of our executive summary is that nonurbanized designated
area of land would qualify for one residential unit every five acres,
which they're already asking for more than that, provided the land has
frontage on approved public or private street which this does not.
So going back to the definition of that phrase, transfer
of development, they -- they can't develop that. And -- and even if
there is a road there, they can't develop it to the intensity that
they're asking to be transferred.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is -- is that correct that we're
asking to transfer the right of a nonpermitted use in one zoning
district to become a permitted use in another zoning district because
you can't build --
MR. ARNOLD: What we're transferring is the equivalent
resident -- not equivalent but a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: ERU.
MR. ARNOLD: -- but an equivalent residential unit, if
you will. And that conversion is specified in our code at so many
units per acre based on the zoning district that you're sending it
to. And that -- I think that's understandable. But I certainly
appreciate the issue at hand, and that is are we getting something of
equal value out of this. And I think in this particular case we're
getting 20 acres of preservation land for the 9 dwelling units that
are going to this RT zoned property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it seems to me with all
the zoning that already exists there and considering the location,
it's going to be pretty hardpressed to develop that anyway. The only
real difference is going to be it then in perpetuity is in public or
in a trust anyway for -- for nonuse but -- and I understand you're
wrestling with the current Land Development Code and what the county
can do, but my comfort level with this is nonexistent. It just seems
to me the one message we have gotten loud and clear over the last
several years is we need to get a little handle on all the growth
that's going on. And by offering essentially a bonus on land that
can't be developed anyway, we're not doing that in my mind.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In my opinion, if this request
were for a transfer of 4 equivalent residential units -- because it's
20 acres. You're allowed to develop at one unit per five acres.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it was a request for four
additional units in the urban area, I think we want to encourage -- if
there's any development, we'd rather have it near services than
outside of the services, and that -- and that makes sense. So that
would be an even TDR. In my opinion, it would be worthy of at least
some level of consideration. But to request nine mult -- you know,
hotel units in exchange for what would have been four single-family or
four residential units is not an equivalent TDR. There has to be a
much higher public benefit than what I'm -- I'm perceiving to approve
that transaction. It's just my -- my opinion on this matter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How did we get to the nine?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably just the request.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, under the RT district, which the
receiving zone would be, the -- that allows up to 16 units per acre
outside an activity center, 26 units per acre within an activity
center. And you take either -- at 16 units an acre you can exceed the
maximum permissible density by a factor of 1.6. You take that 1.6
times the acreage that youwre -- or times the --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But --
MR. ARNOLD: -- dwelling-unit-per-acre count of your
sending zone --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Theywre using the receiving
zoning. Thatws what it is.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I agree. I thought
TDRs were to transfer development rights from one parcel of land to
another parcel of land. The -- the property from which itws being
transferred is 1 unit per 5, not 1 unit per whatever or 1.6 units per
whatever.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. But the way that our -- the way
that the Land Development --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Itls ludicrous.
MR. ARNOLD: -- Code has been structured with respect to
the transfer of development rights, you have to have ST-designated
lands to -- to qualify for the sending of this property, and then
there was also an assumption of a public benefit for getting these
lands that we intended to be preserved in public hands and then
forever being preserved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, did we write in an
incentive? Is that what I -- did we, in fact, in that ordinance write
in an incentive to consider additional units above whatls being
transferred?
MR. ARNOLD: Iim not sure I follow. Above the base
density of the sending zone?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, correct. Is -- is that
anywhere in the ordinance that we said we would consider an increase
above the base density from the sending zone in exchange for lands in
ST designation?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the -- the way the language is
structured, it says that the maximum number of units -- it says the
maximum, and I will give you that. It says the maximum number of
units to be transferred from ST land to non-ST land are compiled based
on the basis of each acre of ST land, following rate: .5 units of
residential units to each 1 acre of ST land, so .5 times 20 --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I gotcha.
MR. ARNOLD: -- is your factor.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I just -- I canlt buy
into this because, I mean, you can go out and purchase a piece of
property in the middle of nowhere that is absolutely useless under
current zoning, doesnlt even have any public or private road frontage
for 800 bucks an acre and then transfer development rights at an urban
designation zoning and far exceed any investment you made in that 800
bucks an acre.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the rate of two units an acre
is what Iim hearing, .5 times the amount of acreage. Now, the problem
we may have here is -- and I donlt -- I donlt really see it as a
problem -- is welre not necessarily fighting Mr. -- Mr. Arnoldls
interpretation as much as we are the actual ordinance and the wording
in the ordinance. I believe that amount is discretionary of up to .5
per acre, and -- and that may be where the discussion needs to take
place.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Didnlt Mr. Arnold say that they
were looking at amending this ordinance --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in the near future?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, I think we should take a look at
-- do we have some comments by the petitioner? Is the petitioner
here?
MR. DORRILL: He's here.
MR. KOBZA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board. For purposes of the record, my name's Kim Patrick
Kobza, and I represent Southwest Hotels Development Corporation.
Like you, we're -- we're probing for -- for answering
exactly how to -- how to work with this ordinance. We structured the
application in a way that we felt that it fell within the intent of
the ordinance which is basically to -- to encourage private
participation in setting aside environmentally sensitive property for
transfers of density where they have minimal impacts. And I would not
suggest to the board that any and all applications that come before
you merit that kind of consideration because clearly they don't.
There are some -- this is the very first petition that
I'm aware of -- and I think the ordinance has been on the books for a
number of years now -- that comes under the TDR process. And so in
fairness, it's -- you know, the fact that we are trying to understand
it a little bit is -- is -- is completely understandable.
The property that would receive the density here is
already zoned for 93 units of hotel zoning. And the reason for the
application was simply that 100 units is a -- kind of a magic number
in the hotel industry because that qualifies you for a franchise
consideration.
The property is located on U.S. 41 North in Naples in
the urban area. It -- adding the 9 units to this particular parcel is
not going to greatly, if at all, increase the impacts of -- that are
attendant to that site. So it's much different in character than
other types of transfers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where is the location exactly?
Can you help me?
MR. KOBZA: It's -- okay. If you -- on North Naples,
North U.S. 41, east side of the road in the vicinity of the Pewter Hug
restaurant --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Right --
MR. KOBZA: Right in that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That hotel site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- right -- right before the
river on the right-hand side.
MR. KOBZA: Right. It's that whole -- exactly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That hotel site right before --
MR. KOBZA: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the little garden -- garden
center there.
MR. KOBZA: Right. And -- and that is currently zoned
for the hotel of 93 units, and so this would be the additional units.
Now, under the language of the ordinance, we just
followed very carefully what that criteria was and what the approach
of the ordinance was. If you have other direction, we certainly would
follow whatever that direction would be as well.
There are limits in the ordinance itself which I think
you need to be aware of. In other words, it's not a -- the ordinance
has protections in terms of the actual amount of density that can be
transferred as a percentage of the allowed density on the -- on any
given site. So there are limitations built into the ordinance
language itself. It's not a floodgate for any petitioner to come
before you, achieve unlimited density. It can't happen that way.
So we -- we followed the criteria. We followed the
ordinance. We are, like your staff, looking for direction. But I
would submit to you that if the intent of this ordinance is to
encourage private participation in the protection of environmentally
sensitive property, the transfer to this kind of site where you have
no additional impacts is the type of thing that this ordinance would
-- would try to encourage. And so we're trying to work within that
intent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any other --
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do we need findings to
deny -- deny this petition?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. Pursuant to the ordinance, the development
services department has been granted the authority on approving, if
you will, the density. And the board retained the authority to
approve the guarantee that the property would not be developed. And
the way the ordinance is crafted, you acknowledge or ratify, if you
will, what the development services department did, and then the
second portion deals with approval of the guarantee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I was kind of heading
down the path of --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So what does it mean?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of maybe approving four units
an acre transfer -- or I mean four units total transferred because
that would seem consistent with me -- with what we're really -- what
TDR's trying to achieve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion for
the time being.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd -- I'd ask Mrs. Student to
tell me what it --
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- means, what she just said.
MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. What -- what that means is
when the ordinance was drafted, the then Board of County Commissioners
gave the authority to the development services department to approve
the amount of density. And the authority that the then Board of
County Commissioners retained was to approve the guarantee that is in
the deed that is attached to the ordinance. The reason you have an
ordinance before you is because the Land Development Code calls for an
ordinance approving the guarantee. So this was -- we didn't have such
an ordinance on -- on the books, so I drafted it in such a way where
you would be acknowledging the transfer of the density which
development services had approved. And the second section of the
ordinance sets forth the approval of the guarantee language to track
what's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it sounds like two separate
motions are necessary: One addressing the density that staff has put
before us and the second addressing the -- the adoption of the
ordinance; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: Well, actually the way the ordinance is
written the -- the development services has the authority on the
density. So you would be acknowledging that. It's not an approval
because under the ordinance the authority for the approval has already
been given to development services. So it would merely be an
acknowledgment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the ordinance -- the
ordinance as you wrote it gives absolutely no authority to the board
of commissioners.
MS. STUDENT: No, I'm -- it was written -- the ordinance
that you have before you was written under the Land Development Code.
And so there's -- the authority has already been granted to
development services to approve the density. I crafted it in such a
way so you would be acknowledging that, not another approval because
that would be inconsistent with the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we refuse to
acknowledge that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then it doesn't happen.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I might add --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: -- staff has not administratively approved
the density transfer, nor have we approved a site development plan for
this property as well. Nothing under correspondence that would allude
to the fact we approved or authorized this density transfer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, in order to meet the
-- the scenario Miss Student has put forward, would you as staff be
willing to stipulate that you think four units transferred is an
acceptable level and that would then allow the board to make a motion
to adopt that? Would that be the course that we're talking about,
Miss Student?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. I think that if we had it on the
record what staff thought was appropriate that that would -- that
would work.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Miss Student, let me see if I
understand. I -- the way I understand your comments here, you're
saying that the Board of County Commissioners doesn't have the
authority to deny this application.
MS. STUDENT: It's already been set up in the land code
that the approval of it is to development services or denial. You
could read that into it, to deny -- a denial, but I don't believe
there's any criteria really for denial in the code. There's just a
formula set up for the amount the receiving parcel can receive. And
because of the way the ordinance reads and is drafted, the authority
is with the development services department to determine what the
appropriate density is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're going to stop right
there.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What do you feel an appropriate
density for transfer of development rights would be on this parcel?
MR. ARNOLD: I would suggest that given the scenario
that you've -- you've given in terms of the density looking at the --
the number of density units that that site could otherwise be
developed at is probably a very -- probably a very proper way of
handling the transfer of development rights on those because otherwise
even though it says at a maximum of .5 times that, I think it goes to
the issue we haven't been faced with a large scale development and
what that could do if someone decided to buy 100 acres, 500 acres, et
cetera, and look at that density impact as well. So I think until we
can get back to you with some proposed amendments to this ordinance, I
think that that is a very good solution to this issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the four units an acre you
believe would be a good solution.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, not four units per acre.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four units total, four units
total you believe under what's been said today would be a -- a
reasonable solution.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on development services'
input, I'll make a motion to accept or to approve the ordinance
indicating a transfer of four units.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That we acknowledge staff's
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That we acknowledge staff's
recognition that four is an appropriate number and that we approve the
ordinance as such. You want to talk about, you know, swimming in
something --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a public hearing?
Have you closed it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have not closed it. Oh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually you did because I
blurted mine out, and then I withdrew it again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Yeah. Close -- I'll reclose
the public hearing in any case. Do we have a second for that motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll second that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not going to support this motion.
I don't think we should do this at all. I just am real uncomfortable
that we're taking worthless swamp land and -- and trading it for any
units at all in the urban area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you why I -- the
only reason I'm seconding -- seconding it is because it's the way Land
Development Code reads now. I -- I think you are absolutely right.
We shouldn't be doing it. It's not how the law should read. And
thank heavens none of the four of us voted on that particular --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we -- Mr. Weigel, can we put some
sort of a hold on that particular section of the Land Development Code
in anticipation of revision?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you can. You're talking
about separate from this particular agenda item itself?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would rather do it in advance of
this agenda item, of course, but -- but separate from it.
MR. WEIGEL: I would rather you do it after this agenda
item if you would, please. I think we'd be in a better position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assuming there are none --
none others in progress, then we can -- your answer is yes, we can do
that?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I'm -- I'm being told there's another
one in progress.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I think what's --
MR. WEIGEL: How far I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we have is we have -- and it
-- like Commissioner Constantine said, we, the people sitting here,
as far as I know did not create that ordinance. But we are dealt with
a difficulty in handling it and assessing it in a -- in a manner we
feel is appropriate. What I'm concerned about in this position is
based on the ordinance we've adopted what legal rights and challenges
the petitioner -- petitioner may have. And if we're, in fact,
arbitrarily or may be perceived forcing them into legal action that
we're probably going to have a tough time defending, we may want to
alter this in a reasonable form today and then after this item make
the statement that we need to revise the ordinance prior to
consideration of -- of future items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we make an emergency amendment to
an ordinance today?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can. It'd take a declaration of
emergency and four-fifths vote of the board. It's nonadvertised
obviously. It can be done.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As much as I think this is a
horrible idea, I would not vote in favor of that just because I --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hate to be crafting ordinances
from the dais.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it's not good
government, but the -- I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a --
it's a lousy law. And -- and Mr. Kobza has come in under the existing
law, and I think Commissioner Hancock and Mr. Arnold's suggestions are
good ones considering the existing law. They're the best we're gonna
do and still stay legal. But then I'd like to do what you're
suggesting, and that is let's put a hold from here on because it's
just -- it's bad gov -- it's bad law.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to -- we may want to
give staff direction at this time that prior to any of these coming
back before the board if an emergency declaration is necessary we're
going to need to address --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got one in the pipeline
now.
CONMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're going to need to
address before that becomes a public hearing item this ordinance
because its application is obviously not consistent with the direction
this board wants to take.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we -- can we declare an emergency,
make an amendment to the ordinance directing you to immediately change
the -- the authority to grant these from staff back to the board?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can do that if you -- if you take
it before the -- declare an emergency. You must declare an
emergency. It takes a four-fifths vote to do that, and then you can
go on about your business as you wish as far as directing staff to
amend an ordinance and bring it back. Or you can -- upon declaration
of emergency, you can go immediately to the ordinance amending
process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the latter part of that
would require more preparation than we're ready to do today. Maybe to
avoid this same question and difficulty next time, I'm going to make a
motion for declaration of emergency to amend -- and help me with the
ordinance number, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: It would be Land Development Code ordinance
91-102 as amended.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Land Development Code ordinance
91-102 to give the authority of approval of staff recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners regarding density units to be
transferred or number of units to be transferred. Is that the intent
you were seeking, Mr. Norris?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think so.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, if you're going to declare an
emergency and go forward, if you don't want to do the amendment on the
floor today, what I could advise you -- and I've been told that, for
instance, this other petition that's in the pipeline would be at least
a couple weeks before it would be before the board -- is that you
could use the -- the forum that you have today, the public record,
declaring an emergency and directing staff to bring an ordinance back
next week. We could present one to you next week. We may not have it
in the agenda package, but we certainly have it available and at the
same time have done -- done all things appropriate to advise the
media, et cetera --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm much more comfortable
doing that than trying to change it today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good idea.
MR. WEIGEL: So it's an emergence -- it's an emergency
in the sense that we have not reached -- met our ten-day normal
ordinance requirement. But in good faith we've done everything but
meet that requirement, and it could come as an agenda item this next
week.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to withdraw my
motion and substitute a new motion declaring an emergency and asking
staff to bring back ordinance 91-102 is it?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I can give you the specific section
number if you would like for the record.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Section 2.2.24.10 of ordinance
91-102, for the staff to bring that back next week. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That takes care of that item.
Item #10C
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD CONCERNING
WEIR HEIGHTS IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - DISCUSSED. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM THE DISTRICT
We will -- we have to skip back -- Commissioner
Mac'Kie's still not here. We'll have to skip back to item 12(B)(3),
PUD-96-7.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I hope Commissioner Mac'Kie's
absence doesn't mean there was a problem at graduation. A couple kids
showed up drunk.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is elementary school.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we on? 12(B)(3)?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(B)(3). Mr. Duane, this is a super
majority type item. If you don't want it heard today -- MR. DUANE: Yeah. We -- we would defer until -- Miss
Mac'Kie said she would be back if we could just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is no more items to be heard
before Commissioner Mac'Kie gets back.
