BCC Minutes 04/09/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 9, 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 9:04 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 #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1996, MARCH 19, 1996 AND
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
(The following proceedings commenced, Commissioner
Constantine not being present.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, if I could have
your attention, we'll call the county mission -- county commission
meeting to order this 9th day of April 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you
could lead us in an invocation and a pledge, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks. We give
thanks for today and -- and for the just past Easter weekend and what
that means to a variety of faiths. We give thanks for your wonder and
your glory and your grace. As always, we as part of our prayer this
morning give thanks for our elected leadership and the wonderful
quality of life that we enjoy in Collier County for its people. We
give thanks for the dedication of our hard working and support staff
and for the many citizens who do choose to participate in the
governmental process in Collier County. And it's our prayer today
that the vote and action and direction of this commission would, in
fact, be a reflection of your will for our community. And we pray
these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, at the request of
Commissioner Constantine, we will skip over the approval of the agenda
for the moment and go ahead with some of our ceremonial items. And
then when he gets here, he said he had an agenda change he wanted to
note, so we'll wait for him to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, that being the
case, I think that brings us to item number 4 where I'll make a motion
to approve the minutes of the March 12th, regular meeting, the March
19th regular meeting, and the March 20th special meeting. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
There are none, so we will go to proclamations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about service awards?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Service awards. How about service
awards? We have a lot of service awards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, catchup. We've got a
zillion service awards. It's my real honor to make these awards today
for longevity and service to Collier County.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the room.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll start with the shorter ones,
if you can believe, our ten-year service award and ask Peter Bolton
who has been with helicopter operations for ten years to come
forward.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to get an airplane.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You need to get an airplane with
a white --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If Walter Kopka is here, he's
been with the county for ten years with EHS.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now the rest of these are
15-year awards, which is a real pleasure to get to recognize these
people, all of whom have served with EHS. Ricardo Garcia.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is this the day EHS was
created?
MR. DORRILL: As a matter of fact, you're pretty close.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did you guess that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Part of a coincidence actually.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paul Joseph, also with EHS for 15
years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sandy, do we have any units out
there right now?
MS. ORTENGREN: Actually two of them may be because
they're not on duty.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David Kitchen, 15 years. Did I
get that right?
MS. ORTENGREN: Yes. I'm going to accept David's
because they're both on duty. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. ORTENGREN: I'm their supervisor.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Debbie who?
MS. ORTENGREN: Deborah Lichliter and David Kitchens is
being accepted by their supervisor.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, she's here, Teresa Ortengren,
15 years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thomas Haguire, 15 years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also Jeffrey Page, 15 years with
EHS.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: William E. Peplinski, 15 years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he's coming up. Last but not
least, Paul Wilson, 15 years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Halfway there, Paul.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that all?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that all? Yeah.
Item #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will go back then now and set the
agenda. Commissioner Constantine is here. Mr. Dotrill, what are the
changes this morning?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, good morning. We -- we have
three add-on items this morning and then two additional changes. The
first add-on item is under public works. It will be 8(B)(2). It is a
routine item as it pertains to a proposed construction of a reclaimed
effluent line crossing under Davis Boulevard
at Kings Way.
One additional public works item is 8(B)(3), and it's my
understanding that this has been discussed with Commissioner Hancock.
This was -- was due -- we had promised some people that we would have
it on today within the Forest Lakes community. That's a report and
recommendation to accept a petition on behalf of the residents for the
Forest Lakes community concerning some landscape improvements that
they would like to undertake with their own taxes, 8(B)(3).
Item 6(B) will be under the clerk's report this morning,
and that is the recognition and a presentation to the board by the
clerk of the circuit court on behalf of his finance department for
special achievement and excellence in financial reporting, 6(B).
I have a request to continue under public hearings as
part of the afternoon session, if necessary, item 12(C)(5), will be
continued to April the 23rd, which is two weeks from today. That's
petition AV 92-002, which is a vacation of a portion of a street at
Tara Court.
And then finally we have item 8(B)(1) under public works
will be withdrawn. That is a request to consider an alternative
impact fee for the Wyndemere subdivision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may ask, Mr. Dotrill, on
that particular item were the residents of Wyndemere notified in
advance of this item being withdrawn?
MR. DORRILL: And I'll need Mr. Conrecode's help.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, public
works. Yes, they're aware of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they weren't yesterday at
five o'clock. That's why I'm asking.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we've been working through -- they
have a water impact fee committee, and that's who we've been working
through. And I guess maybe I've erroneously made the assumption that
those people have been in communication with the community, because
we've been dealing with them as a body rather than individual
residents.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're getting conflicting
statements from people who live in the community versus the committee
you've been working with. Is that --
MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. We think we've reached resolution
of the issue; that's why we've withdrawn it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: And we'll come back to the board in a
couple of weeks with a recommended solution. The attorney
representing them is here if you want to talk to them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. I just wanted to
make sure that they were aware. And I see Mr. Goodlette nod his
head. And I do also want to mention that they were highly
complimentary of Mr. Conrecode's work on this matter. So I want to
thank you on their behalf, Tom, and want to at least give you
recognition for the good work you've done on that. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's an additional note down there,
Mr. Dotrill. It says add-on item 8(D)(1) is consent agenda item
16(D)(2).
MR. DORRILL: And I'll -- I may need Mr. Ochs' help with
this one. It's my understanding that this would otherwise be a
consent agenda item, and it is shown as item 16(D)(2) on the agenda
today, the consent agenda, which is the approval -- the annual
approval of the work force Florida plan of action as part of the PIC
program.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What item is 8(D)(1)?
MR. DORRILL: There is no 8(D)(1). That's correct. As
I indicated, there may have been some confusion on that. The people
were asking was it going to be an add-on, and it is already on the
agenda --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
HR. DORRILL: -- as 16(D)(2). That's why it's just a
note.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then, Mr. Weigel, do you have
anything further?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of comments. One, I
want to add item 5(A)(2), and that's to declare April llth Ray Hartin
Day in Collier County.
Also this is my week in Tallahassee, and I have a 4:20
flight, so as we work our afternoon agenda, I think the morning agenda
is short enough so we may be done by then. If not, I'm going to need
to excuse myself around 3:30.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. One agenda note that I have is
to accommodate one of our board members today, we will break at a
quarter till 12 for lunch and return at 1:15.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I -- could I
suggest that with -- with Commissioner Constantine having to leave
early that we work on all super majority items early on?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good suggestion. We'll see how that
-- we're moving along into the day here.
We have our agenda set. Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda
and consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's none. The next --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of March -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've done that, but we're ready for
proclamations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case, I'll withdraw
that motion.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 13, 1996, AS SPECIAL OLYMPICS DAY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 5(A) (1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it gives me
pride to present a proclamation this morning. Robert Betman is with
us from Special Olympics. Robert, if you'd come on up and turn around
so the vast crowd can see you. The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, Collier County Special Olympics, a year-round
program of sports training and competition for children and adults
with mental retardation, has served Collier County well since 1972;
and
Whereas, Collier County Special Olympics provided
services for over 400 Collier County special citizens; and
Whereas, Collier County Special Olympics provides its
athletes with opportunities to gain confidence, improve physical
skills and self-esteem and to become more involved citizens; and
Whereas, Collier County will host the Special Olympics
Area 9 spring games this coming Saturday, April 13th, at Naples High
School involving 300 athletes from four counties plus 300 volunteers.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of April 13,
1996, be designated as Special Olympics Day.
Done and ordered this 9th day of April, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, John C. Norris, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Robert, thank you very much.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. BERHAN: Thanks so much for your continued support.
It is appreciated. It's very satisfying, and it's nice to know the
county is behind Special Olympics. It's not so in many counties, so
thanks for your efforts. All of you in the assemblage out here as
well as the commissioners should know that on Saturday we are hosting
four counties in our spring games up at Naples High School. We're
looking for volunteers, and any of you who want to have a really life
experience and work with some of these special athletes come on out to
Naples High. If you don't want to volunteer, just watch what
happens. It's very, very reassuring and heart warming. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. BERHAN: Good night (sic).
(Applause)
Item #5A2
RAY HARTIN DAY PROCLAIMED AS APRIL 11, 1996 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is Ray Martin Day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we
approve April llth, Thursday of this week, as Ray Martin Day in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No elaboration?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who is Ray Martin?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, actually it's supposed
to be a surprise for Ray. That's why we're not going into great
elaboration today. But he's retiring from heading up the community
out in the Golden Gate area after about eleven years and has done a
lot for the community, so we're trying to kind of nestle him in
Thursday.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
We have us a new Ray Martin Day.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't report that.
Item #5C1
PLAQUE PRESENTED TO THE AGENCY OR DIVISION WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE
OF PARTICIPATION IN THE BLOOD SCREENING FOR THE HEART AT WORK PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is one that gives me
pleasure to -- well, I'll tell you what, Commissioner Matthews, why
don't you do the plaque first.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's fine. Teresa Ann
DeBlasie, is she here? Phyllis Stump and Carla Hunt, do you want to
come up and turn around, and let me tell you a little bit about what
this is all about. We have a Collier County Heart at Work Program, and
these three ladies are here to accept this plaque that has been
created, kind of an original-looking plaque.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not necessarily attractive --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That heart will beat with two AA
batteries, I hear.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- but it says what it needs to
say. This program -- this year we had 445 employees involved in it,
and we found that 270 of those 445 had at least one major elevated
risk factor, and that's what this program was all about, was to screen
our employees for elevated risk factors. We -- we found, as I say,
270 of them, and some of them had multiple risk factors. And with
programs like this, we will keep our county employees healthy longer
and active a lot longer, and I'm happy to have you around for as long
as you can be here.
But with that I want to award this plaque to the three
of you. I'm not sure how we're going to show it, but anyway it's got
a nice heart on it, and it says Heart at Work Award presented by the
Board of County Commissioners in recognition of outstanding
participation and leadership in the American Heart Association's Heart
at Work Program, April 9, 1996. And I want to say it is with -- with
great pride that I'm so happy that you ladies put this together and
are accepting this award. Thank you.
(Applause)
VOICE: Nice going, girls.
Item #5C2
ALANEAR SMILEY, CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, BUILDING REVIEW AND
PERMITTING, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next one is our presentation for
the employee of the month. If we could ask Alamar Smiley to come
forward, please, if you could face the camera there. As a ten-year
employee of Collier County government, Alamar Smiley, customer service
representative in the Immokalee office, was nominated by her fellow
employees for this honor. Her duties as a customer service agent are
handled with diplomacy and professionalism. She serves as translator
when needed and handles all the duties associated with building and
permitting in this one-person office, including preparing monthly
financial reports and making daily deposits in the bank. She is a
valuable, ambitious, and dedicated employee. Without any reservations
she was nominated and selected as employee of the month for April
1996.
I have a letter here for Miss Smiley that says, Dear
Miss Smiley, it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection
as Collier County's employee of the month for April 1996. This
well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the
county through your work in the community development building review
and permitting department. This honor includes an exceptional --
exceptional performance plaque as well as a $50 cash award which I am
proud to present to you. On behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners, I offer our sincere congratulations and also our
gratitude for your dependability and dedication.
MS. SMILEY: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #6B
BCC RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995.