MR. DUANE: Okay. Well, that being the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She wanted to hear this.
MR. DUANE: Okay. Is it possible we put it on to your
agenda further on the agenda? Otherwise we would continue it. That
would be our preference, to try to get a hearing today, and that would
be my request before the board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're more than happy to hear it
for you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean upon the return of
Commissioner Hac'Kie I assume.
MR. DUANE: Yeah. She asked specifically that she be
able to hear this petition today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we fine her for being late?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She also asked specifically to hear
these items.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid we're going to have to
continue with the meeting in some form. I don't have a problem with
Mr. Duane's request of moving that item to the end of the agenda today
and going back to item 10(C). I know Commissioner Hac'Kie requested
to be here, but she also stated she'd be back at 1:30. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm comfortable moving his
item to the end of the agenda, proceeding at 10(C), and completing
that agenda that way if there's no objections from the board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She's on her way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She's on her way '-
MS. FILSON: (Ms. Filson nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so we will go to 10(C) then.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because there are some folks here
on that item, aren't there?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I wouldn't doubt it.
MR. TIERS: Good afternoon. I'm the interim director
for the Big Cypress Basin. My name is Clarence Tiers. I'm basically
here to try to -- try to explain what happened in the southern Golden
Gates (sic) Estates weirs.
In the early nineties we started going through a time
when we started experiencing droughts, and the basin at that time was
cleaning up the structures and the canals. And we noticed we were
starting to get overdrainage in the southern Golden Gates Estate
area.
So what we did is we're having problems at the same time
with fishermen taking out the stop logs. If you're familiar with stop
logs, what they do, it's a inexpensive way of raising the crest when
you have a fixed-crest weir. So the fishermen during the dry season
would open the stop logs and cause the water to go -- be released.
So what we decided to do in -- it was in 1993. We added
some sheet steel which is a lot heavier. And what we failed to do at
that time was to take a look at the permit. And some of the
elevations that we had utilized was about 3.3 feet.
And from the permit that I just reviewed in the last few
weeks, the elevation for Miller 1 and Faka Union 2 stated 1.1 and two
point --
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the proceedings.)
MR. TIERS: -- 2.2. So we're a little higher than that
recommended -- permitted elevation. So the previous directors -- we
had two of them, Meeker and Paul Van Buskirk. Meeker went out to the
southern Golden Gates Estates in 1995, and he realized there was a
problem. And he directed staff to cut the center board which acted as
a bleeder notch. So basically they were operating according to the
permitted criteria. And every time the water level went above that
notch, they would remove the sheet steel.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question
for --
MR. TIERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- clarification there? The
conversations with Mr. Meeker indicate he asked that those be cut down
to size and was under the impression that they were cut all the way
across. I don't think he specified just the center.
MR. TIERS: All right. I -- I checked with basin staff,
and I checked with assistant regional O and M director, and he
informed me that Meeker asked him to cut the center bay. So based on
my discussions with staff, that's the information I can provide you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a -- as a follow-up to that --
and I'm fairly familiar with water management structures and
techniques --
MR. TIERS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when this structure was
permitted at a certain elevation, it was permitted as a set type
structure too. That's all a part of the permit. They don't -- they
don't -- you don't, you know, get a permit for a notch weir and then
install a different type of weir. Likewise you don't get a permit for
a weir that has a flat surface on the top and then create elevation on
each side to create a bleed-down structure after the permit's issued.
So the permit that was issued on this particular weir wasn't issued at
a set elevation and a certain type of weir that does not exist today.
MR. TIERS: I agree.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. TIERS: All right. So after reviewing everything --
which, you know, when Emma Ross came to my office, I didn't have all
the facts. So I told her at that time I was going to look at pursuing
modifying the permit while I was gathering more facts. And after
reviewing all the facts, I determined that at this point because of
public perception and based on my feelings of the permit, I had staff
go out there and cut the gates.
So right now those two structures are at the proper
elevation. We are pursuing a permit with DEP because since we cleaned
the canals in the early -- or late eighties, early nineties, we
noticed we're overdraining the system. And the water elevations in
that system are usually higher -- are always higher than the permitted
elevation. And I have ten years of data to prove that.
So our concern right now is the system's being
overdrained, and we're going to pursue trying to raise the crest of
those two structures.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The two that you sent staff
out to cut, are they cut all the way across? MR. TIERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And am I correct --
MR. TIERS: That was done -- that was done last Friday,
and they only missed one bay, and this morning they were supposed to
finish that up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correct that if I have a
weir at elevation 10 permitted and I come in and install flashboards
on half of my -- half of my openings to bring it up to elevation 12 in
those areas that I have violated my permit?
MR. TIERS: Well, I'm not an attorney, so I -- I -- I
wouldn't like to answer that one. I mean --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you -- do you investigate --
do you investigate modifications to weirs to determine whether or not
they are operating according to permit?
MR. TIERS: We have staff that does, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem we have is there's --
there's a very -- there's no public confidence whatsoever out there
that what is said today is going to happen because it's been said
twice before and hasn't happened. I understand you're an interim
director. I'm not trying to put the weight of the world on your
shoulders. But, you know --
MR. TIERS: Okay. Let me explain. The two previous
administrators -- I have documentation that they felt after reviewing
the permit -- I haven't talked to them personally, but they must have
felt by cutting that center bay and regulating the system they were
following operational criteria. After review by district legal staff
and talking to them and reviewing the information, I felt that it was
best to cut the structures to the permitted elevation, so I did that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To change the permit, will it be
a public hearing process where the public can -- has the opportunity
to appear and voice either opposition or support for the action you're
proposing?
MR. TIERS: Yes, it should because it will have to go
before the Big Cypress Basin Board, and they'll have a opportunity to
voice their opinion.
All -- also another thing that's really important here
is that we only add the steel during the dry season. So it has no
impact whatsoever on the wet season. And the ten years of data show
that the water levels never dropped below roughly about a three in the
-- in the southern Golden Gates Estate area. But whenever the wet
season starts, we always remove the steel. So from an operational
standpoint, we did try to operate it. But it was an oversight in 1993
when we initially installed the steel because we were trying to save
precious water that we did not look at the permitted elevation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who is the permittee on these
structures?
MR. TIERS: At the -- at the time the permit was issued,
it was Collier County. And when we assumed the canals, the permits
were transferred to us. And a lot of times the paperwork didn't
follow.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the permits are still in our
name?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. TIERS: Yes, it is, but through the assignment and
assumption agreement, I'm sure the permits were transferred to the
district. But the permit itself is issued to the county commission.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and you're pursuing a --
an amendment to the permits through the DEP, and there will be a
public hearing before the basin board? And are you going to rename
the permittee the basin board?
MR. TIERS: That's correct. We would be requesting to
modify that permit because we can't issue permits to -- the district
cannot issue permits to themselves. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
MR. TIERS: And the item would be discussed before the
Big Cypress Basin Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand that question. Then the district would be issuing them to
the basin board? Is that --
MR. TIERS: No, no -- no, no, no. The district --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. The DEP.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The DEP would issue --
MR. TIERS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The DEP will issue the permit to
the -- MR. TIERS: See, originally the district issued the
permit to Collier County.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. TIERS: But because of the transfer of the permit to
the basin, the district can no longer issue a permit to itself.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, are you equally
sure that the transfer of the ownership of those weirs meant that the
permits were transferred, everything -- everything went -- maybe it
is. Maybe it's not. I don't know.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not at this moment able to say I'm
equally sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do you have anything you
want to share with us?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. You do have some speakers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question before we
do that, and this is kind of -- MR. TIERS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- trying to understand the
weirs and the way they work, and this constituent actually wrote this
down for me. If -- if all the canals start out flush and the tops of
the weirs that control them is roughly where the water level is and --
and the bottom gates are open all the way, how many hours or days or
weeks -- how long would it take to drop the water level a total of a
foot or a total of two feet or -- and why I ask is if we know a storm
is coming or if we know a particular event is happening, how much
prior notice do we need to actually be able to impact?
MR. TIERS: Let me say something here that everybody
overlooks is that in Collier County you have a drainage system. It's
not a flood control system. It's just a drainage system. All we've
done over the years is modify that drainage system to store more water
without impacting the drainage capabilities of that system.
Your question, there's a lot of variables involved.
It's how much rain we had the day before, what the ground elevations
are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I filled that variable in.
We're saying exactly flush with the -- with the weirs.
MR. TIERS: Exactly flush with the weir? Well, if it
was exactly flush with the weir, it wouldn't allow for drainage
because the weir's a fixed-crest structure. So once it reaches that
elevation, the canal doesn't drain.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me rephrase the question in a
way that maybe is understandable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: With the gates fully open, do you
have a cubic foot -- not -- with the gates fully open, do you have a
cubic foot discharge per hour that the system can release with all
gates fully open in the estates drainage system?
MR. TIERS: In the Golden Gate Estates? There's a flow
-- there's a flow rate across the weir basically. During the wet
season we pull the steel, and at that point the steel serves no
purpose. So basically the -- the restricting control factor is the
weir itself. So it's based on the elevation of the water above the
weir to the flow rate across the weir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the difference between
gates and weirs.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the weir wasn't there it
would --
MR. TIERS: You're comparing two different things.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one question I need to
ask because I -- I'm not sure I totally understand it. MR. TIERS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We talked about holding back
water for recharge purposes, increased hydro period and so forth.
Have we seen or is the district aware that the potable water table for
Collier County has dropped appreciably year after year after year for
the last 10 or 20 years? In other words, if we're holding water back
to recharge the aqui -- aquifer, have we established a need by seeing
a -- a -- a dropping of the average water table in the county?
MR. TIERS: I don't have the answers to that question.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Or is it just assuming that's
going to happen so we're going to hold back water?
MR. TIERS: Well, with all the efforts to look for
alternative water supplies, I'm sure there is data that prove that we
are impacting the current system, the existing system.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we get a copy of that
data at some point in the very near future? MR. TIERS: Sure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I -- I have -- I have
conflicting information. I have -- I have hydrogeo -- geologists
telling me we can pump water without an appreciable drop in the water
table in Collier County based on current patterns far in excess of
what the demands are going to be. Now, I'm not telling you I believe
that's true or not. But I'm saying I have hydrogeologists telling me
that. And if we're going to set up weirs to hold back water, I need
to know there's a reason for doing it and a documented need to do it
because those weirs do, in fact, you know, contribute to a stacking
level of flooding during periods of heavy rain. So I need to know
that the need is there, and I need it documented personally. MR. TIERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Townsend.
MR. TIERS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ferguson, you'll follow him if I can
have you stand by, please, sir.
MR. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon. Joe Townsend, the
president of the Sable Palm Association. We're immediately adjoining
Golden Gate Estates to the west.
Personal inspection of that area for the last 20 years
has always -- it's been my opinion that we have unnatural flooding in
the area and always have had unnatural flooding. We have high areas
under water in the rainy season. It's not just the Golden Gate
weirs. They acerbated (sic) the -- the problem. It was also the
farming berms that exist north of U.S. 41 south of the Belle Meade
area.
So when we couple that with -- the paper, I think, the
editorial, stated it best. We don't know if they're pulling
shenanigans or incompetent, but somebody went out there and raised the
weirs on an already bad situation. And I argue strongly that they
pull them out in time for the Golden Gate Estates area to drain
properly in the rainy season. I think management is our biggest
problem out there.
If we could not allow this to go unnoticed or -- or --
or uninvestigated, it would really, I think, serve the people who have
been -- who have received blight condemnation or the threat of
condemnation from the state of Florida in the purchase of properties.
And flooding is an excellent way to devalue properties. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ferguson and then Ms. Durrwachter.
MR. FERGUSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and
gentlemen of the commission. I'm Timothy Ferguson for the record. I
represent Sable Palm Road Association. I represent Sable Palm Road
MSTBU. I represent several property owners in the Belle Meade area.
And I think -- I've been to Tallahassee three times.
I've been to Fort Myers three times. I've been before this board.
And I think the time has come to reverse the flow of exploitation here
because what I've seen in my travels and my representations before the
LA -- AC in Tallahassee, the state really wants this land, but the
state really doesn't want to pay for it. And we get involved with a
circular argument with the state continuously.
And what I would like to see is some sort of
explanation, a holistic explanation, of what it is the South Florida
Water Management District is really doing out there. I'd like for
them to come out and actually say because I was told by a very high
level person in South Florida Water Management District in West Palm
Beach that they intend to flood that area. That's their intent. And
the reason why they intend to do it is because Rookery Bay and the Ten
Thousand Islands are getting too much water. They think they're
getting too much fresh water. They think we've got too much
impervious surface here and the water flow, it's just flowing too fast
into Rookery Bay. That's what they think.
They've got no empirical data to prove it, but they --
they continuously -- I was also told that they were going to take the
water from I-seventy -- north of 1-75 and put it in the Belle Meade.
And when I -- when I ask about what happens to people's property
rights when they do that, I was summarily dismissed.
The state is trying to take that property, and they're
trying to reduce that property value to a price that they want to pay
for it. And it's exploitation. It's extortion. It's going on. I've
said this at the state level. You've heard it a couple times from
me. I can't get a plan from these people. And the -- the CARL
project people are advisory in nature. So when they make a decision,
you can't sue them because it's just an advisory decision. They're
not making a public policy decision that you can sue over. And so
they're avoiding litigation over this by calling it an advisory
opinion.
And we have testimony by officials that were part of DEP
that now are in private practice that decisions about permits were
made based on the state's desire to own this property. Permits are
denied. You have to send applications to Tallahassee. They sit there
for six months before they come back.
In my attempt to get some reasonable access to the
people in the Belle Heade through Sable Palm Road, we were given
letters that allowed us to go out and maintain the road. And when we
started to go out and maintain the road, they give us a stop work
order and threaten the county with -- with fines.
And I have to go in, and I have to re-explain all this
to them. It's taken years just to get to the point where they're even
willing to let us maintain or provide any access.
Now, these people pay taxes out there. And granted,
they're beyond the urban services line, but they ought to be able to
get a fire truck, and they ought to be able to get an ambulance, and
they ought to be able to get a police car out there if they need to,
and they can't. So they're getting nothing for their tax money out
there.
And granted, a lot of it's agriculturally exempt, but
they're still paying taxes, and they ought to be able to at least get
the minimum.
And we won't even touch on the evacuation issues from --
from Marco Island or from any of those places that some of these roads
that have been just -- they just said absolutely not. Don't even give
us a permit application because we're not going to approve it, and
we're not going to do -- we're not going to take their advice on
that. We're certainly going to give them permit applications.
But I think it's time that they come in and give this
board an explanation and give us all an explanation of exactly what it
is they're doing because they won't give anybody an explanation. They
won't give me an explanation.
So that's what I'd like to see from the board. You
know, we're talking about -- he's talking about data that states that
the -- the heighth of the water out there's been level at three feet
for ten years. What about last year? I -- I -- I can't even hardly
believe it. I hear things I can't believe. And, you know, I'd love
to see something I believe, and I haven't seen it. And I would hope
that the board can at least get an explanation for yourselves. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Durrwachter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I believe Mr. Tiers said
that the water had been above three feet, not at three feet.
MR. FERGUSON: If I could get a clarification, I thought
he said he had data that the water level as a whole out there had been
the same for ten years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to be on the microphone.
MR. FERGUSON: I said if I could get some clarification,
I thought he said the water level out there as a whole for the last
ten years has been the same and I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's sitting right there. You're
certainly welcome to ask him.
MR. TIERS: Well, basically what I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You have to be on the
microphone.
MR. TIERS: What I was trying to state is that the fixed
crests, we're apportioning the weirs at a 1.1, and even with the log
-- the stop log or the steel in place, the water level's always been
above that point. And then average over the years has been above
three.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Above three.
MR. TIERS: So even with the weirs and plates out and
everything, the water level's always been high above the fixed crest
portion of that weir.
MR. FERGUSON: So what you're saying is the extra plate
doesn't matter at all.
MR. TIERS: What I'm saying is the extra plates are
removed during the wet season, and it has no impact on the water
levels that they're experiencing in southern Golden Gate Estates
because the steel wasn't added till 1994.
MR. FERGUSON: So the steel had no effect is what you're
saying.
MR. TIERS: In 1994, no, because it was being operated
where the center portion was cut out. And as soon as it reached that
elevation, they removed it.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay. That's satisfactory.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Durrwachter.
MR. TIERS: Also for clarification, it's my
understanding the Belle Heade area does not drain into the Faka Union
system and the Miller system. So there's a conflicting of what he's
trying to claim by the Faka Union system.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Go ahead, Miss.
MR. DORRILL: Go right ahead.
MS. DURRWACHTER: Sonja Durrwachter, Division of
Forestry, and I manage the Picayune Strand State Forest. And I just
talked to Gale Brett who's a acquisition agent for DEP, and she told
me she would like to come down in July and -- and present her -- like
her acquisition efforts, how many tracts she's bought and that kind of
thing. I think it'd be really good if we can maybe work through some
of these issues because it seemed like to me it just keeps coming up,
keeps coming up, you know, Miller extension and the weirs and the
canals, the restoration efforts. And it looks like if we can maybe
sit down and -- and talk about it and work through some of these
things, it would be better than adversarial approach.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd love to have somebody
from DEP, and I'd -- I liked Mr. Ferguson's suggestion that somebody
from West Palm come over and explain because we do not get consistent
answers.
MS. DURRWACHTER: I think that -- I think it's -- I
think it's even overdue. It's not due, but it's overdue. And I think
-- if we could get these things settled, I think it would be great
for everybody.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it'd be nice to know
we're all working.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Issue invitation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To stave off the great weir
rebellion in Collier County, some -- we need some answers that
maintain consistency which we have not received in the history of the
people on this board. And I would dare say, Mr. Dotrill, you've
probably not seen a heck of a lot of consistency on these matters in
your tenure as county manager. And if I'm wrong, tell me. But if we
can organize that, that's fine. But until that time, we're going to
continue to pressure these items that are repeated inconsistencies.
So I think we have a responsibility to do that.
MS. DURRWACHTER: Right. I guess -- and there's other
issues. I guess the -- I guess you've heard about the farm bill, the
200 million dollar farm bill. They ranked all the restoration
projects for south Florida, and south Golden Gate is fourth out of all
35 projects.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Still nobody's writing checks.
Can't figure that one out.
MS. DURRWACHTER: Oh, I don't know. But anyway, I
think, you know, if we can have Miss Brett down, let's discuss it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually on that point that's the
one that -- that the secretary of DCA that I had alluded to that he
had said there is this money coming, and apparently we are -- okay.
Okay. I'm told we're getting closer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Check's in the mail.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: New money.
MS. DURRWACHTER: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Graham.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can't get any further away,
so it has to get closer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. GRAHAM: My name's Hank Graham. I'm with the
Division of Forestry. I work with Sonja. District manager for the
Caloosahatchee district.
Just to make a comment, from fire safety perspective,
this past year we had more fires for the months of January, February,
and March of '96 than we have on record. And all this discussion
about weirs and how they've adversely affected the -- the drainage,
from my perspective, the south blocks in particular sure as heck are
getting drained, as -- as was stated earlier, in my opinion
overdrained, because we are not seeing a decrease in wild fires as a
result of these weirs but an increase.
So from our perspective we're sure not seeing any -- any
-- anything gained by these increased weirs. And again, it's my
understanding that the weirs have already been reduced. And as far as
future permits, it's up to DEP. So it's, you know, somewhat of a moot
point now I imagine but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course --
MR. GRAHAM: -- at least --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on your comment.
You say that more fire in the early months of this year. Is that
number of incidents, or is that acreage?
MR. GRAHAM: It's number of incidents. And again,
despite the record rainfalls that we had in summer, we had record
number of fires in Collier County as well so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not acreage though;
correct?
MR. GRAHAM: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. GRAHAM: But the number of fires which, again, you
have to have the right conditions to get the fires to start.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Can't hear without them. A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
Where do you want to start? With Gale Brett? She knows
all about the southern estates, and she knows all about the Belle
Heade because she flew over it. September the 15th, 1992, right here
you were lobbied -- you weren't. There wasn't anybody on this board
was here. They were lobbied not to spend $3,000 on Miller Boulevard
Extension to fill in holes. Gale Brett was one of them. She made
statements, criticized some of the people. And the paid political
lobbyist from Tallahassee came here and was blowing smoke all over the
place.
Let's come up to speedo. February the 7th, '95, I
informed this board that the heighth of the weirs were above their
permitted level. At that point Frank Heeker called me a liar that day
in private right here in this room. And the following day he called
me up and he apologized to me because he went out there and checked it
for himself.
Now, I want to take and go back over that again. He
called me a liar in this room, and then he apologized because he
checked it for himself. He was not being provided the proper
information from the people who were actually doing the job or who he
had instructed to do the job or whatever. So we have a lack of
communication, and we also have apparently somebody else pulling the
strings using Frank Heeker and Mr. Van Buskirk as puppets.
As far as the plates in the weirs, if we had the video
system in place that I've been asking about, I could show you because
I videotaped it with witnesses at that time. At the same time I have
a video right in this room right now that was taken yesterday of all
of the weirs. Now -- now we can -- no. That won't work. I've
already checked that one out. You've been on the opposition to some
of my TV -- please get on my boat -- on my side for a change on that.
Information to these people out here that are paying the bills is
where it's at. They don't know what the South Florida Water
Management does when they have their meeting or how much they're being
charged, and they don't have the chance to vote on it, nor do they
have any input on it.
Let's get back to the weirs. The weirs were
deliberately held high to backflood the Belle Heade area and the
southern Golden Gate Estates, and it even went north of the Alley to a
certain point. Now, I want to make something clear, and I've been
called liars many a time, but you check me out. Like I tell everybody
else, don't believe a damn thing I say. Find out for yourself, but
find out.
I want to talk about subsurface water. If you dig a
hole down 50 feet on either side of 951 and you try to fill up the
hole on either side, the water will run through the coral and fill up
both holes at the same time; yet the ditch down 951 is sitting on top
of cap rock which not only keeps the water from going down but it
keeps the water from coming up. Remember that point. If it's on top
of the cap rock, it won't -- it won't leach into the ground. And if
it's -- if the water's underneath that cap rock, it's like a -- a
pan. It won't come up through it, but it will affect anyplace that
has any lakes, any canals, or any -- anyplace else.
For an example, there is no way in the world to drain
Lake Avalon because that's being spring fed from the water supply that
was mentioned earlier that's coming from up north and Canada,
underground rivers. These fact are out here. These people don't want
you to know because they use your ignorance as a vehicle for them that
they can get money for vacation, recreation, for their un -- their
retirement, the hospitalization, and all the rest of it. They live
good. If you don't believe me, you can probably take and chase this
down and find out that the nepotism between the Big Cypress Basin
Board, the Governor, the DEP, and the Conservancy existed as of last
month. Now, blood's thicker than water, and I don't give a damn how
you look at it.
You want to know why they want the land and they don't
want to pay for it. Can I continue or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Just one statement. I passed out a
thing about gas, oil, and the Collier connection. That's where it's
at. It's strictly money and power. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I think we have --
have posed some questions to the -- the district that need to be
answered. And I am going to surmise that what we're going to find is
that all of the water table and -- and drinking waters being used is
the reason for these weirs.
They originally were in all purposes installed to
improve the hydro period in the south estates area, whether it be for
forest fires or whether it be for maintaining wetland vegetation and
wetland strands. And there's going to have to be a balance sought
between that effort and that of -- of -- of providing the minimum
drainage that they are intended to produce. And I'm just looking for
someone to admit that they don't know that balance and -- and to begin
working on it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that balance is going to
vary from year to year with the amount of rain we get. It's a -- it's
a tough thing to do.
What -- what I have -- and I've just read this last
night, and -- and I've not shared it with any member of the board, and
I probably need to. But it's a May 15, '96, memorandum to the board.
And it has the operating schedule for the water control structures.
And it's a real interesting document in that it talks about water
level in several different terms. Sometimes it's NGVD. Sometimes
it's inches above the weir. Sometimes it's inches above the walkway.
And -- and I guess, Mr. Tiers, it'd be nice if we could
get this kind of a document that was written in uniform language so
that we would know what the measuring stick was that was being used
because if we have NGVD, we need a surveyor, I presume, to go and tell
us if the water level's right or wrong. And if it's inches above the
weir, what part of the weir? The concrete part at the bottom, the
steel part above that, or the third layer? We just don't know.
So the -- the wording in here I think is -- is
ambiguous, and it would be good to get a better document so that our
citizens know precisely what the water level's supposed to be. And I
think that would help a long way, and I'll be glad to share this with
the board so they can see what I'm -- what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just another comment.
Earlier in our discussion with the gentleman from the basin, I asked
if we could get -- you indicated there was some documentation out
there, that you were confident you could get your hands on that. MR. TIERS: Yes, I will.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could get that next
week or so.
MR. TIERS: And also I'll let the district know that
you'd like somebody to come over and give a presentation. The basin
staff, we have hired two additional engineers in the last few years to
work on the southern Golden Gates Estate restoration. So I'll see
what I can put together to give you a presentation on that.
Also I'll -- I'll recommend to the basin board that they
review the criteria because they did accept this last board meeting.
So if we do change that, I have to get their concurrence.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I -- my concern is
that there's many, many different terms that require a different level
of expertise to know what it's supposed to be. MR. TIERS: Yes. I understand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, let me make sure that
we're clear here today on the -- the weirs. They are at the permitted
height.
MR. TIERS: Yes, they are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They are. And is that --
MR. TIERS: Actually --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- center notch or totally across the
weir?
MR. TIERS: No. To -- to relieve the public perception
and the concerns of the permitted criteria, I asked staff to go out
and cut it all the way across on Miller 1 and Faka Union 2. And
actually Faka Union 4 and 5 we could actually hold elevation higher,
but we actually put a bleeder notch because we noticed that it was
impacting the surrounding area. So we actually are holding the water
at a lower elevation than we could. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be interesting to
look. Commissioner Hancock brought up the point a certain type of
weir was likely permitted. It would be interesting to see what type
was permitted versus what's there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do -- okay. What's the
pleasure of the board? Do you want to give any direction?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've --
MR. TIERS: One last comment. One thing I want to do in
the interim is try to improve the perception of this commission and
the public on the reality and the facts of how the district
interrelates with the Big Cypress Basin. The director of the Big
Cypress Basin reports to the basin board, and, you know, he follows
their direction. And there is interaction with the district, but the
district is a real valuable asset if used properly. And I'd like to
get rid of those perceptions if I can in the near future.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I would say that it would be
probably fairly easy to improve the perception from the public's
viewpoint and from the commission's viewpoint because it's very, very
low. And it wouldn't take much to start the improvement process, and
that's exactly what we'd like to see. Wish you luck. MR. TIERS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question. Did -- did
you say three of the weirs had been cut back?
MR. TIERS: Well, Miller 1 and Faka Union 2 were higher
than the permitted -- the permit re -- allowed. So we cut those
back. Faka Union 4 and 5, there's a notch in the center of the weir
because we noticed that when we had it at the permitted elevation, we
were seeing ponding in various areas. So we actually lowered the
elevation of the center.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. We don't allow that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one other thing. Are we
gonna shoot for July sometime to sit down with both someone from
Tallahassee and someone from Palm Beach perhaps together, perhaps not
but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know we --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we could -- we could issue
them an invitation, Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: I've made a note to do just that for both
the district and the department.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a scheduled workshop on
the 31st.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't know we still had
scheduled workshops.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we don't have scheduled
workshops.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we have a scheduled fifth
Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might have a scheduling
conflict then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: July 31.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. I think it's July -- I
think it's 31. I -- I have a -- a chart here. This is only for one
of the weirs. And I hope in working with Mr. Tiers that we can get
this chart for all of the weirs for the ten years of -- this -- this
one that you shared with me last week. It's not in color, so it's
very difficult to figure out which year is which, so that's one reason
why I didn't share it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It looks like my two-year-old
Godson just kinda got ahold of that paper and drew some lines.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Either that or somebody's had
one terrible heart attack.
But any -- anyway, my -- my thought, Mr. Tiers, is -- is
if we could get this chart for all of the weirs that you have -- have
data points for in -- in some sort of color coding and that way we --
we could, again, know more and the public would know more about what
water levels are and what the heights are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
Item #10D
DISCUSSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT RIGHTS ALONG MILLER BOULEVARD
EXTENSION FOR HURRICANE EVACUATION - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AGENDA
ITEM WITH FEASIBILITY PROBABILITY AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next issue, 10(D), is a discussion of
prescriptive easement rights on Miller Boulevard Extension.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. This came about as -- as a
result of the annual kick-off meeting for hurricane preparedness that
was held on Marco Island I believe last Tuesday evening or early last
week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wednesday.
MR. DORRILL: Wednesday. And the -- the issue here is
sort of a longstanding request on the part of certain Marco Island or
Goodland residents as to what is the feasibility of the county
permanently or officially designating Miller Boulevard Extension as an
alternative or secondary evacuation route.
There is some history here as well as it pertains -- Mr.
Perkins alluded earlier to the -- the problems when we had either
tried to maintain Miller Boulevard Extension. There is arguably a
condition that because the public have used that roadway for a period
of some 20 or 25 years that there is what is called a prescriptive
easement. This issue is at least eight years old in terms of our
trying to explore or improve Miller Extension and convert it to some
public right-of-way and then be able to have scheduled maintenance on
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize it's easy sometimes
to excuse this, but we need only look back a couple of years, and if
you actually heeded the warnings for the storms coming and hopped on
1-75, you were moving at about 5 miles an hour at best. And I think
there is a very real concern here, particularly Goodland and Marco
Island.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can get in a situation
here. And I -- I gotta kind of a chuckle. I got a letter here from
Ecoswift that -- that said that they oppose this because it's a
habitat for the panther. And we're kind of getting both sides of the
arguments there. On one hand, they always want us to do things for
the panther because only 30 exist. And in this case if there's only
30 in the entire state of Florida and we can have a few thousand
people have an evacuation route on -- in a storm, it goes back earlier
when you were saying priorities and how do we spend things. I mean,
God bless the little panthers, but if -- if we can save a few human
lives in the event of an emergency, that's a higher priority for me.
This letter further went on to say it's premature for us
to look at doing this. And as Mr. Dotrill just said, it's been
bantered about for about eight years, and I'd like to see us go ahead
and go forward with it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a logical step.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is it we're doing today? I
mean, I know that we have a discussion of prescriptive rights, but
exactly what are we doing?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see us give staff
direction to begin to pursue the steps necessary to get Miller
Boulevard officially designated in whatever manner that is as a
secondary evacuation route and then do the appropriate improvement to
go with it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I -- can I ask --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we do that, there's one
gentleman noticeably missing from this discussion. That's our
emergency management coordinator, Mr. Ken Pineau. And if there's
anyone in this county that should know something of how, you know, to
get people out of here, it would be Ken. And before we as a board
decide to make a roadway an evacuation route or give it that priority,
we need to consider its elevation, its proximity to development, is it
-- you know, I -- I personally would like to have that input before
doing it.
My concern is that in order for this roadway to be an
effective evacuation route, it's going to have to be raised
considerably which adds a tremendous cost. Who's going to pay for
that? Is it an HSTU for the people who live along it? Is it, you
know, tax base? I mean, they --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pelican Bay. The -- no, and
my --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any mangroves on either
side?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion, we don't make
that designation today because we don't have that information. My
suggestion is that we have staff prepare that item and bring it to us
with all that information and with Mr. Pineau and -- because we've --
we've kind of bandied this around forever and never had it as a formal
item. And let's tee it up and have all the information and make a
decision.
I think in my mind -- and perhaps Mr. Pineau could
convince me otherwise if he disagrees. I don't think he will. But
it's something we need to be looking at. And if we can bring it
forward, then let's have a real debate on it and either move forward
or not.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if the motion is to
consider further, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just -- I don't
want to place an evacuation route designation on it or priority of
that at this point.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just clarifying.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- I'll make a motion,
and I'll clarify it. And that is to direct staff to prepare an
executive summary as far as making this an exec -- a secondary
evacuation route and what all would be necessary, what the -- what the
need is and so on. I think it's there, but we need to see that from
them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let me -- let me ask if you'll
add to your -- A1, would you please wait. We're -- we're -- would you
amend your motion to -- to ask our emergency management director and
whoever else would be appropriate to make an analysis of the
feasibility of using that as a -- as an evacuation route? My -- one
of my concerns is, you know, I'd love to have another evacuation
route, but I don't want to pour a lot of people back in there in an
area that's going to flood and trap them.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Yeah, I would abs --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I want an analysis of that whole area.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd absolutely include that.