PRESENTATION TO THE BCC AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT THE CERTIFICATE OF
ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR 1994 AND 1995
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 6(B), recommendation that
we receive and accept the comprehensive annual financial report.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Jim Mitchell, director of the finance and accounting
department for the clerk of the circuit court. As each of you are
aware, the clerk of the circuit court serving in the capacity as
ex-officio clerk to the board is responsible for the coordination of
the annual independent audit and financial report which is commonly
referred to as the CAFR. The finance department has two presentations
for the board today, both dealing with the CAFR. The first
presentation deals with the CAFR for fiscal year ended September 30,
1994, and the second with fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.
For those of you who do not know, the Government Finance
Officer's Association has created an award known as a receiver
achievement for excellence in financial reporting. This award program
was established by the GFOA in 1945 to encourage all government units
to prepare and publish an easily readable and understandable
comprehensive annual financial report covering all funds and financial
transactions of the government during the fiscal year. The GFOA,
along with the finance department, believe that governments have a
special responsibility to provide the public with a fair presentation
of its financial affairs. The CAFRs prepared by and for Collier
County go beyond the requirements of generally accepted principles to
provide the community with financial statements with a wide variety of
information used in evaluating the financial condition of the county.
Collier County has received this prestigious award for
eight consecutive awards, and it is with great pride that we present
to you today the ninth consecutive award, the CAFR that was presented
for the year ending September 30, 1994. I'd like to read the award to
you. The award states, certificate of achievement for excellence in
financial reporting presented to Collier County, Florida, for its
comprehensive annual financial reports for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1994. A certificate of achievement for excellent in
financial reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada to government units and
public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual
financial reports achieve the high standards in government accounting
and financial reporting.
Before I present the award to the chairman, I'd like to
publicly recognize those employees from my office who are directly
responsible for this award, and they're lined up right here. I have
Miss Jo-Ann Leamet, our controller --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring them up here.
MR. MITCHELL: Come on up. Mr. Tim Whicter (phonetic),
Miss Kathy Hankins, Miss Robin Bialkoski, MaryAlice Bailey, Shirley
Van Vliet. And unable to join us this morning is Teri O'Connell and
also Bob Burhans. I'd also like to recognize the remainder of our
staff who is hard at work over there for their dedication in producing
such a fine report year after year.
(Applause)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the clerk of
the circuit court, it's with great pride we present this award to the
Board of County Commissioners.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll send it back interoffice to
hang on your wall as usual.
MR. MITCHELL: To continue with the second presentation,
at last week's board meeting there was a discussion item; another
workshop should be presented by our external auditors covering the
comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1995. I'd like to applaud this board for expressing an
interest in such a workshop and for including the opportunity for the
citizens of the county to participate. Today's agenda item is to
formally present to you the 1995 CAFR which was included along with
the agenda item in preparation of the upcoming workshop. I'd also
like to present a copy to Mr. Neil Dotrill, county manager, and David
Weigel and thank them for their staff's assistance and cooperation
during this year's audit. I'd also like to thank each of the
constitutional officers; Mary Morgan, Abe Skinner, Sheriff Don Hunter,
Dwight Brock, and Mr. Guy Carlton, for their assistance also. I would
also like to thank our external auditors, Arthur Anderson, for a job
well done, and they have requested to address this board this
morning.
MR. BRADLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell. Good
morning. My name's Tom Bradley. I'm a partner with Arthur Anderson,
and also with me is Victor Fields. Victor is the manager in the
Collier County engagement and a very important part of the project
that we just completed. I want to make a very brief presentation this
morning, because we are going to be getting together next week on
Tuesday to have a workshop and be able to discuss in more depth any
questions that you might have on the audit. But I did just want to
make a few comments this morning.
First of all, you have been presented with a
comprehensive annual financial report which is quite comprehensive.
We can all agree on that. It includes financial statements of the
county as well as each of the constitutional officers. This document
is the responsibility of the county and the constitutional officers'
finance departments, and they have just presented it to you. Our
responsibility is to provide an audit on the financial statements and
give an opinion on the financial statements. And I'm very happy to
say that that opinion is what we call a -- opinion. It says that all
the financial statements fairly present the financial position of the
county and its results of operations for the September 30, 1995, year
end.
One of other things -- things that's very important that
we do is we look at the internal controls of the county and the
constitutional officers. And, again, there I'm very happy to tell you
that we did not find any material weaknesses and that in general the
controls of the county are strong, which is something that you and
each of the constitutional officers should be proud of.
As I said, next week -- and as Mr. Mitchell said, next
week we're going to have a workshop. If there are any particular
areas of interest that you all would like to express to us today, I'd
be happy to hear about that so we can address it next week. Or if you
want to get back to Mr. Mitchell or to us during the interim, we also
would be happy to hear about that, too. Are there any particular
areas that you might like us to address?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions or comments?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not today, no. I'll wait for
the workshop.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you then.
MR. BRADLEY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much for that,
Mr. Mitchell.
We'll move on then to our next item, which will be
8(B)(2) -- excuse me, the budget award was -- was that plaque; right?
That was -- that was the add-on portion was the plaque? MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Item #882
PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RECLAIMED WATER MAIN CROSSING FOR DAVIS
BOULEVARD AT KINGS WAY - APPROVED
8(B)(2) is a tense water agreement under Davis
Boulevard. Mr. Gonzalez, how are you today?
MR. GONZALEZ: Fine. Thank you. Commissioners, good
morning, Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects
management. This project is to add one million gallons of reclaimed
water to the Lakewood subdivision. Currently we're in the design of
that reclaimed water project. The Florida Department of
Transportation is under construction right now for Davis Boulevard.
We'd like to take advantage of not only their construction prices,
their contractors, but also not having to tear the road up after it's
finished building to connect the section that goes to Lakewood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That sounds like a reasonable
request.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed?
None.
Item #883
REPORT AND RECOHMENDATION ON ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING A PETITION FROM
RESIDENTS OF FOREST LAKES FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG PINE RIDGE
ROAD - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
The next item is 8(B)(3), an agreement to -- for
landscape improvements along Pine Ridge Road. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda
item 8(B)(3) is a petition that has been submitted by residents in
Forest Lakes to pursue a buffer along Pine Ridge Road. This agenda
item actually goes back a number of years back to the time when the
roadway itself was six-laned and the residents were looking at a wall
concept. Under the petition that's been submitted and the subject of
the agenda item, the residences that front along the golf course and
Pine Ridge Road are requesting the board to follow in the footsteps of
board direction in '94, and that is to establish a landscaped buffer
that would fall within the right-of-way of Pine Ridge Road.
Accordingly, the staff has reviewed and done an initial feasibility
analysis of the proposal.
We find that the proposal is in keeping with not only
the concept of landscaping our keynote roadways, Pine Ridge Road being
one, but would be consistent with some other policies that the board
has established relative to landscaping. So the issue becomes one of
processing the petition, and to that regard I need to confirm that the
petition is represented by about 71 percent of the condominium owners
that are affected, so a very, very high percent --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I
interrupt?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is the same issue that
these citizens came to us a couple of years ago about, and we asked
them to go and get the petition. And they only need 50 percent plus
1. They've got 70 percent. I'd like to make a motion that we accept
the petition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's only -- and I appreciate
that, Commissioner Matthews, but there is only one issue which is one
of time line, assuming the board is in agreement that 71 percent is
enough to proceed, which I agree that it is. The question is one of
time line. And, Mr. Archibald, there are two options presented to
us. One is a fast-track time line but requires some additional
steps. Could you help clarify those two so we can clarify the motion
as to which direction to take?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Briefly, to go through the creation of a
taxing district by ordinance is going to take some time and a series
of public hearings. The alternative would be to work with the
petitioners in this regard to fund the initial installation of that
with funding from the petitioners themselves followed by the county
going ahead and accepting the landscaped area for maintenance. So we,
in the agenda item, include not only the identification of cost upon
the part of the county, but the method of going ahead and attempting
to fast track this. And the recommendation of staff includes that
provision to do not only processing of the petition, not only
processing of the budget amendments to allocate the funds, but also to
fast track subject to the qualifiers that are in the agenda item to
include the funding up front by the owners.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I assume your motion
includes that staff recommendation as itws contained in the executive
summary?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. I mean, I read
the recommendation. Iwm assuming, too, at the same time, Mr.
Archibald, that you will be coming back to us with additional
particulars as this project moves along?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I have one, one speaker, Mr. Chairman, who
is here on behalf of the residents. I donwt know whether based on the
motion he still wishes to speak. Mr. Weiser, are you still with us,
sir? Go right ahead.
MR. WEISER: I had something prepared, and Iill drop it
and just say thank you for your motion. I hope approval.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Just to note for the record that
with the agenda item and the package thatls provided for this item,
the petition prototype thatls shown there is a petition that has
specific requests or requirements within it. Itls for the -- itls
asking for the creation of a municipal service benefit unit, but it
does also have under part C specific requirements of assessment, and
Iill note that as we work with Mr. Archibald and the -- and the
homeowners and residents of this -- of this area, which we have been
working in the past, that weill further -- be further counseling them
in regard to the legal requirements for an MSBU or MSTU and the
application of this petition, because it does affect all of the
property within a specific geographic area. And Iid just note at the
outset that therels a difficulty within a petition of imposing
particular fees on properties wherein the owners may not themselves
necessarily agree in totality. So weill -- weill be looking to work
that out as we go forward here.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Then with no
further comment, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
It passes.
Item #BE1
FOLLOWUP REGARDING TOURIST DEVELOPHENT TAX FUNDING - REQUIREHENTS RE
CATEGORY "B" FUNDS WAIVED
We'll move to 8(E)(1), follow-up regarding TDC funding.
Mr. Dotrill, do any of our staff members have a presentation on this?
Mr. Reynolds.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Reynolds is here as well as Mr.
Rasmussen, and we have staff here from the TDC in the event there are
questions.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. I'm Allen Reynolds, president of the Naples Area Chamber
of Commerce. And I first want to apologize for this lousy weather
we're having today. You know, that's one of the things that the
chamber always tried to stay focused on, and we had a few other things
this past week that we've been working on so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Reynolds, we pride
ourselves on 360 days a year, and this is one of the 5. MR. REYNOLDS: Got to have a few days of rain.
On behalf of the chamber, I'm here this morning to
address the recent events that have led up to a meeting that we had on
Thursday following your Tuesday meeting last week concerning the
fulfillment of the Intellinet golf package promotion. I've given you
all a letter which goes, I think, into some detail on some of the
specific issues that have been raised, and what I'd like to do is just
really summarize a few points for you and suggest a course of action.
The chamber was dismayed to learn of the criticism that
was aired at last Tuesday's commission meeting, the manner that it was
providing fulfillment duties to its contract service provider, phase
5. Had we been notified in advance of the specific concerns, we are
certain that the issues could have been addressed in an appropriate
and timely way to the satisfaction of this commission. The detailed
expectations of the Board of County Commissioners beyond those that
are set forth in Intellinet's contract with the county were never
clearly defined to the Chamber of Commerce, and it's apparent to us
now that your expectations for this fulfillment service greatly exceed
those that -- that we are contracted to provide.
Let me just summarize those. The contract that
Intellinet has with the county established three responsibilities for
the Chamber of Commerce. First one is to establish a single discrete
1-800 telephone number to process the incoming calls generated by the
television commercials that were created for the Discover Paradise
promotion. The second responsibility was to answer those calls,
record and maintain a list of callers by name and other appropriate
information for use in the promotion. And then the third
responsibility was to forward that information to a private vendor for
processing of vacation trips in Collier County in accordance with
chamber policies.
The Chamber of Commerce carried out these services
through its contracted provider in a professional manner consistent
with its standard policies and procedures for fulfillment activities
funded through the tourist development tax. And as you know, we have
a fair amount of experience in handling fulfillment responsibilities.