I would anticipate that as part of the analysis.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the cost benefit.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the cost, cost benefit
analysis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What I don't want to do is I
don't want to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion is just for an
exhaustive summary from our staff.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Exhaustive.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, how -- how long did
you say Everglades Boulevard was from beginning to end?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say it's something like 25 miles from
the north end to the south end.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's a two-lane road the
whole way.
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is the longest platted
subdivision road in the world.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just -- I -- I just want to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Longest what?
MR. DORRILL: Platted subdivision road in the world.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the world.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But Miller Boulevard doesn't cross
Interstate 75. Only Everglades does.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Everglades, and -- and -- and
that's -- that's my point in getting this exhaustive study is that
we're -- we're going to get people into the south blocks. Once you
get them in there, the only way out is Everglades Boulevard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just suspect even with the
four laning of nine -- I'm not going to get into it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's have our staff bring it
back. We won't have a debate.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, okay.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ramsey. Then, Mr. Townsend, if I
could have you come up here and stand by, please, sir.
MS. RAMSEY: My name for the record is Christine Ramsey
with the Florida Wildlife Federation. As of February 1996 the state
of Florida had purchased approximately 18,000 acres or 43 percent of
the Picayune Strand State Forest, also known as south Golden Gate
Estates. The Division of Forestry's implementing management plans for
protecting the existing natural resources and enhancing our public
recreation opportunities.
The Florida Wildlife Federation and the state of Florida
own properties that straddle Miller Boulevard Extension. The Florida
Wildlife Federation is opposed to improvements on our property that
would hinder the acquisition of the Picayune Strand State Forest and
not benefit the public good for the following reasons:
Flooding in south Golden Gate Estates, north Golden Gate
Estates, and the Belle Meade area was photographed by Florida Wildlife
Federation staff the day after Tropical Storm Jerry passed through our
area. Miller Boulevard Extension was totally impassable. Official
road signs were posted stating road closed and caution, water over
road. So obviously the road had been under water for a long time.
Everglades and Miller Boulevard in south Golden Gate
Estates had water flowing across the road, and wading birds were
observed foraging for fish on the road beds. Everglades Boulevard in
north Golden Gate Estates had considerably more water flowing across,
and several vehicles were observed stalled out because water had
gotten up into the engines.
We had to travel at a very slow rate on both sections of
Ever -- Everglades Boulevard which is not very conducive for a
hurricane evacuation route. Road improvements would have to be made
not only in south Golden Gate Estates but north Golden Gate Estates.
There are no convenience stores, gas stations, public telephones, or
access to Interstate 75 along this proposed evacuation route. The
closest convenience store, gas station, or public telephone would
either be G's General Store at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson or G's
General Store at Orangetree. Neither of these stores are equipped to
supply large -- to give large quantities of supplies or fuel.
On the other hand, State Road 951 was completely
passable, has recently been 4 laned, and has direct access to 1-75.
There are gas stations and stores located at the intersections of U.S.
41 and State Road 951 and at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and
State Road 951.
State Road 29 is another alternative route -- route.
But unfortunately we did not go to observe the flooding conditions on
that road.
As a landowner along Miller -- Miller Boulevard
Extension, the Florida Wildlife Federation would like to be kept
apprised of any activities or legal findings that affect our
property. The photographs that we took will be made available to you
if you need them for documentation. If the finding is that Miller
Boulevard Extension is a private road, we do have somebody who is
illegally grading a dirt road through our property.
For residents of Marco Island and Goodland, there is
also a question of whether or not State Road 9 -- 92 will be passable
or not which means that 951 would be the evacuation route for them.
Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just clarify something
before you go. The Florida Wildlife Federation believes because it
owns property on this route that it should have a voice in what
happens in that area?
MS. RAMSEY: As a private property owner there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Because I think there
are several hundred people who are private property owners out there
who have been trying to have a voice in what goes on there as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there's one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they haven't been very
successful, unfortunately, to this point.
MS. RAMSEY: The Florida Wildlife Federation doesn't
believe that this is a good evacuation route. We did -- a member of
our staff talked to Mr. Pineau, and he gave us the indication that he
did not believe that this was a good evacuation route either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While Mr. Townsend's coming
up, I might point out --
MS. RAMSEY: But that was --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I might point out that
after Jerry the road leading to my house was flooded and cars were
stalled out on it too so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought she was talking about
Naples Park for a second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought she was talking about
downtown Naples.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That could be almost
anywhere.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fifth Avenue South.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think what you've requested
will accomplish what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Townsend, long time no see.
MR. TOWNSEND: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. TOWNSEND: Been a while. Thank you. Joe Townsend,
Sable Palm Association.
We've, of course, been in favor of Miller Boulevard
Extension because of access of emergency vehicles, school buses, fire
trucks. I mean, this evacuation route is -- it's "A" number 1. This
is going to be really interesting to watch you jump into the position
we've been in for ten years asking for a permit to improve any road in
those two areas. Sable Palm Road we've been fighting for, as you
know. They will give you a permit. It will be so cost prohibitive
that you will never pull it. I will tell you that right now. So in
effect they will deny you one by making it so expensive you couldn't
possibly have it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it the required environmental
studies that run the cost of the permit up so dramatically?
MR. TOWNSEND: Well, they want you to have flowways of
all the oil that's going to come off of these vehicles on to a berm.
Then you have to have a huge ditch. And the water that goes from the
road which can't be anything but totally permeable so you have to
maintain it constantly on -- with grading and rolling it, and you can
never pave it because there's 93 toxins in asphalt. You know that.
And you might kill something when you drive down this road, so the
speed limit wouldn't allow it to be very -- Everglades Boulevard is,
of course, the most obvious way of getting out of the area. You go up
Miller, and then you turn on Lynch and then -- or, you know, which got
the bridge across. Stewart does too. Stewart is 100th. Then go up
Everglades Boulevard all the way across. It's better than nothing,
and that's what you have right now. You have nothing. You have a
problem. You have potholes. You have a wash-out.
The Hurricane Andrew that came through here that dropped
so much rain not long ago came in in the very beginning of August, and
it was dry pretty much everywhere. It gets dry here every -- don't --
don't let fires mean anything to you. It gets dry as a bone here
every winter. I don't care how much rain we get. It completely dries
up in the winter.
But anyhow, this area is in need of some type of access
for those taxpayers for Marco Island, for Goodland. I have a letter
from Ken Pineau saying that it is a excellent idea. He would like to
see any and all right-of-ways used for, you know, exiting the area
during the event of a emergency.
So -- and he also says Sable Palm Road would be a
wonderful place for a -- a road that could lead people out away from
the coast, away from the coast up and north through Immokalee, get
them off 1-75 because 41 is going to be closed down completely during
the event of a hurricane from the south or from the west. Everybody
knows that. So you have to go north. You have to get them out of
here. And I think there's time to get people out before you would
decide that the road is no longer passable and then you would shut it
down and say, no, you gotta go 951. But I think it would do nothing
but help our situation. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing to remember, the
recommended time frame on evacuation is 48 hours prior to landfall of
the storm.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And to me the fundamental issue
here is that this is just -- you know, the lack of improvements in
this area has been our participation with the state in --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In settlement agreement.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd -- I'd -- it's hard not
to describe it really.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In abusing the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In abusing -- that'll will do --
in abusing the property owners, and it's -- we have to stop. We have
to stop participating in the state's abuse.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Please.
MR. PERKINS: My turn?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights.
And I need to jump back in the early conversation. The
Herritt and Perry canals were left out of the conversation as far as
the flooding goes. You've heard the wildlife federation tell you --
and they bought their piece of property after the fact just to
deliberately stop or hinder the evacuation routes. Now, today if you
take a good look, you're going to take a look at the people who want
to save lives and the people who don't. Just that simple. You're
either in favor of evacuating the kids and the people off of Marco
Island, or you just want to see them drop there and float in the
doggone streets. Wise up, people.
Hurricane Jerry, South Florida Water Management had been
holding back the water backflooding the whole doggone area clear over
into County Barn Road through subsurface water. You had a problem
with the percolation. You had it all over. The ground was totally
saturated when those hurricanes -- if those hurricanes would have hit,
we'd have had a 28-foot surge. Ask Ken Pineau. You would have been
wiped out.
Now, as far as the input from Ken Pineau, if you'd have
had the TV system in place -- and, Mr. Norris and Bettye, you were at
the meetings when Ken Pineau stood right up there and took and gave me
input about how he favored putting in the evacuation routes through
Miller Boulevard Extension. I have it on video. You know this. You
have it on video. If you remember, I re -- gave a copy to each one of
you; okay?
The panthers. The panthers have been taken out of south
Florida. The panthers were sold to a professional panther hunter in
Texas for a canned hunt. That's where they take and tie them up. For
enough money you get a chance to kill -- kill a panther and have it
stuffed. It's a matter of record.
Ingress and regress to the south blocks. Now, we hear
all about we're going to have a state park. That came off of this
one. And this one says, well, we're going to flood the damn place.
Now, just what are we gonna do for the simple reason the elevation out
there's too high and to flood it like that, you guys don't have enough
money to flood it. As rich as this place is, you don't have enough
money.
The evacuation routes need to be put in place. Sable
Palm needs to be put in place. You need to protect the people who
live out there, the people who work out there, the migrant farmers who
use the roads to get from one job to the other, the people who
recreation in the south blocks and in the Belle Heade area and Jane
Scenic Drive. It's time that you stood up and be accountable to the
people of this -- Collier County here and take on this -- this state
government and look at it for exactly what it is. Either that, or
maybe I can get some people to take and -- some old people to call you
young people and scare you because I'm going to take away your Social
Security. Try that. Good old Lying Lawton's right at it again;
okay? Hey, at my age I don't have to take and back down from anybody
or anything; okay?
The point is you're being lied to right across the
board. You're not going to get the answers from half your staff
because they're going to tell you exactly what you want to know or
only what they want you to know. You're going to have to find out for
yourself. The information is readily available, and the whole intent
is get the people out of there. Buy the land cheap, siphon off the
gas and the oil and the minerals and the trees and everything else
because if you flood that entire area, the panther can't swim, nor can
the rat, nor can the dear, nor can my cows or anybody else. If you
put them out there for a length of time like that, they'll have hoof
rot in less than a week. Now we've created another problem.
Where is the wildlife federation when it comes to these
panthers and these animals? Looking for the easy buck, donations. By
the way, you people that bought the panther tags, you financed the
deal to take and have them killed. Get smart.
You need to be able to get the fire trucks, the
ambulances, drug enforcement, and all of the other vehicles in there
to protect the people. Marco Island people and their kids are very
important to me. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Durrwachter. Mr. Graham. Ms. Valera
or Valera.
MS. VALERA: My name is Reatha Valera, and I'm with
Golden Gate Estates Community Association. Just sitting here this
afternoon and observing the com -- commission and the decisions you're
making, I do want to commend you. I do want to give you heart felt
thanks because I work with many of the property owners in the Golden
Gate Estates area both north and south of 1-75.
It was very difficult back in 1989 when the property
owners in the southern portion of the estates lost their direct access
to Miller Boulevard, Desoto Boulevard, and to Patterson. So it is
with great interest to see you discussing the merits of opening up the
Miller Boulevard Extension. I do want to thank you for that. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to reiterate my motion,
Mr. Chairman, it was to direct staff to do an exhaustive executive
summary on improvement, utilization of Miller Boulevard Extension for
a secondary evacuation route.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a second to that yet?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, there was. Motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could -- could I
ask the motion maker if he would include in that a request from our
county attorney to also give us a good study on the prescriptive
process that this is going to be so that we know what to expect?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think that was part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if it wasn't, it is
now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's not any.
Item #10E
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S CONTRACT AS
IT RELATED TO THE USE OF COMPENSATORY TIME - FINDING MADE TO DENY
COMPENSATORY TIME TO THE THREE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
Next one is county manager's contract.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The manager's contract, Hr.
Chairman, I added this to the agenda as a discussion of the
compensatory time issue that we've been hearing bits and pieces on the
-- in and on the news media for the last several months. And I think
before the manager's contract rolls over, we need to discuss whether
he -- whether he should or should not continue to use compensatory
time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil and I have had some
discussion on this, and I think we're in agreement. The -- that it's
not appropriate. I don't have a whole lot of doubt that he nor Mr.
Weigel nor Mr. Drury, who are our three contract employees, put in
their time every week. Frankly, I don't care if it happens to be 50
hours in January and 38 hours one week in September and -- as long as
the job is getting done. And -- and I suspect those weeks that are
below 40 will be very few or nonexistent.
Couple of concerns I had. One, I think it's wasting
their time to be keeping little records of how many hours they're
spending every day doing things. But also just I wanted to correct --
I seem to have set it aside here somewhere, and I can't find it, but
we all have a copy of a letter from Robin Doyle. Thank you very
much. One thing I -- I do need to correct. It indicates in here that
the apparent perception that the manager's being paid for unused comp.
time is incorrect. He's never requested nor received any comp. --
compensation for his compensatory time.
Technically that's correct. Realistically, I mean, you
took 74 hours comp. time last year, and you got reimbursed for
vacation time not used. So technically you're not getting paid for
comp. time. Realistically you are. And -- and that's where my one
concern comes in as we look backwards, but I want to deal with that, I
guess, as a separate issue.
And mainly I just wanna -- my suggestion -- and I think
this is Commissioner Matthews' suggestion as well -- is that moving
forward from here that none of our three contract employees be
required to do their little how much -- what they do for their eight
hours each day and -- and we just do away from the logging and comp.
time situation for all three of them all together.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I think that's -- even
though you had the one objection to -- to Mr. Doyle's letter, if I
could have that back, that was actually -- his recommendation was that
we simply make a finding. We can't unilaterally amend Mr. Dorrill's
contract, but we could make a finding that that subsection of the
employee manual just doesn't apply to our contract employees. And
that's what I'd like to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I'd like to offer
for clarification because, again, we're dealing sometimes with a
public perception issue here and not always a -- a problem that Mr.
Dotrill and I discussed and I think we're in agreement that there's a
big difference between, you know, you work a few 14-hour days and you
-- you leave a couple hours early one afternoon to spend some time
with your family. I don't think anyone's trying to take that
flexibility away because I think we all have the confidence that Mr.
Dotrill is spending at least 40 hours a week on average at his job if
not more. I don't think there's a problem there.
But again, the perception is when you start taking a day
off and you don't record it as vacation time, I think you've -- you've
crossed the line.
So that -- that -- that's kind of where I drew it. If
you want to take a day off, that should be vacation. But the -- the
-- the flexibility that should be afforded our three contract
employees based on the demands of their position is just as
Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Constantine have stated. I'm in
full agreement with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and, frankly, I don't even
want to get into how many hours is what, you know. These guys are
going to be held accountable for the production, for what they -- if
they do the job well or not, and that's it. And frankly there --
there are several things that in the last few years have been cut out
of -- of what just are normally executive responsibilities. I mean, I
wasn't on the board, so I didn't know. Do you guys know that he can't
like reimburse out of petty cash for office expenses?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we've had that discussion
several times now.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you? I mean, there's so
many Hickey House things that this board interferes with that I think
are just inappropriate for an executive. And either we trust him to
manage or we don't. If we don't, let's fire him. And if we do, let's
let him -- you know, give him enough rope.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with that vote of
confidence --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On -- on the petty cash issue,
Mr. Dotrill, didn't we remedy that, that you have -- MR. DORRILL: Never did.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No -- pardon?
MR. DORRILL: No, we never did.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we had remedied that.
MR. DORRILL: That was -- that was part of the package
to restrict tuition reimbursements and out-of-state travel and impress
funds as you defined them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I thought we remedied
that.
MR. DORRILL: No.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to review notary fees.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We still need to remedy it then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion that the board make a finding that its three contract
employees are executives who realize an annual salary and are not
hourly wage employees and accordingly should not be required to keep
their little eight-hour-day logs but also are not eligible for
maintaining a comp. time category and they can use their own
discretion as appropriate. And as several of you have said, either
they're doing the job or they're not, and they should be judged on
that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not on individual hours.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to ask what's the
appropriate forum if -- if you guys had thought that some of these
little Hickey House things had been remedied before. Is that not
something we can roll into today, Mr. Weigel, or do we have to bring
that back?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd prefer not to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, there are some simple
things like some petty cash, the subscriptions for magazines, you
know, really embarrassingly Hickey Mouse items.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's a history on all
those which someone might want to brief you on before we get into the
whole bub -- public discussion. And some of those we can remedy, and
some of those we won't. But there is a history to all of those.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let's bring it back up for
discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, can I encourage those
discussions outside of -- of this forum and if you come to a
resolution you think the board needs to approve that you'll bring it
as an agenda item --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because I think you'll find
answers to some of those I would hope on the front end.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'll do it that way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item, before we move
on from that, is I've handed out to each of you the time log that the
county manager's kept, and this is dated from July of '94 through
March of this year. And considering that last year 74 hours were used
of comp. time -- and I haven't done a mathematic of -- which I'll
gladly do if you like -- of what on here -- whether what I think is
appropriate would tally up to 74 hours or not.
But I have a concern in that there are any number of
things here that seem like they are just standard job for a county
manager. BCC meeting that ran after five o'clock. BCC meeting,
budget hearings, budget hearings, landfill workshop. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've just cured this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we've cured it for the
future. My -- my concern is there were -- there was some compensation
given. If it was comp. time that was used that in my opinion wasn't
necessarily actually earned, then perhaps some of that vacation time
which has been paid for would not have been paid for. And, I mean,
there are -- obviously we've taken care of it from here forward. And
if you all don't want to deal with it, we don't have to. But, I mean,
there are things -- there's breakfast with George Varnadoe. There's
dinner with the president of another development.
And if those were comp. time and those are things that
ultimately the taxpayer's paying a little something to you because we
didn't use vacation time because that's comp. time, that raises a
concern with me. And those type things I'd like to see. Do the math
out. And if it doesn't add up to 74 hours, I'd like to have some sort
of refund. I hate to think the taxpayer's paying something because
you went to breakfast with George Varnadoe and -- or that a commission
meeting lasted till 5:30 instead of 5:00 and -- and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not even sure if we legally
could do that, though, because there was an interpretation made of his
contract by the clerk's lawyer, not even by Mr. Dotrill or our lawyer,
that said he had to do what he was doing and he was entitled to it so
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it also says here Mr.
Pires has concluded that the manager must have approval from a person
in a supervisory position and further concludes that approval would be
from the entire board. I don't care if it was from the board or from
the chairman or somebody, but I -- I don't know -- it doesn't matter
who that is. I just don't think that dinner with the president of a
local development for two hours is something that anyone would
logically put down as comp. time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It depends on who it was.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get into --
every summer we have something with Neil, and I don't want to get into
that type situation. But it -- it just seems like, you know, awful
lot of the things on here are very questionable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think you made your point. And I
believe we've corrected the problem for the future, so if you don't
mind --
MR. DORRILL: I can't offer a response since that list
was only recently made public. That's not a list of hours that --
that were compensated. That's a list of every conceivable business
meeting. And, in fact, your policy says that -- that if you don't
apply and approve for the use of comp. time within 90 days of a
meeting or a business event, then they automatically go away. That's
-- that's just a -- a log of every -- hundreds and hundreds of
meetings that were attended.
That does not mean -- and, in fact, as part of either
that memo or the memo that Mr. Doyle and I sent you to resolve this,
it works out to about 32 hours per year on average. And, in fact,
this year would be an excellent year. Last year was a high year.
This year so far I have used four hours. I left early one afternoon
since the beginning of this year. Compared to last year's 74 hours,
this year to date we've used 4 hours. And historically over 9 years
we use about 32 hours over the course of the year to occasionally
leave early or take time off in recognition of hundreds of hours or
hundreds of meetings that were attended over some period of time. But
that -- that is not a cumulative log. That's why I said --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it seems pretty
exhaustive. I mean, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, weekend, 8-7, 8-10, 8-11,
8-14, 8-16. I mean, there is stuff almost every day on here. This --
this is pretty thorough. And again, I went through -- this is -- this
copy isn't highlighted. But I went through the list. And I -- very,
very few -- there is 131 hours total on here I think -- I'm sorry.
There's 158, 159 hours total on here. And the vast, vast majority --
the Loveday and Lytle show, that's your job. If you go on Carl
Loveday's radio show, that's your job. If this -- if this meeting
goes till after five o'clock, that's your job. When we have budget
meetings, that's your job. If there's a grand opening for the
community center, that's your job.
And -- and, you know, the -- the big ones -- the -- the
glaring ones are breakfast with a big attorney or dinner with a big
developer, you know. How those get down as comp. time, I don't know.
And -- and -- and maybe that doesn't bother the rest of the board at
all and you want to forget it. But it's -- in my mind it's worth
raising the question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If Mr. Dorrill had received his
entire three weeks' vacation in a single check at the end of the year,
I think we'd be dealing with a problem. That isn't the case. He has
historically received far less than a week in compensation at the end
of the year. He's taken the majority of his vacation in past years.
I fully expect that he will do the same in coming years. And, you
know, if -- if he's getting three weeks' worth of vacation in a check
at the end of the year as using the supposed comp. time as it's --
it's presented, then I think you're right. We do have a problem.
But the pattern of -- of how much vacation time's been
paid at the end of the year makes -- just makes the issue go away for
me particularly with the clarification we've issued today. And I'd
like to see us move on with this because I think Commissioner Mac'Kie
had a very strong point. Even if we wanna go back and force the
issue, we may not have a legal capability to do so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that that's
true. I mean, we don't know that. Nobody's asked that. But if
nobody wants to pursue it, then we won't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last time she gave a legal
opinion you were pretty supportive but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Depends on whose side I'm on.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 96-275 URGING FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION
TO DESIGNATED LAKE TRAFFORD AS A FRESH WATER FISH MANAGEMENT AREA -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 10(F) is Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. 10(F) is mine too, and I
think it's probably on a -- hopefully ends on a happier note. The
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force met at the end of May. And they
have asked this board to endorse the designation of Lake Trafford as a
fish management area that would be created by the game and fresh water
fish commission.
We have Frank. I know your first name. I forget your
last time because we're only on a first-name basis. But he's here
from the fish and -- fish and game commission. We have Mr. and Mrs.
Oleski from the Lake Trafford Marina. They're here too to also
support this issue if we wish to hear from them.
I've given each board member I think a fairly exhaustive
report as to why we should or should not do this, what the pros and
cons are. And if there's questions, I'll try to answer them. If I
can't, Frank will or Ann or Ski will.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the price tag?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: None, zero, zilch.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was one element in the
report that said it either bound the commission or the county. It was
numbered item 3 in your report. And I'm sorry. It's on my desk. I
-- the letter right -- right there. The one on -- yeah, that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This -- this is the one from
Fred.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no. I mean the whole
package.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I left mine on my
desk. My apologies.
MR. DORRILL: It's the construction condition that any
change in usage or modification to the county boat ramp there would
require the prior approval of the -- the game commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And -- and that was the
one item they pointed out and said this may be a cost to the county.
But then again, it would be our cost to --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's our cost anyway.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- maintain that ramp anyway; is
that correct?
MR. DORRILL: That and a specific provision that the
county would continue to be responsible for upland maintenance and
that we --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the one that we're doing
right now. That's the one that just confused me because I wasn't sure
what it meant. Upland maintenance of what?
MR. DORRILL: We -- we have a -- at the end of that
peninsula there -- and you people help me if I'm wrong -- we have a
small fishing pier --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: -- picnic pavilion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Park-type thing.
MR. DORRILL: It is a county park site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nevermind.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Parking area and a small park --
parking --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just didn't visually have a
clarification of what they're talking about. That -- that helps me
out. I've been out there before, and I -- I -- I know what you're
speaking of.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's kind of like a kiosk on
it and so forth. Now, Mr. Horello -- that's Frank's last name -- has
also asked us to -- if we're going to endorse this to include the two
feeder canals from Pepper Road, Lakewood in this designation. It's a
distance of approximately one-eighth of one mile. And I presume
that's because that's often full of trash and definitely full of
fish.
So if there's not any other questions, I'd like to make
a motion that we adopt a resolution urging the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission to designate Lake Trafford as a fish management
area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- this has to rate as the
dumb question of the day, but does anybody know -- this -- this
mortuary pond --
MR. DORRILL: Oh, we --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This has nothing to do with
this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Nothing to do with this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It said there were bodies and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- I'll -- I'll -- I'll --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It has nothing to do with this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a question. Are fishing
licenses sold outside of the government complex? Can you sell them at
a fishing shop because I know some people who have cane poles now have
to pick up like --
MALE VOICE: I sell them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you sell them?
MALE VOICE: I sell them.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nevermind.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ski sells them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you for sitting all day.
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING VETERANS SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 10(G).
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 10(G) was placed on the agenda at
my request. I think we've all received correspondence regarding
accusations to -- toward personnel in our veteran affairs department.
I personally looked into the accusations and found that the operation
was outside of our county veterans department. The purpose -- purpose
for placing this on the agenda is I guess to put a dog to bed. If --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Put a dog to bed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put a dog to bed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Put a dog to bed.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Put a dog to bed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, I can -- I can
mix my metaphors if I want. There's no law against it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what the -- what the
-- the identity of the dog -- what's the issue?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What dog are we putting to bed?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the issue in my opinion is
irrelevant because as Mr. Olliff's memorandum to me indicated, it had
nothing to do with our veteran affairs department. Yet we continue to
get repeated requests, and I understand there -- you know, to look
into this. I want to know from staff --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a
suggestion? It appears at least one commissioner and probably a lot
of the public doesn't know what this is. And if we're trying to
clarify, we might want to mention what this is.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And actually Mr. Schultz might be
able to help me, but there was an accusation that a prescription
service being operated through a 501-C-6 outside of veteran affairs
was being intertwined with veteran affairs and county funds were being
mismanaged in such a way that -- that we're spending tax dollars on
programs that are not county programs.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just ain't so.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But the investigation by Mr.
Olliff and his memorandum to I believe all the commissioners indicated
that's not -- yeah, memorandums -- that's not the case. And it's
getting to a point where I think it's interfering with the operation
of our -- our shop over there. And I just wanted to get it out in the
open, put this thing to rest and -- and be done with it. If the board
has any questions, we can pursue them now. And let's get this thing
-- thing over with. That was the purpose for this. It's interfering
with operation of a county department, and I -- I just -- I think it's
ridiculous.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is the internal auditor looking
into this?
MR. OLLIFF: He has. And, in fact, Mr. Schultz and I
both met with the new internal auditor, and standing here I knew I
would not remember his name. But I met with him. In fact, it was
April 15. I do remember that date because it was tax day that we met
with him. He indicated that he would have a response to his
investigation and didn't think there was anything to it but would have
a response by the end of that week. But since that time I haven't
seen or heard anything.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't either.
MR. OLLIFF: And I know certain of the -- the services
have been suspended or have had to have been sort of redone and done
in other ways so that we would at least avoid any of the questions
that were raised and any of the issues that the auditor was currently
looking at. So we had pretty much put those in suspension waiting for
some sort of response from the internal auditor.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, is the prescription
service currently in service?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am, it is, but it's not being run
through the two vans that you're familiar with. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: It's -- it's either being done by other
people who happen to be going up to the area or through some
commercial carrier or some other means.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Like a share-a-ride type thing.
MR. DORRILL: Why -- why are we even involved with staff
time in having meetings with internal auditors or trying to respond?
If it's -- if it's clearly a program that is outside the perview of
county government and the Board of County Commissioners, why are we
spending so much staff time responding to this -- scurrilous letters?
MR. OLLIFF: Generally we didn't, and most of the
responses were, you need to go talk to the 501 or the 506 corp. about
most of your questions. But there were several questions that were
raised about the actual transportation program itself and the county
support of that either through insurance or maintenance cost. And
there were also some issues that were raised on the actual
prescription program as to whether any revenues realized should be
county revenues and run through the county finance department. To
those our response was we certainly don't think so. It's not our
program. And that was my response and then my response to the auditor
as well. And I've yet gotten a formal response from the audit,
though.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- that's what I was
looking for, and I was looking for it publicly to make sure we didn't
continue, you know, chasing our own tail in this. Is that an okay
metaphor?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Chasing our tail?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of that
metaphor --
MR. DORRILL: We can certainly make an inquiry of the
internal auditor to see whether or not he's conducting an inquiry or
whether he intends to pursue it if there's any cloud hanging over the
head of our veterans services department.
MR. OLLIFF: It is a program that I think literally
thousands of local veterans benefit from. And I would certainly hope
it's one that we could find a way to -- to make sure that if there are
any problems with it, let's resolve them and get it out of the way and
get it done with. But, like you, I don't think that the idea of
whatever size cloud over this type of a program's appropriate, and I
want to get it out of the way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's a private foundation
type group, our internal auditor may not have any perview over it at
all.
MR. OLLIFF: Shouldn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that would remove it from our
__
MR. DORRILL: That's why I asked the question any more
than -- than you'd be involved in an internal audit of the affairs of
the Friends of the Library and their private fund raising activities.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And you voiced my concern
appropriately, and that is, you know, let's stop spending time on
something that isn't within our perview.
MR. DORRILL: I couldn't agree more. There -- there
were --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Moving on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
MR. DORRILL: There were some people that had asked to
speak. I don't know whether they still are interested in speaking or
not.
Mr. Perry, did you -- Mr. Perry, you'll be first if
you'd like to speak. Mr. Price, you'll follow.
MR. OLLIFF: Concerning that, I've got direction to put
that dog to bed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put that dog to bed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's done chasing its tail.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's done chasing its tail.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the
commission, I'll be very brief. I think by this time most of you have
read the letters, certain allegations and accusations directed toward
Lou Schultz and his wife Larie -- Louise. I merely want to say that I
feel fairly well qualified to judge my brothers and sisters. In 1940
I started as a private in the Army and with good fortune retired 21
years later as a lieutenant colonel. I don't say that in a bragging
sense, but I'm proud of that merely to tell you that I've had
association with privates and corporals and sergeants and captains up
to three star generals. And I think I have a pretty good sense of
character, integrity, honesty, and that sort of thing.
And I would say that Lou and his wife Louise --
incidently, I'm one of her helpers now. I'm a volunteer over at the
prescription service starting last Tuesday -- that these two fine
people have done a very, very fine job in the county over the past
many years. And not speaking for the veterans council but as a member
of the veterans council, I have never at any one meeting heard a
disparaging remark from any member of the council directed towards Lou
or Louise.
And I'm hoping as either Mr. Hancock or Mr. Constantine
has suggested that we put this matter to rest and not spend any more
government time on it. Lou and Louise are doing a fine job, and the
veterans of Collier County have nothing but thanks and praise for
them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Price.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
MR. PRICE: Pretty close. Ditto. For the record,
Donald Price. I too am a veteran. I started off as an airman basic
in 1960. And in June of '93 I retired as a Army lieutenant colonel
from the reserves. I've had the privilege of knowing, associating
with both Lou and Louise for the past ten years. And I can tell you I
am also a certified veteran service officer. Lou is probably held in
the highest regard throughout the nation for the job that he does. I
can think of no other individual that's more eminently qualified to do
the job. His background in the military included a tour with the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations. He knows what fraud and theft
is, and it goes as a personal affront.
I look here in this audience, and I see that somehow the
individual that started all this nonsense lacks the moral courage to
appear here in person. And that should smack of what this is all
about. And I would think that it would be appropriate for the board
of commissioners possibly to recommend to the county attorney he issue
a cease and desist letter to this individual and put this nonsense to
bed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
PUBLIC COHMENT - JUDY LEINWEBER RE THE INDIAN MORTUARY BAYWEST SITE
We do have a public comment? Let's have that public
comment.
MR. DORRILL: We have two. Ms. Leinweber, you'll be
first. Yes, ma'am.
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber. I'm representing
Bay West Nursery, Bay West Indian Site with the Florida State Museum
and a Florida anthropological society.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the bones.
MS. LEINWEBER: That's it. She's got pictures too,
Pam.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. I want to see
them.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the bones.
MS. LEINWEBER: Uh-huh. Last Tuesday I supplied county
commissioners with an important document. I didn't realize it was an
important document. And then I mentioned to Bettye about our Indian
site. And I found out none of the county commissioners has it, and I
don't think South Florida Water Management has it, and I don't think
the Big Cypress water basin has it.
We are the second largest mortuary pond in the state of
Florida, second only to the Little Salt Springs, bigger than the Marco
Island site. Do you understand what I'm saying now, Pam? Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay. The -- let's see. The second --
I'm sorry, Salt Spring site is bigger than Bay West, bigger than Bay
West, is bigger than the Marco Island site because we have two
different Indian tribes buried there. We are a major historical
landmark. We are applying to go on the registry of national
landmarks. We have a national treasure in our backyard. Is it going
to be ruined with the Cocohatchee weir 3 and Treeline Drive? Glenn
Simpson and Bettye Matthews have both told me Bay West is going to
have a major flooding problem --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't say that.