Based on the recent meeting we had and the discussion
last week at the county commission, we now understand that your
expectations go beyond those that I've identified and include the
following. The first is 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week live operator
coverage for an undetermined volume of calls. And it's our
understanding that -- that the rate of those calls could exceed
several hundred calls per minute.
The second requirement is a scripted greeting with
extensive operator knowledge of the Discover Paradise promotion terms
and conditions and the ability to converse with the caller to market
the golf packages. And then the third requirement is either a daily
or a weekly detailed report to be submitted to the county commission
for tracking of the project.
Phase five does have the capabilities to provide most of
these added services, but they greatly exceed the original commitment
of the Chamber of Commerce. I can tell you that had those
requirements been specified to us previously, particularly the
24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week live operator coverage, we would have
recommended that Intellinet and the county pursue another service
provider.
The chamber has contracted its telephone answering and
mailing responsibilities with one of the most technically
sophisticated firms in southwest Florida. They're seasoned
professionals. They've been extremely successful in providing tourism
fulfillment services for over ten years, and they have the capability
of processing in excess really of forty-eight hundred calls a day and
have the capability to put 15 live operators on line at any one time
to handle incoming calls. That includes the four that are at the
visitors' center and then a switching device that switches additional
calls up to their main center in Fort Myers.
Those calls -- when they come in, by the way, they don't
receive a busy signal. They are stacked as they would in any kind of
a computerized fulfillment service where a recording comes on and says
your call will be handled by the next available operator. With that
kind of capability we were very surprised to learn about the
investigated telephone calls that were described in the newspaper
article. And we -- because we have this system in place through phase
five, obviously a detailed record is kept of every call that comes in
with the information provided. And I've outlined in the letter to you
-- and I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail on this -- at
least what our records indicate about the five calls that were
identified.
The Naples Chamber of Commerce has to date handled
approximately nineteen hundred sixty-three inquiries relative to this
promotion. We have performed these duties in a responsible, capable,
and professional manner and believe strongly that we're providing a
very first-class fulfillment service. Unfortunately, if a flight
schedule of the specific confirmed air times for the battered
telephone commercials cannot be secured well in advance, the
24-hour-a-day live operator coverage 7 days a week is well outside the
parameters of what the chamber can handle through phase five.
Staffing that kind of a commitment would be -- would be impossible for
us and would be difficult for anybody -- anyone except probably the
largest fulfillment houses in the country because you'd have to have a
huge bank of operators on line 24 hours a day.
Therefore, we respectfully request being relieved of the
fulfillment responsibilities effective Friday, April 19, 1996, or as
soon as possible prior to that date for the Discover Paradise
promotion. And we understand that arrangements have already been made
to transfer this responsibility to another firm that can be ready to
handle the transfer without any loss of service, and I understand now
that may be as early as April 15th.
I also want to say that the chamber joins the county,
the local hoteliers, and certainly Intellinet in this desire to see
this Discover Paradise promotion succeed. The better success that we
have with this promotion, the better it is for the chamber, the better
it is for the community. We think it was an absolutely fabulous
presentation at the -- at the tournament, and we would like nothing
better than to see this thing really exceed its expectations.
I will tell you also that in the future the chamber will
endeavor to obtain a full and complete scope of services before it
offers to assist any publicly funded activity to hopefully avoid the
lack of communications and misunderstandings that have surrounded this
project. We would urge the county commission likewise to make sure
that you demand a detailed proposal that insures that all of the
coordination activities and communication instruments are in place in
advance as part of the -- as part of the project to avoid, you know,
the kind of, I think, lack of communication that has characterized
this particular episode.
And in closing, please remember that we are your Chamber
of Commerce. We're a dedicated organization of 2,000 local businesses
representing 50,000 working citizens of Collier County and supported
by over 600 community volunteers. We've been in the business of
serving this community for 50 years, and we're justifiably very proud
of the reputation as one of the leading chambers in the United
States.
In the future if there is ever any question, comment, or
concern about the chamber's activities, we trust that you will contact
us immediately and directly, and we will assure you that you will find
us most eager and most willing to respond. Thank you very much. And
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, this entire issue
comes down to one point, and that is expectations that have not been
clearly defined by agreement or contract. And as I expressed to
Mr. Wheeler (phonetic) last week, in no way from my standpoint were
the comments made directed at the Chamber of Commerce or at any of the
employees of the chamber. This year has been a learning experience in
this entire Intellinet process, and if there's one thing we need to
learn, it's contained in last two paragraphs of your letter, which is
that the communication needs to be more specific in the future
regarding goals, expectations, and fulfillment of same. And the last
thing I want to do as a member of this board is to try and take this
experience and turn it into a black eye for the chamber, because I
don't think that's appropriate. So as I expressed to Mr. Wheeler last
week and I want to express to you, I personally feel that the chamber
is not the bad guy in this situation. And if any of that stigma has
been created, I will apologize for it now, because I think it would be
misplaced.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I appreciate that very much --
appreciate those thoughts. And I think that does mean a lot to the
members and the volunteers of the Chamber of Commerce.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You guys do -- you do good work,
simple.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I think we all agree and
acknowledge that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, thank you very much. I know you
have a busy agenda. I don't want to take any more of your time. But
is there anything else I can address for you?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Further questions?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rasmussen was
registered, and I don't know whether he wanted to make a brief comment
or not. Mr. Rasmussen.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Good morning and thank you. And before
I comment at all about what might be accomplished or -- or anything, I
want to point out that we, too, are members of the Chamber of
Commerce, and I, too, think that they do a marvelous job and that they
are one of the best chambers in the country. And if, in fact, what
occurred was because of whatever misunderstandings and that if I
contributed to them, obviously I should take that blame.
Many times, though, it is not wrong if you look at a
project and you say it's a wonderful project, and I would like to
undertake that project, but we simply might not be able to do it,
let's work to make it happen the best way we can. And I think in
perhaps in lieu of using words of misunderstanding -- and I'm not here
to say what happened in the past is right, wrong, or anything. I
think if we all look at the job to be done and understand our
capabilities within that job and not try and be all things to all
people, we will succeed far beyond all of our individual successes.
On the specific topic of how to take care of this and
having just seen a copy of the letter, which I assume all of you have,
at the chairman's request I was asked to identify some national
companies who do do this on a national basis and don't handle calls on
specific small promotions but on promotions that might generate as
many as a hundred thousand calls in an hour. It's a different -- a
different approach. These are highly sophisticated companies with
multiple call centers to handle overflows around the country, and I
have identified such a company. And just for the record, it will only
take me a minute to tell you a little bit about them, and then we can
go forward.
This is Connect America. The Connect Corporation that's
headquartered in Warwick, Rhode Island, maintains both inbound and
outbound national and international services. Inbound telephone
marketing and customer service for the U.S. and Canada is conducted at
centers in Warwick, Rhode Island, and St. Steven (phonetic), New
Brunswick, and they will soon open an inbound center in Shannon,
Ireland, as well to provide for European markets. Operations are
supported by the northern Telecom automated call distribution system
with interactive voice response and voice mail capabilities so that
they can switch from center to center, and if there are overflows,
they go, and they can take care of them.
A question that we all have and that you would obviously
have is that sounds good; who have they done some business for. And I
have a list of just a couple of their clients that names are
certainly, I think, recognizable; American Express, Hewlett Packard,
Bank of Boston, Southern New England Telephone, Paramount
Communications, General Electric, AT&T, Nynex, Proctor and Gamble,
Fleet Financial Services, Southwest Airlines. And two, I think, are
of particular interest to me, the Rhode Island Tourism Bureau and the
Austrian National Tourist Office. They are used to dealing with the
kinds of things that we're dealing with.
They have identified a number. They are prepared to
make it effective next Monday, April 15th. The number's a simple one
for the viewer to remember, and there are about 8,000 commercials yet
to run. The number is 888-459-GOLF. It's pretty tough not to
understand that you're calling for a golf package with that phone
number.
And they're ready to go. They understand that they are
coming in in the middle of this and prepared obviously to perform this
service for the county. And I can tell you with one caveat that I'll
bring up in a second, that the fulfillment funds that you already have
allocated will not be exceeded. The only question that I have -- and
Mr. Reynolds certainly has told me privately as well as here on the
public record, that they will -- the chamber will obviously want to
cooperate and make this as smooth a transition as possible. Any of
the charges that they have incurred for this program should certainly
be included in the prior allocation. And I understand that. I would
be surprised if the number of calls suddenly changed, but I don't -- I
think -- I think that it's just the way it is and that my personal
feeling would be to let's get to the fellas that do this on a
worldwide basis and go from there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just one question.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Any other questions that I can answer?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine is -- is I'm interested in
the volume of calls but -- but more interested in the rate of -- of
response. Will this company keep those records?
MR. RASMUSSEN: They will on a nightly --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Go ahead.
MR. RASMUSSEN: I didn't do that, did I?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Go right ahead.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Either every night, every other night,
once a week they will modem the records here, and those are available
-- those are yours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is, who -- I
guess it would be Travel Professionals or someone. Who will keep the
records -- how will we know how many beds we've sold for our half
million dollars?
MR. RASMUSSEN: The hotels have to tell us that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. RASMUSSEN: We won't know that, Commissioner, until
the promotion ends --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MR. RASMUSSEN: -- next October.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm real curious to know
that.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Well, the private vendor will know, but
if a person goes to the hotel directly, we have no way of knowing
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the new number
and the necessity for us, but in six days how are we going to edit a
new graphic on our commercials and distribute that to various stations
around this wonderful country of ours?
MR. RASMUSSEN: One thing that you learn in the business
that I've been in for the better part of 30 years is contingency
planning, and it's very easy to dub commercials in two versions, and
it's very easy to ship commercials in two versions and have them coded
for -- for airing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I assume one was dubbed
with no number on it?
MR. RASMUSSEN: No. They're dubbed with the current
number and with a new number -- and with the new number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did you know the new number
before -- in time to have it done already?
MR. RASMUSSEN: I have several other numbers that are
not even in use at all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. RASMUSSEN: One of the contingency planning things
that you do if you're in the television response business is have a
bank of numbers available for 888 Collier, for LPGA, for anyone. And
golf is generic enough that it can be used in any promotion. It was
unused. We dubbed it. And for the -- for the couple of dollars to
dub an extra tape, it's worth doing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got questions. Mr.
Rasmussen --
MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- do you have any connection at
all with this new --
MR. RASMUSSEN: Absolutely not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- with this new company?
Absolutely not.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Until I was asked to investigate, I
haven't -- I mean, I knew that they existed. There are several
companies that exist. Several operate out of Omaha, Nebraska, down in
Plano, Texas. This group is in --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to put that on the
record, because this has come about so fast and -- MR. RASMUSSEN: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- a person with the reputation
that you have, I just wanted -- wanted to make sure. It's an
excellent reputation, and I want to preserve it.
MR. RASMUSSEN: And I wouldn't put myself in that
position, no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't think so.
MR. RASMUSSEN: No, ma'am, there's no connection
whatsoever.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted it on the record
that there is none.
MR. RASMUSSEN: We don't have to define any part of that
reputation, do we?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's all good, as far as I
know. Mr. Rasmussen, one last question. Mr. Reynolds and I were
talking a week or ten days ago about the inventory of brochures and so
forth that may be available -- MR. RASMUSSEN: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to send out, and he was
indicating that their cupboard was becoming fairly bare. This amount
of money that we've allocated, does that cover the printing of these
brochures as well as the distribution?
MR. RASMUSSEN: No. I'm puzzled by that because there
were 6,000 packages printed, and yet I just read less than 2,000 phone
calls that they have documented, and I'm wondering why it's bare.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it's not bare yet, but
it's anticipated to be bare.
MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Matthews, when I was
referring to the cupboard being almost bare, I was at that point
talking about our visitors' center and the volume of visitors that
have been coming into that facility have almost depleted our stock at
the visitors' center --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- but it's not relative to this
promotion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not the promotion material.
MR. RASMUSSEN: No wonder I was puzzled. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great problem to have, A1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any further
questions.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a couple more. Just a
clarification. I heard you say that the county has allocated a
specific amount of funds up to a number. MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And did I hear -- understand you to
say that there's -- that that number won't be exceeded?
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. RASMUSSEN: And the only caveat that I have is I
have no idea of the tracking and the accounting procedure and whether
this allocation is lumped with other allocations from the chamber.
And all I'm saying is I'd just like to have that defined so that we
don't have any further confusion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And let me ask, concerning the
promotional materials, will this be shipped directly up to the
fulfillment firm and they will mail directly from there, or how is
this going to work physically, logistically?
MR. RASMUSSEN: Physically we think because the material
is here and it's an added cost now to ship everything -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. RASMUSSEN: -- we will get someone who does nothing
but mail that here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So then you -- you will
download on a daily basis then the names and addresses?
MR. RASMUSSEN: Right. They will download via modem
every evening and names and addresses -- the list is available to you
as frequently as you would like it, daily, weekly. You tell them, and
we'll have it available for you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would prefer -- personally I
would prefer it daily. I don't know how the rest of the board feels.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like the info to go out as
soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's my preference. I think 24 hours
is too long.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The downloading of those names
and so forth raises the spector, once again, of the list -- you know,
the list and who has access to it and so forth. And we've so far
taken the position that this is not a marketing list for the general
community to have. And I just want to make sure that those -- you
know, that those, I guess, secure elements remain secure.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Absolutely. It's your list. I mean,
it's a county-funded list.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is that a public
document?
MR. WEIGEL: It's not a public document until the county
takes possession of the document. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't send it here.
MR. RASMUSSEN: What was that? I missed that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Don't send it here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't want it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can have that discussion another
day, Commissioner Constantine.
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's a discussion beyond me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The last thing I have is comment a --
ask Hiss Gansel perhaps and Mr. Weigel to -- to check with you to make
sure we're dotting every I and crossing every T on the legal basis on
the transfer here.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And beyond that we thank you for your
help and thank the chamber for their -- their help and support. And,
once again, we want to make it clear that we appreciate the chamber
and all the work they do.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Shall I take that to mean I should make
a phone call and tell them which code tape to use?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we need a motion directing that?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do. And, in fact, for the record
and for part of your action, it's my understanding that the category B
funds that are dedicated for this particular project are designated
for use by a not-for-profit organization. So I would suggest that
your record reflect that you waive the requirement for this particular
designation and the remainder of these funds to go to a not-for-profit
organization based upon the chamber's communications today and the
exigencies that exist with the -- with the project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Could we have a motion to that
effect?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I knew how to phrase it, I'd
-- I'd state --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a question, if you --
excuse me --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- on this very thing, because
I'm a little bit concerned about our moving TDC funds into a profit
orientation where we've said before we're not going to do that. And
I'm wondering if even though I know the chamber's withdrawn from this,
if we can elicit from them support to at least maintain the contract
with this new group and -- so that the funds continue to go to the
chamber, which is nonprofit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, at this point we're
just kind of playing games. And if the chamber had hired in phase
five -- and I'm sure phase five makes a profit every year doing what
they do, and that's why they do it. And all we're doing is hiring a
different firm to do the exact same service, so I think it's a matter
of semantics. We're hiring someone to answer and be able to fulfill
our inquiries. So I don't think we're hiring a nonprofit group to --
or giving our money away to a nonprofit group. We have a service that
needs to be done to fulfill the package that we agreed to with Mr.
Rasmussen and --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if we cut out the
middleman in that process, then great.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just concerned about the
precedent of -- of tourist development funds going to -- directly to a
profit-making company now without having met the requirements of the
ordinance or the guidelines.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item in concurrence with Mr. Weigel's recommendation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. I may
make the comment that that item that you're specifically concerned
with is contained in the guidelines and not the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And with that if there's no further
comment, I will call the question. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
And opposed?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Thank you.
MS. GANSEL: Could I ask for clarification here? Jean
Gansel from the budget office. I'm not quite sure -- we need to enter
-- we have not signed a contract with the chamber for the portion
that they have done on the fulfillment. Is it the board's direction
that we would enter into a contract for the amount of money of what
they have currently done or as of the date that that is concluded?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean pay them for what
they've already done?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, they're going to need to be paid
for what they've already done, certainly.
MS. GANSEL: We have a contract, and the expiration date
on that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: April 15th or concurrent with
this start date of the new.
MR. RASMUSSEN: If I may make a comment, I don't think
it's a good idea to do it concurrent with the start date. Americans
being what they are, they watch television, scribble a number on the
back of a matchbook cover, and call it a month later. And if the
chamber fulfills that, they certainly ought to be compensated.
MS. GANSEL: That's how we will --
MR. RASMUSSEN: Pick a time later in the summer or --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Shall we say six weeks?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Just that they are
compensated for what they do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whatever fulfillment they do.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Yeah. I have some 800 numbers that are
probably no longer in service that I keep saying I'm going to call
them next week, and I never do.
MS. GANSEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly ask
you to digress. One of your employees with EHS who was supposed to
receive a 15-year service award was in the middle of a call earlier,
and she has arrived, and I would like to think after 15 years the
least we could do is embarrass her and ask her to come forward, Debbie
Lichliter, 15-year service award. (Applause)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-16 APPROVING THE ORDINANCE POSTING THE CLAM BAY SYTEH AS
AN IDLE SPPED ZONE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That concludes our morning
agenda. And we can move to our afternoon agenda. First item is
12(C)(1), recommendation that the board approve the ordinance posting
the Clam Bay system as an idle speed zone.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That doesn't seem hard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dugan, I bet this is yours.
MR. DUGAN: Mr. Chairman, Board, I'm Kevin Dugan with
the natural resources department. This ordinance came about as a
result of one of the hearings with the mangrove task force. People in
Pelican Bay were complaining about excessive noise of watercraft in
the Clam Bay system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, Mr. Dugan, they're
complaining about destruction of habitat in the Clam Bay section. We
don't want to confuse this with last week's request.
MR. DUGAN: Since then, you know, we have done a little
bit of research. We have talked with people with canoes, you know,
that have been almost run over by a personal watercraft in the area.
The manatee protection plan recommended the area as an idle speed zone
because of the seagrass beds in the area. And as a result of that,
the board has given us direction to come up with an ordinance.
You have a copy of that ordinance. I want to bring out
something that the county attorney's office brought in that we omitted
an inclusion clause, but the copy that the chairman has has that
included with it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That concludes your presentation?
MR. DUGAN: It's quick.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question. Is there
any reason that we shouldn't do this?
MR. DUGAN: Why we shouldn't do it?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. DUGAN: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to answer that if you
weren't.
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker, Dr. Stallings. And
he's your only one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need to change your sticker
for this one, Fran.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings, representing Florida
Wildlife Federation, Save the Hanatee Club. I just wanted to speak in
support of it. The seagrass beds we think are quite important to the
overall ecology of that system, and we do have the potential and we
think some actual damage to these beds by the personal watercraft.
even though this is a small piece of the puzzle, we think it's an
important one and would urge your support in the sense that we think
it will help with the overall problems that are existing in the system
now. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the chairman will close the
public hearing, I will make a motion.
MR. DORRILL: We have got one additional one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We now have an additional public speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood.
MR. WOOD: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Doug Wood. I'm an attorney with Siesky, Pilon, and Wood. I'm
here on behalf of a client of mine, Terry Brisky (phonetic). She is a
resident of Seagate community on Seahorse Lane. She would have liked
to have been here to talk to you herself, but unfortunately she
couldn't be here today. I'm -- my client is opposed to the no-wake
speed zone for the reason that when she -- she has been a resident of
Seagate for quite some time. Her and her family have used the
personal watercraft in Clam Bay and have enjoyed that. That's been
one of the reasons she purchased the property was so that she would
have the ability to use her watercraft outside of her home. She
wouldn't have to take and travel, load them on a trailer and load them
in somewhere. I am told by my client that she does not have access to
the gulf through Clam Bay because of the shallow waters. She cannot
get out to the gulf. So if the no-wake zone is imposed, she basically
is now going to be forced to buy a trailer for her personal watercraft
and take them -- anytime she wants to she's going to have to load them
up, drive, load them in the water somewhere so she can use her
watercraft.
I think this is really restricting her enjoyment and
ability to use her property. I am also told by my client -- I haven't
investigated this, but that someone is going to be applying for an
emergency permit to dredge a portion of Clam Bay hopefully to make the
access out to the gulf more accessible. I guess what I would request
on behalf of my client is why don't we put this on hold for a little
while as far as the no -- no-wake speed zone until this is done. We
all know for sure that, one, it will be done, and if it is done, then
that way the residents of Clam Bay that are currently using this for
their watercraft will have the ability -- at least they won't be
restricted from using it totally. Once this is dredged and they have
access to the gulf, they can use -- the no-wake zone won't totally
limit their ability. They can -- they'll have access to the gulf.
They can use the no wake through to the gulf and use their
watercraft. If you impose this now, my clients and other residents
who use their personal watercraft right there, they don't have the
ability to use their watercraft anymore. Now they're going to be
stuck with having to go buy trailers and, you know, basically trailer
their watercraft to another area. They shouldn't be punished. You
know, they bought their homes -- spent a lot of money to buy their
homes on the bay so one of the enjoyments they could have was to use
their personal watercraft. I don't think it would hurt anything to
put this on hold until the dredge permit is obtained, and that way
clients like my -- like Hiss Brisky would have the ability to still
use their watercraft.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question either for
Mr. Dugan or -- is there access?
MR. DUGAN: We have dredging -- excuse me, they are
dredging Clam Pass now. According to the schedule from OPCH, they
should be done there --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: April 15th.
MR. DUGAN: -- within the week or within a week, and at
that time there would be access to the gulf.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very important issue because
obviously if they do have access to the gulf, it solves the problem as
far as still not needing to buy a trailer and so on. If they don't
have access to the gulf, then I'm not sure why we would be worried
about protecting the seagrass because manatees can't get into --
MR. WOOD: And, again, I haven't investigated -- my
client called me about this issue last night. But I'm told by my
client that the only way she's going to have access to the gulf right
now is during the high tide hours. When the tide is at its highest is
the only way she can have access to the gulf. Otherwise, she doesn't
have access to the gulf.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please, just a second. There --
there's a lot of history to Clam Pass, Mr. Wood. And I was down there
when they began digging last week to reopen the pass. The -- you
know, the idea that someone who had bought in Seagate can't operate
behind their house, they have to go operate somewhere else, is kind of
transferring the problem from one area to another. Access in and out
of Clam Bay for shallow -- it's not created for vessels. It's created
for an ecosystem, and it was that way when they bought. This pass is
open and closed naturally over time, time and time again. And your
client, if they have lived there long enough, should know that.
when they bought, they bought knowing that that pass is not a
navigable pass with a maintenance plan that ensures them access to the
gulf. So that's not changing.