MS. LEINWEBER: -- when we have a bad rainy season --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't say that.
MS. LEINWEBER: -- again.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I didn't say that. I mean,
Treeline is -- is well to the east of where you are.
MS. LEINWEBER: It's going to affect us. Glenn Simpson
also mentioned it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- but I have no idea what the
effect will be.
MS. LEINWEBER: You said it hasn't been permitted yet
because of the adverse flooding. A1 Perkins was beside me when you
told me that, Bettye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm looking at adverse
flooding in the sanctuary area, not where you are, but I -- I need
information yet.
MS. LEINWEBER: It's going to be a big problem. I've
talked with land surveyors, and I have been informed it is going to be
a big problem.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need to get that information
yet then.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay. I am letting people know
decisions are made for this county. You have to be made accountable
when things go wrong. I have supplied our county commissioners with
the proper documentation and pictures of the Bay West site.
We are motivated by -- are -- let's see. I'm sorry. I
just lost track. We have kept the University of Hiami up to date with
the information. We have been good keepers of this site. Bob Cart,
John Barrio, Charles Durrier check us out regularly, and we gladly
comply.
I have read the hydraulical (sic) restoration of the
Everglades which is full of errors. We personally at Bay West have
kept rain records for many years, but that information was not
recorded in that manuscript. It was important information for their
facts and figures. So I've done my homework. And when things start
going wrong again and when the Bay West dikes break when we have a
flood season, I'm just making sure you folks have the proper
information and documentation because the officials are going to be
held accountable. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: I believe Mr. Perkins has left for the
day, so he walked out on his own --
MS. LEINWEBER: He went downstairs.
MR. DORRILL: Too late.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Too late. He missed out. Do you need
to take a break? Board members?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine. No, we're fine.
We've got one item left.
Item #1283
PETITION PUD-96-7 , ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REPRESENTING KENNETH D. GOODMAN REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" TO "PUD"
TO BE KNOWN AS COLLEGE PARK PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF C.R. 951 -
CONTINUED INDEFINITELY
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- let's go. One item left,
12 (B) (3) , PUD-96-7.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of planning
services staff presenting petition PUD-96-7, Robert Duane of Hole,
Hontes, and Associates representing Kenneth Goodman, and they're
requesting a fezone from estates to planned unit development to be
known as the College Park PUD.
The property's located on the south side of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and approximately one mile west of County Road 951. The
petitioner proposes a multi-family development on the subject 17-acre
site. The petition includes a companion application for affordable
housing density bonus agreement. The project comprises of 210
dwelling units resulting in a density of 12 units per acre. Of this,
five units are attributable to the density bonus agreement.
Affordable housing agreement represents 41 percent of
the total project. However, the petitioner has committed a total of
147 units to be for affordable housing. This results in 70 percent of
the total project. Affordable housing agreement provides for 84 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm sorry, Ray. Can
you just say that last part again?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There are 147 units, affordable
units, which represent 70 percent of the total project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Of that, 84 are 2 bedroom and 3 -- and 21
are 3-bedroom units in the low income category. Forty-two 3-bedroom
units are in the very low income category.
The subject parcel's designated urban residential in the
future land use element. Provides a base density of four units per
acre. It's in a density band, so it gets additional three units per
acre for a total of seven. The density bonus of 5 gets it up to 12.
As you can see on the map, it's surrounded by the
Collegewood PUD 300 feet to the east which is an affordable housing
project at 106 units at 12 units per acre. The Sierra Meadows is at
6.6 units per acre. Wing South is 3.61. Lely has a golf course and
residential tract here, Edison Community College back here, and the
rest of Lely Resort.
The traffic impact statement indicates the project will
generate 1,359 trips on a weekday which exceeds the significance test
on Rattlesnake Hammock. It will not result in the lowering of level
of service on that road. Rattlesnake is also planned to be improved
to four lanes by 1997.
The project is also south of the Wing Park South air
park, and the Land Development Code doesn't provide any development
standards in how to deal with a project at the end of -- basically at
the end of the runway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, please.
MR. BELLOWS: As you see, the Wing Park South runway
ends about here. The project is to the east. I met with our county
airport authority director, John Drury, and he came up with some
language for -- and was also discussed during the planning commission
of -- and let me pass out the language.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: On 4.16, project noise and management
construction practices. Basically there was a concern that residents
of this development should be put on notice through their lease
agreement the location of the runway. The Collier County Planning
Commission reviewed this on June 6, and they recommended approval
unanimously.
We had one individual representing the Wing Park air
park, and there's concern with the multi-family development south of
this project, what it will do to their air rights.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, you said there was
another affordable housing project nearby.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This was approved not too long ago.
It's the Collegewood PUD. I've been told, though, the school board is
interested in purchasing this site for one of their bus barns and this
would not be used for affordable housing, but we would have to take
steps to remove the zoning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I need to
acknowledge that I've spoken with the petitioner prior to this and had
some communication prior to this hearing. Obviously in compliance
with state regulation, I will base my decision solely on the
information provided as part of this public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have had contact as well. But as
you, I will base my decision solely on what I hear today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise I've spoken to the
petitioner and will base my decision on information presented in this
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can follow up your
comment, Mr. Norris -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I gotta make the
same comment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto down at the other end.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ditto down at the end.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wasn't aware -- and Mr.
Duane and I had talked about this property, and I wasn't aware of the
-- until today or actually until over the weekend the -- the
affordable housing zoning there. And that's -- when we had talked
about that, we talked about the school board bus depot and so on. Do
we know where in that process they are because that makes a
difference? One of the things we've consistently done is tried not to
cjuster a whole lot of affordable housing things. For me that's a
very important factor that we stay consistent on that.
MR. DUANE: Okay. For the record, Robert Duane from
Hole, Hontes, and Associates. The property owner of Collegewood
indicated to the planning commission last week that there was a
closing on that property today. I just -- that's what he stated on
the public record last week at the planning commission. That's the
only information I have other than what I've read in the newspaper
that the school board has taken a position that they want to try to
develop this property for a bus depot. And I believe that was an
action that the school board took about a month ago at their regularly
scheduled meeting. I don't know if that answers your question or not,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any way to get a definitive
answer to that before we go forward? You're working on it right now?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and that's just in an
-- in an effort -- we've tried to stay fairly consistent on that all
over the county. I just wanna make sure --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Bellows, let me ask you a
question. How many affordable housing projects are there south of
Radio Road proposed now or already constructed?
MR. BELLOWS: In my staff report I listed the 15 that
were approved.
MR. HIHALIC: Commissioners, I'm trying to go from
memory here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Six, six. That's what it says in the
back-up material. How many north of Radio Road?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I missed your
question I guess.
MR. BELLOWS: Four.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four. That's right. And now we're
asking to put another one down there. We -- this board set out here
and lamented the fact that Davis Boulevard and Radio Road corridor is
becoming affordable housing row out there sometimes beyond our control
because we had one -- at least one overturned in court that we had
denied. But this -- this particular parcel is not all that far from
that area. It's just really right around the corner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- can you point out, Mr.
Hihalic, where the -- where the others -- other than the one that
we're questioning with the bus barn and where --
MR. HIHALIC: It would be somewhere on this map,
Commissioner. We would need a larger map.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're talking up on Radio
and Davis?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Radio and Davis, yeah.
MR. HIHALIC: A map of the county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please -- I wanted everybody to
be sure and hear the answer to that.
MR. HIHALIC: I'm sorry, Commissioner. There would be
no other affordable housing developments built showing on this project
or even developed --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On this map.
MR. HIHALIC: -- planned for development on this map
because it's too small scale. You would need a map of the urban area
of the county to show -- well, I think, Commissioner Norris, it would
be at least a mile away to Davis Boulevard before you see --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keeping in mind that the rents --
we aren't -- we aren't talking, you know -- you've heard this speech.
We've had it be -- you know, the same discussion before, but we're not
talking about substandard housing that anybody would mind having in
their neighborhood. We're talking about the secretaries who work for
Neil and the deputies who work for the sheriff's office.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And I don't think
anybody's suggesting any time we have this discussion that it's who's
going to live there. I think we get into the density issues and
whether they're all cjustered in one area and so on.
The -- the other question is -- and I don't know if
there's anybody here -- I don't know who's behind you there -- who can
answer this but the -- I'm not so worried from where we're at right
now because it takes you a ways to get up there. But our plan for
Santa Barbara extension now calls for it to veer off to the east and
come down. I'm wondering roughly right where this comes out, and I
wondered if somebody here could tell me that, exactly where it is that
we've looked at. There were two alternatives, and I think we were
leaning toward or we chose one for -- that would come out on
Rattlesnake. And I think your point would be better made with that.
It's not so much -- I don't -- I don't buy the argument
that the Davis is an impact now because you can't get there. But
within three years or four years or whenever that's scheduled to be
built, it's a straight shot. And it suddenly is a half mile or
quarter mile to -- to that whole circle of -- of intense affordable
housing uses.
So -- and I don't know if that's exactly where it comes
out and what the distance is, but I need to have that answered.
MR. BELLOWS: On the vicinity map provided in the staff
report behind the executive summary, it shows one possible extension
of Santa Barbara Boulevard far to the west of this site.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how far?
MR. BELLOWS: The Polly Avenue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, no, that's -- no, the board has
taken action to say that that is not an option.
MR. BELLOWS: That was not an option?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No longer an option.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would have run almost a
straight shot.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there were two or three
different issues, and I know we had this kind of coming down and
swinging over to the east. And it seems like it's in this general
vicinity, but that for me is an important point we need to have an
answer to. I don't know if you know, Bob.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One of the -- one of the
considerations was that the reason to swing it over to that exact spot
that you see outlined in red on the map was that Lely Resort could
extend and connect to it, their internal road.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the spot?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the exact spot, yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hmm.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it looks like the proposed
development pattern would preclude the western portion of this
property being available for even impact fee credits as a
right-of-way. If I'm reading the dotted line as the buffer correctly,
there's only about 20 feet on the western property line that's not
committed, and you've got parking lot adjacent to it.
So our specific -- when we talked so many times about
boards in the past approving developments with one eye closed on
transportation, and we have to be very, very careful that we're not
guilty of that ourselves in this instance.
So I -- I don't see Mr. Archibald here. It would
obviously be helpful to have someone from transportation here who has
a better feel for this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or the county manager. He's
exercising comp. time right now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have two questions as I see
them right now. One is what is the disposition of the property
immediately to the east of this so we can try and maintain our policy
of not cjustering a lot of affordable housing in any given area of the
county. And the second is transportation needs and how this approval
would impact the possibility of a necessary extension of Santa Barbara
road, and I need answers to both of those. And if we can't drum up
our own staff to give them to us, we're -- we're in sore shape.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question of the
board and of Mr. Duane. If we can't gather up the answer to --
there's -- there's like three or four answers all kind of floating out
here. Would there be any objection to continuing the item because if
we -- if the answers come back one way, in my mind we can approve
this. If they come back the other way, we can't. But we have to know
the answer in order to do findings of fact.
And so I can't in good conscience vote either way if we
don't know what that transportation thing is, the distance to any of
the other affordable housings. I don't know what the disposition on
the school bus barn is and -- and all of those and the one
transportation issue going down through. So all -- all of those are
hinge points.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While agreeing with that, I have
to say how aggravating it must be that we have questions we don't have
staff to provide answers for so go away and come back. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, that's -- that's
unacceptable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- okay. Fine. But let me
comment on the bus barn.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where's our staff?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've already opened negotiations with
the school board to try to not have them use that as a bus barn.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we have, and we -- we're going to
ask them to consider going with us to a consolidated maintenance
facility out near some of the landfill property as I understand it and
put the sheriff out there as well and consolidate and do some cost
efficiency measures out there putting everybody in one shop and save
some money. So we've already opened negotiations on that. So it's
far from ever certain that that is going to be a bus site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess part of that
will -- will be answered if they did or didn't close or if they are --
I -- but the point is I don't know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And even if it is a bus site --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Duane, do you have any
answers?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Even if it is a bus site, then you're
-- then you're -- you're saying, well, let's put a bus site and
affordable housing all together out there near our university in an
area that we're trying to upgrade. And, you know, I don't know that
that all fits.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. My only concern as to
whether or not it was going to be the bus site was the issue of we
tried not to cjuster the -- the homeless with the density issues and
all that. We may have an answer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill may have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I wasn't aware that that
was even a possibility.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, I was not aware of that at all. And I
can't address your Santa Barbara Boulevard extension question other
than to say right now we are approximately two miles from County Barn
Road, an additional two miles to Davis Boulevard. So, you know, we're
a number --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you ask Mr. Archibald to get
here, Mr. Dotrill, to answer that question?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Valetie Ryan, super sleuth, has
found out that the property did not close today. It's a pending
closing because of a settlement issue. They're anticipating closing.
But as of today, the property has not closed.
So the potential use for that property is still -- still
has to be considered existing as affordable housing because it -- it
didn't close. And again, that throws us back into the policy -- not
-- I'm not -- I'm not saying policy but the intention of not really
cjustering our affordable housing projects.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does anyone know what the contingency
on that closing is, what the -- what the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- it's a little personal. My
secretary told me, but it's -- it's -- it's of a personal nature of
the people involved --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Valerie's at fault?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of the people involved
regarding a divorce so I -- you know, I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So there's some question of whether it
will close.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I guess there is. There's a
monetary element of that that hasn't been resolved. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that sufficiently vague?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. GOODMAN: Can I make a comment, please? My name's
Kenneth Goodman for the record. Gary Beyrent at the public records --
I mean the public hearings last Thursday before the planning
commission who's the owner of Collegewood made it clear that he could
not develop his property because it was impractical from a financial
standpoint to develop 106-unit project. And that was one of his
motivating reasons for now trying to find another buyer.
So whether or not it sells to the bus barn, he'd
indicated in the public hearings last week that he did not intend to
-- to move forward -- forward with his project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonetheless, Mr. Goodman, we're left
with the fact that it is zoned for affordable housing and approved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The hypothetical situation
that could occur is he could sell it to someone else who could in turn
-- it is zoned for that -- who could in turn develop it as that, and
then we get into the cjustering situation.
MR. GOODMAN: Then maybe we could move forth on the
basis of this being approved but not being allowed unless and until
with that being a condition precedent.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'm
assuming the discussion concerning the policy about the concentration
of affordable housing is pursuant to the policy in our housing element
that requires that affordable housing be equitably or equally
distributed throughout the county.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's part of it.
MS. STUDENT: I just want to make that clear for the
record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. That's part of it. Yes,
ma'am. Thank you for that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, even -- even if
the school board were to close on this property, if they were to
investigate with the county and our sheriff to have a -- a joint
maintenance facility, they could later sell this property, and the
zoning is still intact.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems we're -- I mean, we're
trying -- we're trying very hard to find a way to meet affordable
housing needs without -- without impacting a very local segment of the
community with a lot of affordable housing projects. It just doesn't
sound like the -- the -- the elements are lined up here to make that
an easy decision today. I don't know what to tell you, Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Well, you know, I'm not -- I'm -- I'm in the
same dilemma that you are. I would like to reiterate that the project
immediately -- the vacant property immediately to the east to us is
permitted a density of ten units per acre under your Growth Management
Plan today. Mr. Beyrent's property is permitted 10 units per acre
under the Growth Management Plan today, and you gave it a bonus in
essence of 2 units per acre, or you added 18 units to that property.
Sierra Meadows that Mr. Bellows pointed out to you, there are four
residential tracts. Three of them are sixteen units per acre net
density. One is 12 units per acre.
So whether we're dealing with an affordable component or
not, we have densities averaging between 10 and 15 units per acre
between here and the activity center.
This particular project is permitted seven units per
acre today without the dennis -- density bonus, but we recognize the
carrot, and we're here to -- to -- to put 70 percent of these units in
affordable housing which is a much higher percentage -- and I'm sure
that your housing director will correct me -- a much higher percentage
than has been offered to you previously. In fact, 20 percent of these
are very low income units, $500 rents for 3-bedroom apartments.
So I'd like us to put that in the context of, one, the
benefit this project has, the densities that your comprehensive plan
permits, and the fact that we have complied with the recommendations
of your planning commission and your staff who have indicated that we
meet all of your requirements.
So, you know, I'm in that -- that dilemma myself. I
certainly, Mr. Constantine, would entertain a continuance if you
thought that you needed any additional information to evaluate the
merits of your -- of this particular project. I think you posed that
to me earlier. I don't know that I've been able to answer your
questions adequately today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's ask Mr. Bellows. What's the
underlying zoning today on that? How is this property zoned? MR. BELLOWS: It's zoned estates.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And how many units per acre could you
MR. BELLOWS: One per two and a quarter.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One per two and a quarter acre.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's ignoring the comp.
plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill said the
transportation people are on their way, so let's see if -- if they
appear shortly, and that might be able to answer some of the questions
anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The base density is four units an
acre. It's within the proximity to an activity center which allows up
to three additional units per acre and then the density bonus based on
affordable they're requesting an additional five if my math is correct
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to bring this up to the 12.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So even, Mr. Duane, your argument
of consistency with other projects would be -- is a good one. But
when we add the affordable den -- affordable housing density bonus, we
now have to bring into consideration the other affordable housing
projects in the area based on the -- the dispersion direction this
board has taken not to localize too many in -- in one area.
So for me that -- that remains a sticking point. The
Collegewood PUD and the disposition of that property, if that were
wiped off the books, we would be mimicking a decision that we made at
a slightly greater degree some, what, six weeks or two months ago, and
I would be comfortable with that. But until that disposition is
known, I'm afraid I'm -- I'm simply not comfortable.
MR. DUANE: Okay. And I'm not being argumentative, but
the fact that that project was permitted ten units per acre today
anyway -- I think that was a nine-acre project, Collegewood. So it
got 18 units above your base density. So even if the affordable
housing goes away, someone, I presume, is going to develop it
somewhere in that range. But I just wanted to add that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to hear from the
public?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, let's hear from the public
speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. There are four. First one, Mr. Jim
Kaser followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. KASER: Thank you very much for the opportunity. My
name is Jim Kaser. I'm a resident/homeowner at Wing South Air Park.
Wing South Air Park is directly across the road and adjacent just to
the -- to the west of this subject property. We have 70 properties in
there, and they're all designed to be homes with hangars. And we do
have a runway there which ends just to the north side of Rattlesnake
Hammock. The runway is 4,400 feet long by 100 feet wide. This
property was developed back in the very early seventies, so we've been
there for about 25 years.
Our concern with this is not that we are against
affordable housing, and it's not that we are against affordable
housing in our own backyard. In fact, with the -- the College -- the
Collegewood one which is already approved here, we did not object to
that. We found it to be acceptable.
The -- our problem here is one that I think some of you
have already expressed better than I. I didn't realize how far ahead
-- ahead of me some of you were. Our concern is that this entire
area it appears from at least where we are and where the subject
property is all the way to 951 is going to become a very high density
area with wall-to-wall high density PUDs on top of each other or right
adjacent, I should say, to each other and contiguous. It will end up
being, we would think, on both sides of Rattlesnake Hammock. And, of
course, it's anchored by the activity center at the corner of 951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock which will permit very high densities.
In fact, one of the things that bothered us a great deal
here was that, in fact, one of the rationales by the staff here, by
the development group, in favor of this was that it was not only
compatible but the fact that there already was another affordable
housing project right next door. That was in their staff report.
It seems to me that once we start down this road of
having one what we consider at least to be relatively high density
public developments right after the other, this entire section will
become a high density area.
We don't think that's good planning. We would think
that a mix of housing, a mix of resident, a mix of activities is a
much better way to go.
Within the Shadowwood PUD of which we're a part, we have
a combination of single-family residences. We have a development
right on Rattlesnake Hammock of 98 duplex town houses. And we also
have an apartment complex of 96 units with an additional 16 approved,
and I might add that those are affordable. The rents range from in
the low -- or the mid five hundreds up to about -- the -- the high six
hundreds or seven hundred dollars.
We think, therefore, we should avoid concentrations of
unbroken high density and concentrations of affordable housing. So
one of our major concerns has been that this will be a concentration
of both high density and affordable housing.
We have another problem, and that is its location right
off the end of the runway. In 1979 we were concerned about this
property and the impact it might have on our -- on our aircraft
operation. We were able to obtain air rights over the property by
which the property owner recognized that it would be -- that it is an
area in which airplanes are taking off and landing. He granted us
those air rights along with the attendant noise and disturbance, air
turbulence and so on that would go with that.
It was also bothersome to us that in the petition the
petitioner nor the staff seemed to even know that there was an airport
there much less consider any impact that one might have on the other.
Nor was the fact that there were air rights over this particular piece
of property. Apparently they were not known to the petitioner at that
time.
We think this is a pretty poor place to put extra high
density housing. It's right off the end of a runway directly under
the flight path to and from the -- to and from the runway, and it's
one that is almost certain to create problems in the future.
The -- this was discussed with the planning committee --
planning commission, excuse me. We brought those points up. The
planning commission -- commission certainly agreed that -- or the
planning board certainly agreed that there would be -- there could be
problems that the -- that the Wing South had every right to be flying
over there. And they did, as I understand it, require that additional
soundproofing be -- be -- if this were approved that additional
soundproofing be incorporated and also that tenters would sign an
acknowledgment of the fact that there would be aircraft flying over
the -- overhead at low altitude as part of the rental agreement.
We think both because of the unfortunate location right
off the end of a runway -- again, it's not because it's -- it's
affordable housing. We did not disagree with the affordable housing
which is three, four hundred feet to the east. Affordable house -- or
high density housing at the end of the runway and the density problem
it creates down to 951 we think both are valid reasons for
disapproving the application. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. The density argument is --
is one that's consistent with something that you raised not too long
ago about perhaps looking at the possibility of -- of decreasing base
density all over the county. And, you know, this is a very low
density area today. And so I don't know how we reconcile the two
philosophies with going out and trying to not only increase the
density but give bonus density. So that -- that's certainly a
consideration.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
for Mr. Bellows. The recommendation in here from the planning
commission is merely that we approve. What was the vote on the
planning commission?
MR. BELLOWS: It was unanimous, five to zero.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Unanimous, five to zero? Five
out of the nine members were present?
MR. BELLOWS: Seven to zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Petitioner -- petitioner is
indicating it was seven to zero.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see Mr. Archibald.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have more public speakers. Let's
go ahead and call them.
MR. DORRILL: We do. Mr. Agoston apparently left. Hiss
Krier.
MR. AGOSTON: For the record, my name is Ty Agoston, and
I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for TAG. There are several
general problems we have with affordable housing. One of them is the
name itself. It's kind of a politically correct term. What we're
really talking about is subsidized housing. Other people's -- other
taxpayer's money will go to support the development in one shape or
another.
The other problem I have seen, according to your
executive summary, the environmental impact study shows a self
contradiction. According to page 2, they -- you say that the property
does not contain any wetlands. Then you look at the map, and it
contains three of them. So if that's the kind of a strength of
accuracies involved here -- and I'm not in the affordable housing
business -- it just kind of shakes my confidence.
I have an additional problem. Several months ago the
Republican Woman's Club made a presentation to you -- I believe Jane
Warner -- encouraging you to limit growth. She was enthusiastically
supported by all of you. Here we are. We are spending other
taxpayers' money to build affordable housing to increase density.
Does one hand know what the other one is doing? That's all I have.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krier and then Mr. Calderwood.
MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, I'm Ellie Krier. I'm representing the
chamber, EDC, coalition for government and community affairs.
We would like to go on the record with general comments
in support of affordable housing, in fact, in support of any increase
in the inventory of affordable housing units in Collier County. The
availability of affordable housing provides many community benefits, a
few of which would include an increase in a stable broad based work
force.
When the opportunity exists to have your cost of housing
be at an appropriate fraction of your total income, then the
availability of expendable and disposable income goes up. The ability
to create savings goes up. The ability to move into homeownership
up. Additionally, it poses the ability to reduce substandard housing
units in the county.
So we're simply here to urge you on an ongoing basis to
take any appropriate action to increase the availability of affordable
housing because the true beneficiaries are the women and men who work
in Collier County supporting your local economy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Krier.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Calderwood and then Ms. Barsh.
MR. CALDERWOOD: Good afternoon. My name is Jim
Calderwood, and I'm the owner of this property at this time. I've
lived there for 20 years. I'm the one that gave the air rights to the
Wing South project across the street.
My background is extensive in aviation. I used to be an
air traffic controller. Presently I'm a commercial pilot. If I
thought that by -- giving the air rights would have affected my
property in any way, I'd have never given them to them. There's no
traffic there at all; probably maybe five to seven airplanes a week.
It's minimal. In the wintertime it could be a few more, but it's like
-- it's not a commercial airport to begin with.
As far as the property is concerned, I had looked myself
at rezoning it in the past. I'm not a land developer. It's easier
for me just to sell to somebody that is.
You haven't really talked about it yet, but the property
that adjoins my land to the west is presently zoned for a shopping
center. That's a neighborhood -- ten-acre neighborhood shopping
center. To the south of my property is Edison Community College.
To me if you're looking for an ideal site to focus on
building an affordable housing project which is not a slum proj --
it's not for slum people. This is a -- a decent upstanding place for
peep -- for young people starting out to live. They can walk -- walk
to college. You don't even need an automobile. To me there's a lot
of advantages to put an affordable housing project on this property.
The other thing you can look at, this property is
actually at least two miles south of Davis Boulevard, not one mile.
It's at least two miles south of Davis Boulevard and about the same
distance from County Barn Road. It is located very central to
downtown Naples, to Marco Island, and to the Golden Gate area, to the
industrial park off of Airport Road which means people living there
are living in a good location to commute -- to commute -- to commute
back and forth to work. So I think there's a lot of advantages to
consider in this project. Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Barsh is your final speaker.
MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I am a resident voter and
taxpayer of Collier County.
I am hearing a problem here with density, and you are
well advised to think about it. Here you are creating a very dense
population area regardless whether it's affordable or not -- I mean
whether it's tax subsidized or not tax subsidized.
So I think that the question here is, A, density; B, if
the property very close by is going to be sold for a bus barn, then
there should be a concern for the children living in a high density
project. You -- how many buses are going to be there? Those buses
are going to be coming in and out around school time when those
children are going to be coming in and away from school. This is
quite a dangerous thing. And if you are concerned about children,
then that should be a major concern with this location.
Also if there's a shopping center coming in and if
there's Edison Community College, you have a tremendous amount of
traffic that's going to be out in that area. Is this a good place for
families with children especially to increase the density of that type
of resident?
So these are questions I think that you are very, very,
very wise to be concerned with and to look at very carefully before
you grant any kind of permission for this. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- I have a question.
Mr. Bellows, Mr. Calderwood said the land to the west of this is
shopping center. Could you clarify that?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I have a copy -- I have a copy of
the PUD document for Lely Resort. Basic -- basically coming -- thank
you -- along this corridor here is golf course tract. There's some
residential R-2 and R-1 tract coming through about here. And then
there's what's called neighborhood commercial C-3 component right
about in here. And there's the internal road that services -- it
comes up through this way and out.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So that the -- the land adjacent
to that on the west is currently planned --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's basically C-3.
MR. BELLOWS: Planned unit development.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- shopping center.
MR. BELLOWS: Planned unit development with --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With a commercial pod on it.
MR. DUANE: Neighborhood commercial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: C-3.
MR. BELLOWS: Neighborhood commercial. They designate
it C-3.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, can you help
me with a couple of questions? Can you show me on the map, the white
map there with the red markings on it, where the Santa Barbara
extension we've talked about coming down and then swinging east as it
heads south and then connecting up potentially with one of the Lely
Resort roads? Can you show me where that would come from the north
and also where it would potentially connect with Lely Resort?
MR. ARCHIBALD: One of the alignments that we're looking
at, probably one of the better alignments, would be to bring Santa
Barbara down and connect it to what we call Lely Resort Boulevard.
Although that alignment hasn't been tied down specifically, it's in
the area or it's in the vicinity of their property which is
immediately to the west of the parcel that's being considered for a
PUD today.
In addition, the alignment going north of Rattlesnake
Hammock would be in the vicinity of the east line of the air park. So
what you have is a future alignment that would be along the very west
line of the parcel in question, along the very east line of the
airport, Wing South.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So on the aerial photo, you
could almost draw a line on the left side of the box that is outlined
directly north, and that would indicate --
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. This aerial doesn't show Lely
Resort Boulevard, but it's planned -- it hasn't been platted, but it's
planned to go northward and parallel the west property line of this
parcel.
So the future four- or possibly even six-lane roadway is
going to be about where my pencil is. It could be adjacent. It could
in -- it could incorporate some property that's under consideration
today.
And to align with that, it means that we would have to
be coming down from the north in the vicinity of the runway that's
there today and possibly be in the vicinity of this parcel on the
north side of Rattlesnake Hammock.
One -- one of our problems is that we're just in the
beginning of some of the environmental reviews for the alignment. So
we're not in a position today to tell you not only where the best
alignment is but what the impacts are. Had this project been delayed
somewhat, we may have that kind of information for the board to
consider.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So from the concerns --
transportation concerns, does that alleviate those? Sounded to me
like it would. I just wanted to know if it did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it proves this PUD would
aggravate the concerns, not alleviate.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand why.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, the concern we have is that we
don't know exactly where Lely Resort Boulevard is going to intersect
with Rattlesnake Hammock. At the same point in time in trying to
connect Santa Barbara with Lely Resort, we're looking at a
intersection in this area right here.
We may find out -- we may find out as we get further
into the environmental studies and the road alignment that the future
alignment may be to the east of the runway which would bring the
alignment down to Rattlesnake Hammock opposite this parcel here,
opposite very likely the northwest corner of this parcel of land.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why isn't that a good thing
then that this -- I mean, I don't understand how this PUD negatively
impacts that description.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, I'm not in a position today to
come to the board and ask that we reserve a lot of property from this
parcel because I don't know what that final alignment would be. And
that's the unknown that's in question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the potential exists --
and I think this was Commissioner Hancock's point before is the board
hasn't always traditionally been very forward looking as to what the
major north-south or east-west --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When might we know?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- transportation corridors
are.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When might we know?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Unfortunately it --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Goodman, we're going to have
to have you on the microphone if you -- if you -- if you speak.
MR. DUANE: This is the wetland area that we've tried to
cjuster our buildings around. It's approximately an acre.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the point being that the area
that we would potentially want to -- to take for the road is not
contemplated for development. Am I getting it? MR. GOODMAN: That is correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob looking kind of wary over
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see any houses on there,
so I thought it looked pretty clear. I don't know.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Goodman is unfortunately
caught in something that has happened a couple of months ago with the
Collegewood PUD. We looked at a single affordable housing project out
in an area where it seemed that it would be beneficial, and this board
approved that project.
By the same token, we have taken a tack that cjustering
of affordable housing in one area predominantly is not something we
want to encourage. So we have a little bit of a problem.
Because that property has not closed or been slated for
another use, what we have here is a -- an interrupted continuum of
high density. We have Sierra Meadows at approximately 16 units an
acre. We then have a vacant parcel zoned ag. We then have
Collegewood at ten units an acre. We then have a vacant parcel zoned
ag. And we're being asked to review 12 units an acre on another
piece.
By granting this zoning and sandwiching one parcel
between it and Collegewood we by virtue are looking at that piece in
between and saying you're going to be somewhere in the balipark of 10
or 12.
MR. DUANE: Ten's what is permitted maximum under the
plan today, the property immediately to the east of us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, right. It's allowed to
request up to a maximum. My point is by virtue of granting
Collegewood, we then tend to look at transitional zoning away from
higher density. And -- and even though you can request up to 16, 10
units an acre is considered high density.
And what we're -- what we're doing here is by -- by
approving both Collegewood and this one, we are eliminating the
ability to transition either to the east or to the west. We're
creating an infill parcel that's gonna come in at a higher density,
and we are also -- we've already created between Collegewood and
Sierra Meadows --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's already one --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a piece that is -- has --
already has a fantastic case for density at least in the
seven-unit-per-acre category.
So I -- you know, I -- I wish -- I wish Collegeward --
wood weren't the situation because I think this would be that stand
alone piece that we would all agree is warranted out there and makes
sense. But with Collegewood on the books, by granting this zoning, we
are determining the destiny of two other parcels along that -- that
corridor not to mention the entire ag. piece across the street which
has yet to be rezoned. And we're -- we're really setting a trend that
-- that is -- is more concerning than just this -- this parcel.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How are we set -- how are we
doing -- determining the destiny of the ag. piece across? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He -- he's next.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me boil it down real
simple and see, Mr. Duane, if you can help me. I have one particular
concern here. And if we can get beyond that, then maybe we can work
with it. And if we can't -- MR. DUANE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The transportation issue it
appears we may be able to deal with. And frankly I hate to hold
somebody up because we don't know what might happen. Lely hasn't
platted it. We don't have our studies done. So yeah, I don't know
that I'm comfortable with using that argument.