The other part of what we're doing here is consistent
with the manatee protection plan that this board adopted in agreement
with the state. So if we don't post it, it's still a facet of that
plan and still applies. By posting it all what we're doing is
creating an enforcement issue. And so the pass is being opened. The
pass needs to stay open for that system to function. And if that
restricts vessels in some way -- this is not a posted navigable pass,
so it wasn't that way when this person bought there. So I'm not so
sure this is a dramatic reduction of their rights as you've stated
today.
MR. WOOD: Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree with
you --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought you might.
MR. WOOD: -- on a couple fronts, Commissioner. One is
you're right. She may -- when she bought she may not have had access
to the gulf at that time. You are right there. I don't know. She
may not have had that. It may have been navigable and not navigable
as time has changed. But what I'm saying now is that when she did
buy, she did have the right to use a watercraft there at that time.
She's always had the right to use her personal watercraft. She's, in
fact, used it over there over several years. If you base -- if there
is not access to the gulf at this time and now you come back and you
ban her right to use her watercraft, then you are basically taking
away something she had when she bought.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, she could wait a week,
because by the end of the week it's going to be open again, so it
seems like we would all be happy now. You know, we're -- we
apologize, but mother nature closed it. We're getting it open as fast
as we can. It's going to be open in about a week, and then this --
you know, she'll be happy again.
MR. WOOD: Okay. And, again, you know, my understanding
was that the dredging was going to be done, and if I'm told that the
dredging is going to be done and that they are going to have access
regardless, you know, of whether the tides are low or high, then
you're right, it's probably not a problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Mr. Dorrill, is
there anyone else?
MR. DORRILL: He was the last one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to approve. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All opposed?
That passes five to zero.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-191 ADOPTING THE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL
REPORT (EAR) ON THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INCLUDING
APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE EAR TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL FOR SUFFICIENCY REVIEW - ADOPTED
Our next item is a recommendation that the board adopt
the evaluation and appraisal report. Is anyone here on this item?
(Hands were raised in the audience.)
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. This item is a continuation of your public hearing of
March the 20th. The purpose of the public hearing is for you to
review and adopt your seven-year evaluation and appraisal report and
recommendations on your growth management plan. This morning we will
continue with a presentation on some items you had questions on on the
drainage element and the coastal and conservation element. You also
will receive your initial presentations on the future land use element
and the Immokalee master plan.
In the interim since the March 20th hearing, we have
received some preliminary comments from the Regional Planning Council
on the proposed EAR and the proposed recommendation -- recommendations
contained therein. Copies of staff's recommended responses have been
distributed to you, and some of those responses will be explained to
you by the various staff during these presentations.
I can also tell you that at the end of these
presentations, staff will recommend that the board adopt the EAR as
presented with or without changes including the previously reviewed
elements and also direct staff to incorporate the responses from the
RPC into the final EAR document that we transfer for sufficiency
review, which will begin almost immediately upon delivery to the RPC.
Also concurrently with that process upon approval of the EAR, staff
will begin the process -- arduous process of completing the studies,
analyses, and drafting of proposed amendments to the various elements
of the comprehensive plan identified in your EAR.
One other item that we will ask the board to approve is
a letter from the chairman to the Department of Community Affairs
requesting the statutorily provided six-month extension to the
12-month requirement to adopt the related amendments you will be
discussing here today and which you discussed on March the 20th due to
the -- due to the complexity of the studies, the analyses, and the
extent of the amendments that have been proposed in the Collier County
EAR.
If you have no more questions on the process this
morning, what I would propose to do is begin with Mr. Boldt and have
him come forward and answer your questions you raised on March 20th
relative to the drainage element.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a procedural question,
Mr. Chairman. We are not going to revisit the areas we've closed, I'm
assuming, and we're going to address the specific questions we had
last time --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and the part we had not
addressed last time?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, just to give some
notice to the audience, generally people have signed up to speak under
this item for one of -- I've sort of subdivided them -- four major
areas. I do have drainage, a brief comment concerning the
archeological preservation board, southern Golden Gate Estates. There
are some people who are registered, and I thought that was an area
that we did discuss last time. And then the final area that I have is
the extension of the urban area boundary zone. And so you -- you may
want to indicate, as Mr. Constantine just said, if you previously had
public hearing on -- on these items, it is not your intent today to
readdress those items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The southern Golden Gate Estates
issues are -- is one of the items that we have discussed previously
and is not a subject of discussion today. So those people who may
have signed up to speak on that item need to be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The urban boundary discussion has been
withdrawn, and maybe we could help some of our audience by making a
brief statement of position here from the board. I, for one, have no
interest in even discussing any changes to the urban boundary or study
thereof, and I don't know how the rest of the board members feel, but
if we have some sort of a statement perhaps --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's ditto.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not used to sticking my head
in the lion's mouth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So there's -- there's five board
members up here that have expressed their -- their feelings that they
are not going to expand the urban boundary and -- or even make a study
of it at this point in time. So anyone that's -- (Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone that's here to speak on this
issue, while we welcome your comments, we would point out that that's
the direction that the board is going, and we would -- we would
appreciate it if -- if perhaps we wouldn't have a hundred speakers at
five minutes each, so just thought I would let -- let everyone know
that. And, Mr. Boldt, please proceed then.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if I could
interrupt before Mr. Boldt gets started. At our last meeting we
pretty much rejected most of the CAC's amendments for the conservation
and coastal element, and I -- I just want to make one last effort on
this because I, for one, think that we're really making a mistake if
we don't look at some of these amendments, many, many more than what
we did. It's true the coastal -- the conservation coastal element
that was written originally was an award-winning program, and we -- we
as a board have said we don't want to change an award-winning program,
but I want to remind this board it's an award-winning program that has
not been implemented.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ninety percent of it has been
implemented.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think we're going to get
any awards for not implementing an award-winning program. MAny of the
things that were included in the coastal conservation program were
milestones to get us toward the implementation of those parts that are
not implemented. And I -- I know we talked about it the last time. I
was on the dissenting side of the vote, but I really would like this
board to take another look at it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we said -- two
weeks ago we said already today we're not going to revisit issues.
I'd appreciate it if we kept it at that. And just a comment. 90
percent of it has been instituted, so to suggest we haven't
implemented it is inaccurate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't -- I just want to
respond to Commissioner MAtthews. I respect your concern for the
environment and know that your intentions are good and your concerns
are valid. I just don't understand why we would back up from an
award-winning plan. Instead we should consider it as the mandate that
it is and implement it before we change. Even though the prior board
maybe hasn't done what I would like to see them do, this isn't -- this
is a new group. Let's -- you know, maybe we can, in fact, implement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. As -- as we mentioned earlier,
we discussed and voted on several items of this EAR last public
hearing, and they're not open discussion items today. Commissioner
MAtthews made a request to revisit that. I don't see support on the
board to revisit that, so we'll move on.
Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, your stormwater
management director. Our recommendations of staff and the Citizens'
Advisory Council relative to the drainage element offers that we show
a good faith effort and initiate the basin studies and also complete
the Lely basin which has already been completed as a study. And it
needs to go into the construction phase. And the question arose as to
who was responsible for doing basin studies. And we're back this
morning to have that discussion. Their -- the state law that they're
operating in, the Florida Statute 337, has a statement that says --
and I'll read it for you. It says that the development in preparation
of overall basin plan for secondary water control facilities for the
guidance of subdistrict -- subdrainage districts and private
landowners and the development of their respective systems of water
control which will be connected to the primary works of the basin to
implement the engineering plan of the primary works of the basin.
That's a lot of words, a lot of definitions. I'm not
even sure at this point we can all agree on their definition of --
initial definition of what primary and secondary is. But I do note
that the Big Cypress Basin Board has initiated a countywide basin plan
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Mr. Boldt, if I may interrupt just a second. I note there are a lot
of people that are very politely trying to sneak out of the room now
that their issue has been handled. So I might suggest we take a
five-minute recess and allow those who wish to leave to do so, and
then we can get on, because I hear a lot of conversation going on out
there, and I'd rather be able to focus on what Mr. Boldt is saying.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll take a five-minute recess
then.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Mr. Boldt, please proceed.
MR. BOLDT: We were talking about Big Cypress Basin's
responsibilities for doing plans, and we have a definition problem
between basin and subbasin. But the way I've understood it and the
way we've operated over those years that they're responsible for the
overall conceptual plan for the whole county, and they have that
process under -- underway. They have extra staff hired to do that,
and they're going to come up with a conceptual plan that involves all
the basins and subbasins in the county, how they all interrelate and
how they should perhaps be modified to reestablish some of the
historical flows or you might say replumb the system. And as that
master plan is completed, then there will be -- detailed site specific
plans are needed in each of the other basins and subbasins that the
responsibilities are for to actually come up with the environmental
impacts this might have, the economic impacts, and all the other
ramifications.
We have an agreement with the Big Cypress Basin that was
signed by the board back in 1991 that specifies that the county is
responsible for doing the basin studies and -- that we got the capital
improvements, there would be a share of the cost between the
environmental portions of the -- of the improvements such as the
spreader facilities and water element control structures, but anything
related to drainage and flood control would be the county's
responsibility. That plan also is -- is much in -- hasn't been
followed completely at this point in time. The Big Cypress basin has
gone ahead -- for instance, in the Cocohatchee River -- and have
completed a study, are in the process of implementing capital
improvements, not only the environmental aspects but also the
improvements to the drainage and flood control. So we need to bring
our plans back into order, come to an agreement with the basin as to
who's going to do what, and then proceed from there. And your
Citizens' Advisory Committee that reviewed the plan recommended that
the county commit to reestablishing its role in doing basin studies,
particularly we say in the urban area such as in the Gordon River and
the Gordon River extension basin. And once that plan is completed and
portions of it are started to be implemented, then another study be
done in conjunction with and not in conflict with the Big Cypress
basin and the studies they might be doing in their larger area,
particularly with their primary system out in the Golden Gate
Estates. And we would do our share in the urban area to implement the
basin and subbasin studies in conjunction with them.
This doesn't have to be done all at one time. Our
recommendation is that these basin studies be done over a period of
time, one right after another. Instead of doing them all at once and
letting some of them gather dust and get out of date, that we would do
a study such as the Gordon River, start to implement it and then
initiate another study. This could take place over, say, the next
five to ten years, if not more. We'd also recommend that we initiate
the construction of the Lely basin through a phasing in to the
project, again, not all done at once but done in phases that could be
spread out over a period of years. Maybe in this case somewhere in
the three- to five-year area to soften the costs and spread it out
over a longer period of time. Initiating these studies, initiating
this construction in the Lely basin then would be the first step in
coming to a conclusion to this with the Big Cypress basin on
responsibilities and to make sure that everything is done countywide.
So that basically at this point is the recommendation of
the -- your Citizens' Advisory Committee and endorsed by the Planning
Commission and by staff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Boldt?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one, Mr. Boldt. This
-- the capital project you were talking about, objective 1.3 -- MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is this a reinstitution of
the stormwater utility capital project program?
MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am, that's not our recommendation.
The stormwater utility concept was something that had been explored.
We were in the process of a rate study. And quite honestly, it got so
complicated that I couldn't even understand it and was unable to
explain it to you. There are about 60 stormwater utilities up and
running in the State of Florida. There are only five counties. The
rest of them are 55 cities, typically small, compact units homogeneous
with a billing system that we could easily add on to much like the
City of Naples has done for their stormwater utility. I see it as a
great difficulty in establishing a stormwater utility in that concept
where you could just add something real simply to a utility bill like
it was originally conceived. It's going to have to be approached much
differently, and I'm not ready at this place and time to tell you that
I'm ready to suggest that.
I think a partnership of funding is a better approach.
For instance, in the Lely basin we've presented you some information
the last time how we might split that cost between the county at large
perhaps paying a share, maybe 10, 15 percent. The Big Cypress basin
is, I think, ready to commit to cost sharing in some of the
environmental aspects of that, spreader waterways and the water
control structures. We have some private developers, depending on the
timing of how we phase that project in. There would be contributions
like, if nothing else, in kind by construction part of the works.
The Lely basin impacts parts of Rookery Bay. We think
there's some opportunities there to get some grant money from FDEP or
even from the national -- from NOAH, which boils down -- if you were
to use those percentages and come up anywhere near our first draft of
that, it's about half the cost, which leaves the other half of the
cost to be borne by either special taxing districts or special
assessment districts. I think that perhaps is the better approach
than at this point in time trying for a whole countywide stormwater
utility.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So these -- thank you. These
capital improvements then, this -- that objective 1.3 includes then
are not the very same or very similar capital improvements that were
recommended with the stormwater utility?
MR. BOLDT: Well, they're similar but not as
comprehensive. I guess we'll actually just implement portions of it
rather than try to solve all the problems of the whole county all at
one time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If this board were to accept the
policy amendments and the new policies regarding the subbasin studies,
which I fully support, and -- and delay amending to reinstate a
five-year capital improvement program until the studies were finished,
would that be an acceptable thing?
MR. BOLDT: I'm not sure I can speak with that -- any
authority on the process. I'd like to look to Mr. Litsinger --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wonder since the subbasin
studies are not done, how is it that we would know what the
improvements -- what the capital improvements are going to be if the
studies are not done and then based on the outcome of the studies we
have to develop a very detailed improvement program. I'm not sure we
don't have the cart before the horse.
MR. BOLDT: I guess in that we have a basin study
already done in the Lely basin, we know what the costs are
approximately and the cost of getting permits. And that would fill up
-- our first five-year schedule for capital improvements would be
just for that. By the time we get that underway and implemented, if
you were to go ahead with the Gordon River extension basin study, then
that would dovetail and fold in after that. So we have enough at this
point to get started without trying to second-guess what basin studies
are going to be in other areas.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I guess I'm just a little
concerned about adopting a five-year capital improvement program
without -- without knowing the details behind what's needed.
MR. LITSINGER: If I might give a little clarification.
I think the intent here is to add the proposed studies identified in
the drainage element. They are capital improvements. The basin
studies themselves are capital improvement element level projects.
And the intent here would be if you went forward with these policies,
that the capital improvement element that we bring back to you would
reflect in its schedule of five-year projects these basin studies. At
this point we're not proposing any hard capital improvements. Does
that answer your question?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, not really, because this
is a reinstatement of a five-year capital improvement program. And
I'm -- I'm just not really satisfied that we know what needs to be
done until we do the studies.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what it sounds like is that
we -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boldt has already said that we've
got our study for the Lely basin in place, and that's all that we're
-- we're considering doing at this time unless I misunderstood you,
Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: Really what we're asking you to do is
consider these policies and give us the authority to go ahead and
amend the growth management plan within the what; next 12 to 18 months
would give us direction. But it doesn't really change anything at
this point, doesn't give you final say in, you know, what we're doing
at this time. By that time we'll have better information. We'll know
more about what the costs are going to be, and this is going to take
some time to get in line.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do you have anything else for
us, Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions for Mr. Boldt?
MR. WEIGEL: We have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one speaker on the drainage
issues?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The speaker is Mr. Glenn Simpson.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That could be Mr. Simpson.
MR. SIMPSON: Hi. My name is Glenn Simpson. I'm
vice-chairman of the Big Cypress Basin Board. Excuse me, I'm
suffering from old age here.
A couple of comments I'd like to make. One of the
problems, as Mr. Boldt pointed out that we've had in making sure we
have a smooth coordination between the different levels of county,
basin, and district and management and planning for a system, is the
common definitions. One of the things that I think we really need to
do and even at this level is to make sure that we develop uniform
common language in describing what it is we're going to do or what it
is we're going to study or where it is we're going to spend the
taxpayers' money.
The terminology in this document refers to basins and
subbasins. And if you look at the Collier County drainage atlas,
which the county has produced, it has a large basin identified, and
then it has several subbasins which is primarily where the local
neighborhood areas are. So one of the things I think we need to do is
to just really look at the primary-secondary issue. And the Big
Cypress basin has a -- has to work with a political basin boundary,
but the water management district through rule in the environmental
resource permitting has defined legally a watershed basin and that on
everything else that we deal with at a state level is the basin, and
then everything else within that is a subbasin. So one of the things
I think we need to work at is doing that. Perhaps the language in
here, if we can get it straight, talking about subbasins, it would
help us take care of the little simple things, then we can really
identify where the issues are. I just wanted to bring that up.
In the identification of what's a primary and secondary
issue, I don't even know for sure what that is. I think Mr. Boldt in
the past suggested that we use Carl Lewis as our measure. If he can
jump across it, it's a secondary; if he can't, it's a primary.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As he gets older, our
responsibilities get fewer, though.
MR. SIMPSON: I want to give you a copy of our five-year
plan that has just been submitted, our first draft. The way we
address the very issue that you're talking about on capital projects
is that we have a reserve account that once we know that a particular
area or subbasin or basin is going to require a million dollar project
or a two million dollar project, we set a reserve account aside and
start taking part of our millage from every year and put it in that
reserve account so at the time we get the studies completed and we
know specifically what that facility needs to be, we don't have to
come in and raise the taxes a significant amount to pay for it. We've
already got at least a reasonable amount of funds reserved and set
aside. So the difference between identifying and say we're going to
build this project, then we're going to do the study to prove it, is
something that perhaps historically we've all been guilty of. But the
way we found a solution to that is say we know a project needs to be,
and it's going to be roughly this amount of money, and we start
setting it aside to pay for it. It eases the burden on the taxpayers
to do that.
The five-year plan that you have been just handed out is
a first draft of the five-year plan for the Big Cypress basin. We
update this every two years. It hasn't gone under review of the board
yet. It is just in our hands. And I made copies of it since this is
such a relevant issue because of the last year. And it's very
important as to how you go forward with the growth management plan,
and it really affects what the future of this county is. I think that
it's important for you to -- to look at this, give us your comments
and ideas, and let's work together with the commission and the board
and our staff to work together on these projects and so that we're
aware of what the other one's doing so we can make the pieces match.
We don't want the railroad with only one rail matching up. We want
them both to fit together. So if you take the opportunity to -- to do
-- to review this and let's work together, I'd appreciate it.
Not to snatch victory -- defeat from the jaws of victory
here, I really think that where this is going is in the right
direction, and I hope you'll adopt the EAR and move forward, and let's
develop the substance which the EAR addresses. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Simpson -- and I think mostly
in part due to your leadership we're seeing a level of communication
between the basin and the county that we have not seen in years past,
and you and the basin are to be commended for that. My question is
simply are you getting the assistance and information from our staff
that you need -- you need to continue that cooperation and make it
fluid.
MR. SIMPSON: I think that the problem has been more
identifying what we need rather than your staff not providing it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SIMPSON: One thing that I've noticed historically
is we've had the tendency to not ask the question in the appropriate
manner. And I'd say that probably goes for both of us. Well, we've
got to stop that. You know, we're a community. We have joint
responsibilities. We have separate responsibilities. I've got a set
of statutes that I've got -- that I took an oath to uphold, and I'm
going to uphold those statutes, not similar statutes for other
people. But those statutes and your statutes fit together. And we've
got to ask the question of the other party.
I think the issue of joint projects is a way to make
sure we have communications and that we are giving each other the
information we need. The -- the tendency for this to be my project
and that to be your project doesn't work. That's why --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's all the same wallet we're
operating out of here.
MR. SIMPSON: And that's the way you buy in. And if I
came to you and I said, you know, we're doing a $250,000 study, we
need some additional manpower, we ask that the commission put up
$10,000 or $20,000 to support a staff person to plug in data, that
does a lot of things. My purpose for coming to you is not to ask
really for the money, but is to ask for your support and your
participation in that and your commitment. And when you invest in it,
you tend to make a greater commitment in it, and I think the people of
-- of the county and the people of the basin need that commitment
from us and our staff to make sure the pieces fit together. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: He's your only speaker on the drainage
element.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then I'll close the hearing on
that element, and we need a motion on that element.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's a deference
actually to you, Commissioner Norris, for your familiarity with some
of the elements here. Based on the information received today, I'll
move approval of the recommendations contained in that element.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: We did have one -- one additional speaker,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples,
and I'm speaking for TAG.
I feel -- I really feel empathy for the commissioners,
because one of you stated that they didn't understand what was being
said or going on. I'm trying to remember now, because I had my mind
filled with a lot of other -- a lot of other questions. When this
gentleman previous -- that preceded me said that you have -- we have
-- we have to -- referring to the commissioners and Big Cypress basin
or the South Florida Water Management District -- that you have to
speak in a common language and know what each other -- each one of you
-- other -- either of you is saying, it amazed me, because he said
there are definitions or words or other phrases that are used that may
not be understood by one party or the other.
Now, he referred to the watershed basin and not the Big
Cypress basin or the South Florida Water Management District. I think
this -- I think he's clouding the whole issue. And this -- I think
the reason for that is that that's a guarantee of bureaucrats to
maintain their jobs. Remember, this gentleman preceding me was not
voted -- is not a person who is elected by the electorate. He was
appointed by someone in the water management district or Mr. Chiles,
our governor.
Talking about five-year plans, ten-year plans,
seven-year plans, we've been -- last year was the -- was the payoff
with the flooding in East Naples, North Naples, and other various
parts of Collier County and parts of Lee County. Then he said that
you don't ask questions properly. Well, why -- why go ahead and try
and make a leg -- a legalese jungle out of this situation by saying
that you're not asking the question properly so they don't know how to
answer your question. This is absolutely crazy. I'm sitting here,
and this sounds to me like Animal Farm. Forget these plans. Let's
get some work done. We're -- all we're doing is talking. Nothing is
being said here that is of concrete value. Okay. You want to talk
about a five-year plan, fine, but let's start doing something now.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second on this
element. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, with all respect
to Mr. Simpson, I'd -- I'd like to say that the point he was trying to
make is that we all need to talk the same language, not to perpetuate
different languages and different definitions, but we need to get all
of our legislative wherewithal on the table and make sure it says the
same thing, that it's not at all what was being said.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that clarification.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't spend that hefty salary all
in one place, Glenn. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next.
MR. LORENZ: Good morning. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
environmental services, natural resources director. The -- basically
the -- the information that the board asked to -- to review on the
conservation and coastal management element is contained in your
executive summary on pages 6 through 10. The first -- the first set
basically, attachment 2 on page 6, were those items that the board
specifically wanted to hear to be continued. And I'll cover each of
those items as -- as the board wishes. The second set of items
basically called attachment 2-1, which is on page 7 and 8 of your
executive summary package, are those -- those areas where we have
language contained within the report that were not explicitly
addressed in the public hearing two weeks ago. And we went through --
some of that -- some of that wording is basically some general
recommendations, but we want to make sure that the board understands
the information that's contained in the report, because we're not
exactly sure how DCA may interpret that language and perhaps at the
most extreme version may want to see specific amendments or policies
-- amendments to policies or new policies develop from that
language. So we want to make sure that we get that information out to
the board so you see what's contained in the report.