The idea of the Davis and Radio -- Radio Road ones under
the existing road network anyway are a ways away, so I'm not
comfortable using those.
I -- it's a very valid concern, though, using the two
lots away, the Collegewood -- is that right? I don't want to confuse
the -- College Park, Collegewood -- the Collegewood property and what
we have traditionally done or what we've been very consistent in doing
in the last two or three years as far as the cjustering. And I'm
trying to remember the -- the tag line, the section of our Land
Development Code. I can't remember the exact numbers and I suspect --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Distributed equitably.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And that was the
discussion we had during the Land Development Code, and we purposely
kept that in for this very purpose.
And now if the bus barn is a definite go and we get
beyond that, it takes care of some of the concerns you're saying as
far as transitional and so on. But if we don't know that it's a go,
in order to be consistent with what this board has done before for at
least a couple of years, then I have a -- I -- I can't support it.
And so that one thing is in the balance. And I don't know how we deal
with that, and maybe you have a suggestion. I wasn't aware -- I
thought the bus barn was pretty much a done deal. And I wasn't aware
that that was in limbo until last night.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was hoping it was a done deal
because it would have made a lot of this easier.
MR. DUANE: If the school board purchases that property
and they're still left with the zoning, do we still have this dilemma
that we're in today? I don't know whether they -- to build the school
barn or bus barn whether they have to change their zoning or not. I
guess that's tied into your agreement somehow but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do they have to? They don't have
to I don't think.
MR. DORRILL: They don't -- they don't need zoning.
They would need site plan approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the zoning becomes irrelevant
once the school board closes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, not necessarily because they could
still resell it and still have the zoning.
MR. BELLOWS: It still runs -- the zoning still runs
with the land. We would have to work with the property owner to
fezone the land back to public use of some kind.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane, I want you to be
able to answer that, but I want one more question along the same
line. You were out of the room, Mr. Dotrill, when Commissioner Norris
brought up the comment that we've been trying to talk to the school
board about sharing our property on the north of them -- just north of
the landfill for a site. Are those discussions ongoing?
MR. DORRILL: They are scheduled, and they make a lot of
sense if we can share both a -- a garage maintenance facility and
fueling and washing facility for -- for the long term.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that -- that just adds to
the mix. So I don't know what I -- what I'm looking for specifically
for a question, but that's the one issue for me. When we look at
findings and what are we legally basing our decision to approve or our
decision to -- to deny on, that's the one issue that for me is just
stuck there, and I don't know how we deal with that.
MR. DUANE: I -- and I guess a question for you is if
the school board purchases this property, does this dilemma go away
somewhat for you if they decide to put it to another use? That's
clearly their -- their intention is to use it for something.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not necessarily, Mr. Duane. They are
-- they are into a contract. If the contract gets fulfilled, that
doesn't preclude them from negotiating with the county to -- what
we're trying to do, as a matter of fact, is -- is perhaps a land swap
for that property to keep it from being a bus barn on Rattlesnake
Hammock and put them out somewhere else. And then the underlying
zoning is still the same. It's still approved for affordable housing.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, and I can't resolve that dilemma --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand.
MR. DUANE: -- as to what the -- the school board may or
may not do with their zoning once they build their bus barn on the
property.
MR. GOODMAN: And the way that was worded was that if
the school board buys the property, my property might still not be
approved regardless of whether your own director thinks it's -- it's
-- it's wise to do so. But instead you would try to do a land swap
so the county would own the property still precluding me from getting
this approval.
So the -- the very county would then swap for property
that would preclude anyone else from doing affordable housing project
when the existing owner says that he can't afford to do it. If it's a
question of having two -- two projects close together, then maybe you
want to approve -- approve one subject to the other one having that
affor -- that component removed and maybe give me a window of
opportunity to go back to Mr. Bryant (sic) and have that removed over
a 90-day period or something.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm -- I don't have an
objection to that, I mean, if -- if -- because the main objection is
to having the cjustering in one area. And if one of those is removed
and if you can do it subject to that, then I don't know if that
answers some of your -- I know you'd had a couple other concerns. But
the -- the issue for me is the cjustering in any one area. We have
been very consistent not to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But there's another issue that -- that
-- that I alluded to just a little bit earlier too that you have
spoken publicly about. And -- and that is, you know, when we have
FOCUS meetings or we have constituent calls, the bulk of them is
please hold down density, slow down the growth. And here we are with
a proposal once again to add to -- add to density, add to growth and
not only expand it to the limits of the Growth Management Plan but to
give bonus.
And so I don't know how to reconcile that if we're going
to keep approving these projects especially in areas where we're
trying to lower densities and upgrade the area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you've got to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I still don't know how all of this
reconciles.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The way we need to reconcile
that's through our Land Development Code. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need to change our code then
if we want to accomplish that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the laws we've got permit
what we're -- what we're being asked to do today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It permits but it doesn't mandate,
Commissioner Hac'Kie. We don't have to approve this project.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course we don't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you're gonna have to -- you're
gonna have to reconcile that with your voters because they're asking
you to hold down densities, and you're sitting up here promoting
density.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But frankly --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you gotta make -- you know, you
gotta make up your mind about that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's talk about reducing
densities next time we have a golf course -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- country club --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- come in here instead of a --
an affordable housing project; okay? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
MR. HIHALIC: Why not affordable housing, commissioners;
okay? Sixteen units an acre gets approved for other kinds of
residential developments. Twenty-three units an acre for -- on a
settlement a month ago.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think --
MR. HIHALIC: Only on affordable housing do we argue
about 10 units or 12 units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have to recognize --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is it -- is it your policy to have
your staff lecture the board, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No. No, sir, and I think it's been a long
afternoon, and he realizes that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think we have to recognize
that the only way we're going to have affordable housing if there is
some level of density bonus given. And if we don't want affordable
housing at all, then we're going to have to modify our plan to
indicate that. At this time our plan indicates that we do offer
density bonuses for affordable housing, so let's bring this back to
this particular project.
For me personally I don't want to cjuster and increase
the amount of affordable housing in the immediate area of the
Collegewood project until the disposition of that project is
determined. I don't know about the legal implications of a -- a
tentative approval of a project pending the land use result of
another. I'm not even -- I don't even know how to begin couching
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You could do it just as a
condition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Approval subject to.
MS. STUDENT: I -- if I might, for the record, Harjorie
Student, assistant county attorney. I think that may be problematic.
I think what might be better -- and the petitioner may agree to this
-- is to continue the item in -- indefinitely until we can determine
exactly what is going in next door.
This is a quasi-judicial hearing. And under the Snyder
case, the initial burden's on the applicant to show consistency with
the comprehensive plan. And there is a question about our plan and
that any concentration rule, as I call it, in the housing element
where we can't be sure about what's going to happen with that parcel,
then the test is the burden shifts to the local government to show a
good police power, public health, safety, welfare, if you will, reason
to maintain the status quo.
This is the test under the Snyder case. So I have a
little concern where we don't know the real status of that adjacent
parcel and there's a consistency with the housing element issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion to
continue this item indefinitely until the disposition of the
Collegewood property is known. Now, I understand that would take us
beyond the advertising period and may have to be readvertised at the
petitioner's expense. But if that property disposition is not known
or if it is affordable housing, I am not going to vote to approve this
one. I just don't want to cjuster out there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to continue. Does the
petitioner --
MR. GOODMAN: Recognizing the -- the position of the
board and that the two concerns have been raised by the two -- by a
couple of commissioners about the close proximity of the two, we'd
support that very much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then to
continue indefinitely this proposal, so I'll call that question. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just follow up by
saying a couple of things. One, I agree wholeheartedly with you, and
I want to look at the Land Development Code. And I think we've all --
all said that at this point.
Secondary, Mr. Hihalic, I hope you're not -- I hope he's
not going around publicly saying we're approving things at 16 and 23
units per acre because when you mix up -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- gross numbers and overall
numbers and net numbers, that's deceiving. No, we're not, because
when you have open space and golf course and green space and wetlands
and everything else all figured into that, then someone owns one big
parcel of 100 acres. We're not giving them 2,300 units on that.
And there are parts of that where, yeah, if -- you know,
if I -- if I have a 20-acre compound and I build a home for my dad and
I, yeah, we'll probably build them very close to each other so you
might have 2 units very close to one another on there but only because
that makes sense. And you can put one at one end and one at the
other, and it wouldn't make any sense. And, I mean, that's a very
exaggerated example but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to use -- to mix up the
overall net and gross numbers is deceiving to the public and does a
disservice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I figure Earl would want to be
far away from you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We're quitting here real soon.
Item #15A
COUNTY MANAGER TO RESCHEDULE SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS FROM 6/25 TO 7/16/96
Mr. Dotrill, do you have anything else?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say this in as few words as
possible. We -- we are far beyond the threshold of requested public
hearings for the final meeting before your recess. And as a result of
that, I have been rescheduling public hearings for the first meeting
after your recess. You are apt to hear some complaining. Or, you
know, everyone always seems to have a crisis the week before you leave
on recess.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And I want you to know that I normally try
and schedule ten. I have scheduled 12. I think we have like 20
requests for public hearings. And I don't intend to schedule them
unless you tell me otherwise. I think they can wait three weeks until
you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Personally I'd rather schedule
them. Schedule them and we have a long meeting. God, we're going on
vacation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I know a couple of them
have specifically requested to wait until July 16 because they don't
want to have us making decisions on their life and their money at 12
midnight. We are usually -- our judgment is not quite as clear at
midnight as it is at 3 p.m. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if they would like to be
heard, I'm willing to stay late and hear them. That's one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's one. Anything else?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- I have one quick --
quick issue, and that deals with the work release center. And I -- I
was wondering if it's possible we could have Ned Putzell or Judge
Brousseau help us find a way to, so to speak, marry the work release
program and the juvenile detention center together either in building
height or some design factor so that we could get it all done at one
time and ask if they could come in in the next week, next week or the
week after to -- to help us with a design for that site.
MR. DORRILL: We attended yesterday the final meeting of
the regional jail study. And pending the outcome of that, the issue
of a local work release center may come up. That was taken out of the
county manager's tentative budget, but Judge Brousseau has knowledge
of that, and I have invited him to come and plead his case the
afternoon that you hear that particular --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say my
recollection was not that we had said we were going to go ahead and
fund that. So if my recollection is incorrect and this board has
approved funding for that, then I'd be happy to marry the two, but I
don't recall that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't approved for funding.
It was one of those "gee, we wish we had the money this year to do
it. You know, we'll see you later" decisions if I remember
correctly. It's later.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's later.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's later.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's later.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think we're being asked to
look at it again.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we're being asked to look
at -- at it again. And the -- the juvenile justice department is --
is going to be building the detention center. And if there's a way to
make the two programs work together, then maybe we should look at it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that'll be presented
during budgets as Mr. Dotrill has scheduled. It might be sufficient.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me.
MR. DORRILL: There have been some competing interests
about who's going to have what site to the north and east of the
jail. And I'm still concerned about reserving enough space so that
you can expand the jail at some point, and that's sort of what
surfaced just recently.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before the deadline Mary
Morgan has set, I'm going to have one item I need us to put on the
ballot in the fall which is at the request of -- would be a special
taxing district to the request of the people along Radio Road to have
a beautification district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they get their petitions in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's simply to give them
their own choice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they get their petitions in?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have they got their petitions in?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't help it. Had to ask.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything
else?
MS. FILSON: I do not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're outta here.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR CANDLEWOOD TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR VILLAGE WALK, PHASE FOUR-A
- WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3
LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,000 ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.552 "CARLTON LAKES, UNIT #1, LAKES F, G, H, N,
O & P, LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
See Pages
Item #16A4
LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.331 "NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK - LAKE L-1 &
L-2 AND NW LAKE EXPANSION", LOCATED IN SECTION 22, 23, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
See Pages
Item #16A5
LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $32,000 ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.567 "NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS, LOCATED IN
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
See Pages
Item #16A6
APPROVAL OF EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59-567, "NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS"
LOCATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY VANDERBILT VILLAS PUD; ON THE EAST BY BEACHWAY PUD AND ST.
JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD; ON THE SOUTH BY NAPLES
MEMORIAL GARDENS AND ON THE WEST BY VANDERBILT DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY -
WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $10,000 ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.563 "SAXON MANOR ISLES" LOCATED IN SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
See Pages
Item #16B1
WORK ORDER NO. HHA FT 96-3 WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES IN AN A_MOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $49,500 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO CITY/COUNTY
WATER INTERCONNECT
See Pages
Item #1682
TOURIST TAX FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE HIDEAWAY BEACH ASSOCIATION, INC.
FOR RENOURISHHENT OF HIDEAWAY BEACH
See Pages
Item #1683
BID #96-2494 AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS THE FOR COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ALUMINUM CANS, CARDBOARD, OFFICE
PAPER, MERCURY CONTAINING DEVICES AND FLUORESCENT LAMPS AND BIDS
REJECTED FOR USED OIL, ANTI-FREEZE, PRINTER CARTRIDGES AND SCRAP METAL
Item #1684
BID/RFP #96-2501 AND APPROVE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT FOR WATER-SEWER UTILITY
MONTHLY RATE STUDY - AWARDED TO JOHN A. MAYER ASSOCIATES
Item #16C1
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE PREPARED FOOD TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
SUHMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM
See Pages
Item #16C2
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF FLORIDA GRANT TO
PROVIDE LUNCHES FOR IHMOKALEE AND NAPLES SUHMER RECREATION PARTICIPANTS
AND ATHLETIC SUPERVISOR TO ACT AS COUNTY'S LIAISON OFFICER
See Pages
Item #16C3
COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE
EMPOWERING COUNTY PARK RANGERS TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
COUNTY ORDINANCES WITHIN ALL PARK BOUNDARIES
Item #16C4
COUNTY ATTORNEY AUTHORIZED TO INCREASE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR
COUNTY-WIDE PARKING VIOLATIONS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 80-47 AS AMENDED
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 96-268 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL/SENIOR
SERVICES DEPARTMENT GRANT APPLICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D1
ENERGY MANAGEMENT REBATE ACCEPTED FROM FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT AND
INSTALLATION OF DEHUHIDIFICATION EQUIPMENT ON THE THIRD FLOOR AND
FOURTH FLOORS OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AUTHORIZED
Item #16D2
TRANSFER MONIES FROM EHS FUND 490 TO EHS FUND 491 FOR AN EHS HATCHING
GRANT FOR HELICOPTER FLIGHT SAFETY AWARDED BY THE STATE EHS OFFICE
Item #16D3
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR STEVEN H. LEJEUNE ESTATE AND BRADLEY
AND CATHRYN THOMPSON
See Pages
Item #16D4
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D5
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE 1994 MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, RESOLUTION 96-269 APPROVING A
SATISFACTION OF LIEN BILLED IN ERROR FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER 1643; STANLEY
COCHRAN AND A SATISFACTION OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $104.37
See Pages
Item #16D6
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE 1993 MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, RESOLUTION 96-270 APPROVING A
SATISFACTION OF LIEN BILLED IN ERROR FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER 306186; STANLEY
COCHRAN AND A SATISFACTION OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $104.37
See Pages
Item #16D7
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE 1992 MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, RESOLUTION 96-271 APPROVING A
SATISFACTION OF LIEN BILLED IN ERROR FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER 152929; STANELY
COCHRAN AND A SATISFACTION OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.74
See Pages
Item #16D8
UPDATE RE THE 800 HHZ SYSTEM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND REQUEST FOR
BOARD APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE PROJECT BUDGET, THE CONTRACT AMOUNT, AND
FORMALLY RECOGNIZE AND DISTRIBUTE SYSTEM REVENUE
Item #16D9
COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED SURPLUS AND SALE AUTHORIZED FOR JUNE 22
Item #16D10
APPROPRIATE $149,500 OF POSITIVE CARRY FORWARD FROM FISCAL YEAR 1995
FOR THE REVENUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16Dll
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-390 AND 96-457
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995
Tangible Personal Property
No. Dated
69 05/21/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $300,000 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET FUND (040)
Item #16H2
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996 - 1997
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:36 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Shelly Semmler