The attachment 2-2 is basically a list of all the
objectives and policies that will either remain as a continuing effort
or remain as a -- just simply amending the dates. Policy 4.1.2 -- now
I'm referring to page 6 of your executive summary -- basically is to
amend -- include the implementations of the recommendations within the
southwest -- South Florida Water Management District's Lower West
Coast Water Supply Plan regarding local water resource strategies.
The information within the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan is
contained within your EAR report as part of the condition and summary
of the county's natural resources. Specifically -- and what I would
like to be able to do is just cover a couple of the points that's
contained within the Lower West Coast Water Management Plan so you
understand the significance of that -- is, first off, a finding that
as a critical water supply area Collier County is classified as -- as
an area that has experienced or is likely to experience water supply
problems within the next 20 years.
The Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan identified three
separate criteria for -- to look at in terms of making that kind of
statement. One is a wetland protection criteria, which the criteria
would not be met on an existing basis for roughly 27,000 acres of
wetlands and by the year 2010 would not be met for 32,000 acres of
wetland. The sea water intrusion protection criteria, the report
notes that problems were identified in meeting this criteria in both
the lower Tamiami aquifer and the water table aquifer for both 1990
and 2010 water demands. And the plan states that unless new
approaches are taken, it may not be possible to support the projected
growth rate to the year 2010 while maintaining the proposed level of
response protection.
Recommends a couple of general strategies. Basically
the first is to remove public water supply demands from shallow
aquifers as being more effective and meeting the wetlands protection
criteria than increasing agricultural efficiency, provide increasing
the use of reclaimed water and in meeting the sea water intrusion
protection criteria was best accomplished in removing public water
supplies in the shallow aquifers and by using reclaimed water.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Lorenz. Was I on
the losing end of a vote, because my recollection was not to take the
policies of the Lower West Coast plan and just throw them into our
growth management plan. I remember actually arguing against doing
that. And I thought I understood it to be that those elements that we
have chosen to implement are those that we would reference. I -- I
don't remember incorporating the entire Lower West Coast Water Supply
Plan in our growth management plan. I don't remember giving that
direction, and so either I'm -- I'm getting kind of silly or -- or
something has gone awry here.
MR. LORENZ: I think the -- the -- there was -- my
understanding was the board wanted to hear discussion of what these
were to come back to you so that you could review that language.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had argued that -- that I was
familiar enough with the implementations generally that since -- since
we were including -- we try -- we talked about this a lot. We tried
-- I suggested that we -- that we amend to include -- to just include
the recommendations of the plan, acknowledge them, but not to agree to
implement them. And then there was a great deal of discussion, and I
think the direction was, well, come back and tell us exactly what does
that Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan require be implemented or
recommend be implemented.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I was confused because
your presentation, based on what policy 4.1.2 says in here -- it says
amend to include this recommendation, so I was a little --
MR. LORENZ: That's the language that is the Citizens'
Advisory Committee's recommended language for the EAR report.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So today we're going to be
asked to pick and choose those recommendations that we feel are either
appropriate or not appropriate to include in our growth management
plan? Is that the direction this is taking?
MR. LORENZ: I think the board -- I think it's the
board's decision to determine whether you want to see policy 4.1.2 be
amended to include these recommendations of the Lower West Coast Water
Supply Plan, or if you want to address it in some other fashion, or if
you don't want to address it at all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie's suggestion is
simply to acknowledge them in that policy. But if we include them --
and this says to include the implementation of the recommendations,
and that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not ready for that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to me that says that's what we're
going to go out and do, and I'm not sure that's what the board
intended. That's not what I intended.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. And I was hoping that
we would -- that we would amend policy 4.1.2 to say -- amend to
include the recommendations within the Lower West Coast Water Supply
Plan, but that opening the door for our position on the future
implementation or not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about the -- the word either
acknowledge or recognize rather than include, because if you include
it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- then it's part of the plan --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't think we've had
ample time to take each and every one of these nor -- even though you
may describe them to us today, for this board to sit today on each one
of these items and determine whether or not we even need to include it
as a policy, I don't think we've had the review time necessary to make
that decision on a staff level, much -- much less at our -- at this
level. So I would agree that -- that we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Acknowledge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- acknowledge that plan and in
due time we may very well incorporate those elements, but we need to
-- you know, we need to review them individually, and that's got to
happen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little help with
wordsmithing from our attorney ahead of time only because -- when we
acknowledge and what that means to DCA. Talking about different
governments having different definitions, what that means to DCA may
be very different than what we're intending here. So I just want to
be careful we don't box ourself into a corner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My goal is to recognize it as a
resource.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree with you. I
just don't know that DCA -- just 'cause you and I say that today
doesn't mean that's how DCA will interpret that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go figure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Acknowledge is okay, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I think acknowledge would be okay. We
certainly get the drift of what you're saying, so if we need to add a
word with acknowledge for clarification, we'll do that in there
without overcommitting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So do we have consensus on
policy 4.1.27
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're removing the word
implementation then; correct?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would read, "Amend to
acknowledge the recommendations within the South Florida Water
Management District Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan regarding local
water resource strategies." That's my proposal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give or take a word?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give or take a word.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We seem to have consensus on
that one then.
MR. LORENZ: On policy 1.1.3 you wanted to have a little
better understanding of what the term biomes means.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the -- yes, that was
mine.
MR. LORENZ: That's the example of the native plant and
animal association. Basically that's the habitat type -- in --
principal in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan it recognizes that
there are wetland communities that -- that will be impacted by -- by
withdrawals in the future, so a particular wetland community is
basically a biome.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And here's the next step to where
my concern was. If we say native biomes, does someone have a list of
what is a native biome and what is not, because now we've opened the
door that -- you know, again, I want to make sure that the language we
put in here is specific enough that it has a clear definition. And
when I saw native biomes, not only was my question what is it, but
give me a list of what are native biomes. If one does not exist and
we're using a term that does not have an enforcement capability and is
subject to extreme interpretation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how and by whom is that
subject to change?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The state and not by us. So,
again, my concern is their interpretation of a native biome may be
different than ours. Either we list them, we agree on a listing that
the state has, or -- but just to throw the term native biomes in there
is opening a gate that we have no control over.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, maybe you could tell us
what the reasoning is for this language.
MR. LORENZ: The intent is to recognize that the natural
system -- if you will, the native -- the native vegetation, native
vegetative communities -- I know I'm using some other terms here. But
the concept is that -- is that -- that water withdrawals should also
protect the native system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we list anywhere in our plan a
list of native communities?
MR. LORENZ: We have a listing of native vegetative
communities that -- that is used. It's not a hard-and-fast regulatory
list.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about animal communities?
We also -- I think that we could -- we could monkey with this one a
little bit to make it make some sense that -- my concern is that we
don't give the state a way to enforce upon us that -- that protection
of native plant and animal associations with regard to water issues is
the priority. It's a priority. It's a very significant priority, but
we need to decide to what extent those strategies are implemented. We
need to have strategies to protect animal and vegetative systems.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about if we change the word
implement to pursue? Would that help us be more comfortable with this
particular amendment?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What word?
MR. LORENZ: Consider?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Consider.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The basis of my concern here is
that we said, "Will serve to maintain identified native biomes," and
now what I hear is no one identified them.
MR. LORENZ: I think that would be the -- I think that
would be the process that would unfold as to identify the -- as I
said, the state right now is -- is looking at wetlands. They have a
criteria for wetlands.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- I have trouble
committing to some nonexistent thing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about identify native biomes
that require water conservation strategies to maintain same.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about consider water
conservation strategies, period.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, because that's not addressing
the native vegetation and animal systems at all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, here's the problem. Here's the
problem. If we -- if we adopt this language as it's stated right
here, then there may come a time in the future when water management
district or someone else could say you cannot extract water from out
in your well field, because you are harming some native biome. In the
meantime, we have a hundred thousand people who need water, and
they're not going to get it, and that's the problem with this
language.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So balance -- some sort of
balance is -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A balanced approach is what we need,
sure.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we do have two speakers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're not quite through with the
entire item. There's a couple of more --
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just eliminate this item,
4.1.3.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a suggestion from one
commissioner here to eliminate this -- this language altogether at
this point and maybe bring it back next time for -- with a better
understanding --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the suggestion is only --
not because we don't want to do water conservation -- only because I'm
not ready to commit to something that is not yet defined. You can't
make a commitment to something that doesn't exist yet.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think rather than eliminate it
-- I liked the suggestion I heard earlier, rather than simply
eliminating it, and that's simply to identify water conservation
strategies, if nothing else. I mean, I -- I've -- I would not want to
eliminate the whole thing, because water conservation is something
that's very much on the -- on the minds of the residents who live here
and certainly on my mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Well, it's the -- it's the word
implement that gives me the concern, because that says that we've got
to go out and do it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about consider water
conservation strategies that will serve to maintain the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't have a problem with that,
because then we can come at some point in the future and make a
determination after we consider it what -- what exactly it is that we
need to do. But right now we don't even know who it is we're
addressing these biomes, much less what we're going to do about them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two parts to this. The
first part is identify what action we're going to take, and the second
part is what are we taking it for. And the last part of this says to
maintain identified native biomes. No one is telling me what this
means.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody in this room can tell
you, so I don't know how we can possibly vote in favor of something
that we don't know what it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hang on.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So until that can be clarified
specifically, this goes nowhere. The first part is implement
something that we can't identify is ridiculous, so if we can identify
the second part, we should change that to identify water conservation
strategies.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about identify native biomes
in this definition that's there, and consider water conservation
strategies that will serve to maintain those -- them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're trying really hard to do
something that is not ready to be -- not ready to be submitted
properly so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good point. Where -- when
will be our next opportunity to make this amendment? Six months?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next fall.
MR. LORENZ: Basically you can make -- my understanding
is you can make the amendment at any time, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a regular --
MR. LORENZ: -- when we would be doing it is the next --
the next cycle, you can come up --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next cycle is six months out,
right; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More than that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me make a suggestion for
the board. Hold on, please. Let me just make a suggestion for the
board that we just set this one out and not take action on it in this
cycle and that we will come back at the next cycle hopefully with the
information that -- that we don't have here today, and we can consider
it at that point.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought -- I thought that all
of our amendments for the next year had to be EAR based; is that
correct?
MS. STUDENT: Let me just explain we're not adopting
amendments today, and I think everybody understands that. We're
adopting the EAR report to DCA. The law requires that within a year
from today that we adopt EAR-based amendments, and I haven't been able
to get a straight answer from DCA of the latitude that we have. And I
think that's probably why the board is concerned here today. But it
would be my feeling that, you know, if we put in, you know, maybe not
the implement language but pursue or something, that would give us the
time to where we have the amendment to determine what -- what that
means and determine how we want to implement it, if it's -- do some
studies and so forth, whatever. But I just want to make the point
we're just doing the report today. Our amendments have to be done a
year from today based on this report. Again, it's unclear the degree
of latitude that we have, but I certainly think there would be some
room there to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But at the same time we can make
amendments that are not in the EAR next year as well.
MS. STUDENT: We will not be able to make those
nonEAR-based amendments until we are found sufficient. And that's --
that's the handle that DCA has over us. We -- when we're -- they have
60 days to review us -- or rather the region does. And whether we'll
be found sufficient or not we don't know. But we have -- after we're
found sufficient --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not the concern here. We all
understand that we're making these recommendations -- MS. STUDENT: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that we'll adopt officially next
year. But the problem is if we adopt this -- if we agree to this
particular one today, then -- and try to change it next year, then DCA
says, well, wait a minute, you agreed last year to implement, and now
you're not implementing. That's my concern.
MS. STUDENT: That's why I said if we may -- if we come
up with some other language, that will give us some time to pursue
this or look into it further. That will give us the time up with the
__
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We've heard those arguments,
and let's get a board consensus here, because we're going around in
circles.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if something
doesn't appear in here that doesn't prohibit us from doing it, and I
think in the meantime if we don't include this we can still go find
out exactly what native biomes are and set out on the appropriate
direction. And if it's 12 months from now before we can include it in
the LDC, then so be it. But we're trying to do something just for the
sake of doing something. There's no substance to this item, because
we don't know what identified native biomes are. Why we would want to
take a step forward and say we're going to do something but we don't
know what it is, doesn't make any sense to me at all.
MR. LORENZ: But you could put in the EAR report the --
the concept that we will evaluate this for possible inclusion for a
future amendment, and then basically DCA wouldn't require us to do it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why are we going to make this
decision without hearing the public comment? I'd like not to decide
on leaving this in or out before we hear from people who are here who
may have something to offer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question was what did the CAC
mean, because are we talking about did someone phrase this to preserve
the Camp Key Strand? You know, was there a specific intent that this
wording is -- is trying to -- to direct toward but we don't know
that. Because obviously it's too general in its form to be
acceptable. It's not identifiable, so unless there's clarification
from the folks who made this recommendation, then -- then I don't see
any reason to proceed.
MR. LORENZ: I see it from a technical standpoint from
your staff perspective. It's an assemblage of -- of vegetative
communities that basically we -- we attach the term habitat to
typically. And these would just be areas such as wetlands that at
this particular point the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan
identified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The shrubs in my front yard are
habitat for some things.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If this doesn't appear, that
does not prohibit us from still evaluating it for future appearance in
our LDC, does it?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, your
question is -- we are -- we're going to get consensus on these a line
at a time, and then at the end of this short list here, we're going to
ask if anyone wants to speak on these particular items, and we won't
have adopted it by then. We won't have taken a formal vote.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Because I'm unable to
really give you my vote or consensus until I hear from the public on
this particular one, because I need more information.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. Okay. Let's -- let's try to
get a little bit of consensus. I'm certainly not willing personally
to adopt it in its current form, because we don't know enough about it
to do that. I would like to see about giving the staff direction to
develop some information, first of all, the genesis of the thing and
what it actually means and what the implications would be, especially
the implications at some future date. We need to know that before we
can make an informed decision. We don't have that information now. I
don't know how long it will take to get all that together. But I
certainly don't seem -- see any harm in waiting until some future
amendment cycle to readdress this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Until we know what we're
voting on?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. Do we have consensus at
least on that for now?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as we go ahead and
give staff direction, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that the biomes here
that we seem to be caught up on and -- and I'm -- I don't presume to
speak for the CAC, but I think what they may be trying to tell us is
that if we have healthy biomes, native plant and animal associations
-- keep in mind that's what a biome is -- that we -- if they are
healthy, then the water systems and habitat they live in are also
healthy. And I think that's what they're trying to say in a
roundabout way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't attend the CAC meeting
where this was discussed, but it seems to me that's what they're
trying to tell us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That may well be. But
they're saying identify native biomes, and no one in this room seems
to be able to identify what native biomes are or a specific list.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The staff does not seem to be
able to. There may be somebody in the room who could.
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think the intent of the language is
not the fact that we have them identified now, but they will be
identified.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that's what I'm hearing,
too. And what I would like to see policy 4.1 and .3 is to amend to
state that we pursue and identify water conservation strategies and to
identify native biomes, e.g., native plants and animal associations.
We're not saying anything more at that point than what staff is
currently telling us that we need to identify them, but certainly we
don't want -- I don't want to be sending the message to the residents
of Collier County that we're not interested in water conservation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's -- that's not what we're saying
at all. That's nowhere near what we're saying. We're just saying we
can't make an informed decision on this today. And, by the way, we
have three -- a consensus to at least to put this off until some
future date when we do have that information, so if we could accept
that and maybe go forward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, as a part of that
direction, maybe to avoid any semblance of what Commissioner Matthews
has said, maybe a perception out there, I want a clarification on what
the intent of this language was. And when we receive that
clarification, we will then have the ability to either decide to
implement or not implement. And that's simply what I'm seeking,
because I'm careful not to wordsmith something that I don't understand
the intent of.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock, if at the
point when the public's allowed to comment, you can get that question
answered, are you willing to consider changing your consensus vote
here or is that final?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm always willing to take
information -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then that being the case then,
Mr. Lorenz, if we could go to 4.2.3.
MR. LORENZ: Basically 4.2.3 and 2.4 was using the
phrase tense water instead of effluent disposal. The direction from
the board was to have the public works division to take a look at the
language. The recommendation from the public works division, Tom
Conrecode, is to maintain the language for effluent disposal, since
the board's specific intention in the past has been to prioritize the
-- the sale of effluent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- my question was what's the
difference between effluent and tense water? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Perception.
MR. LORENZ: Reuse is more the general term.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. LORENZ: Wastewater effluent is the more specific.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason I raised the
question was that perhaps there was a definition from a legal
standpoint, a definition problem. Mr. Conrecode, who is our public
works director, is suggesting we keep it the way it was.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's based on a policy that
in the past the board wanted to prioritize the sale of effluent. I
thought I heard this board say before we were -- greatly want to
encourage tensed water.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Here's the problem that I see
semantically --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- could come back to have unintended
consequences. If you say tense water, that means that you're going to
sell it and tense it -- sell it or give it away and tense it for
irrigation at some point. There's a number of occasions in the
summertime when we can't give it away -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and we have to use our deep well
injection system to dispose of it. Well, if you dispose of it, it's
not tense water. You're not using it. You're getting rid of it. And
I'm afraid -- or my concern would be that DCA would at some point in
time say, wait a minute, you agreed to tense all this water, and now
you're just simply disposing of it, and that's not what you said. And
it really doesn't change anything other than the semantical use of the
term.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then, again, my only other
question would be to hear from the committee why -- what -- why did
they propose the change?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. Then 4.2.6, Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, this is -- I'm not sure I have any --
any further comment other than the board wanted to discuss this
further, amend to evaluate and make recommendations where appropriate
for plumbing fixtures and landscapes in a design for water
conservation purposes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, I -- I don't have a problem with
that one.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He either. That's two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why did we bring that back?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't believe that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't recall, and I don't
have the full-blown item in front of me. There's got to be a reason
why we asked to it come back.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't remember asking it to
come back myself.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume they didn't pick it
at random.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If none of us have concerns over
it now, then I'll just assume somewhere in that wisdom we were --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have the page, because
I don't have the full-blown item. I'd just as soon take a peek at it
before --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that I'm going to
find it quickly, so -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's tough to use these
documents. I have 5.1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have it, Mr. Lorenz, where
you could put it in front of us?
MR. LORENZ: Are you talking about 4.2.6, the original
wording?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: C-I-17, section 5.
MR. LORENZ: Right. It's by December 31st, 1989,
develop a public information program and adopt a resolution promoting
the use of plants native to southwestern Florida and all landscaping
promoting the xeroscape concept as defined by the South Florida Water
Management District.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That doesn't say
anything about plumbing fixtures.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is just strictly in addition to
that language then?
MR. LORENZ: I think if I recall some of the
discussions, rather than go through more public information, get --
get more, if you will, structurally based in terms of --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the reason I rais --
I raised the question -- I recall now. And the reason I raised it was
develop -- develop a public information program, and I'm wondering
what our substance might be on that, because last time we had -- we
were going to put in two or three languages, but we had no particular
-- for commercial properties, but we had no particular list. We
assumed there was a certain percentage of businesses that were owned
by Creole speaking or Spanish speaking. But we had no list on what
those businesses were, and we had no plan on how to distribute them,
so we had a bunch of printed pamphlets and no way to get them to the
appropriate user. So I just don't want to commit us to doing
something similar unless we've ironed out those type problems.
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think this basically -- this
language basically takes out the public information program and -- and
substitutes it with we're looking at what -- what kind of in-home
fixtures and landscapes can -- can do a better job.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any -- any comment from the board?
Any objection to this one?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 6.5.1.
MR. LORENZ: Is the term nonnoxious? It's basically
nonnoxious. I can't speak so much for the CAC, but staff is really
reviewing this from a standpoint of -- of the term noninvasive and
actually would -- would recommend the term noninvasive be used. That
is consistent with what we have in the Land Development Code.
Noninvasive landscape plans would be -- would be plants such as
muscaten, grape, or primrose willow that, although native, if not
managed properly, could then take over the whole landscape. So the --
this is basically -- from a staff's perspective we would rather it say
nonnoxious, which is not so much the term that we're using. The Land
Development Code would be more non -- the recommendation would be
noninvasive, and it would be -- would be then consistent with the
code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it would read, "Priorities
for incorporating noninvasive native vegetation in the landscape
design shall be as follows.''~
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're looking to substitute
noninvasive rather than delete nonnoxious?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I hear.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what Mr. Lorenz said, uh-huh.
Okay. 13.2.5, Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, 13.2.5 is concerned with the emergency
management, and Barb Cacchione will address that.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name's Barbara
Cacchione. Mr. Pineau is not able to make it today, so on his behalf
I'll go over this one item. We want to change the language here to be
consistent with the definition of state law. We want to define the
coastal high hazard area as that area within the category one storm
evacuation zone, period. And we'd like to make one change there and
delete according to the ^ slosh program. That was suggested by the
Department of Community Affairs in our meeting with them on April 3rd,
and this would be consistent with state law. And we do have that area
identified on our future land use map and did have it identified in
1989 when we adopted it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So is this language consistent
with our current standard? We're not actually expanding or reducing
the area of coastal high hazard by adopting this?
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically the area is the same as it's
adopted. Currently U.S. 41 coming along -- it's identified on the
future land use map --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, Miss Cacchione.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm pretty familiar with the
designation myself. I just wanted to make sure that we're not
expanding or reducing the area that will affect people's insurance
dramatically on this.
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically in this area it will be the
same policy that we had intact where we have limited density to four
units per acre in that area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. That's the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that includes deleting
everything after zone. I don't have any problem with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, are we going to need
discussion on all of these things on the attachment to 2.1 as well?
MR. LORENZ: I think it's important for the board to go
through the next one, because these are listed in the report to some
degree. There's a couple of them that I think are specific -- more
substantive. To some degree these are -- these are areas that may be
in staff's judgment initially -- or not substantive, but I think it's
important for the board to review them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I'd suggest -- I mean,
we've all had the agenda packet. I've reviewed them and appreciated
having the opportunity to, because as you've said, the first time
through they hadn't been specifically called out. But none -- I
didn't have any that specifically required questions. If you guys
want to go over them one by one, of course, whatever.
MR. LORENZ: There are a couple that I would want to
point out that I think have some -- some notes and some discussion
that we had previously, especially with the drainage element. But the
board's -- the first item, objective 1.3, recognize that currently the
EAR report is recommending that we continue with the NRPA program.
That's the net effect of all the -- the recommendations. We do state
in -- in the EAR itself that -- that the staff will be focusing
primarily initially on county-owned lands, if you will, similar to the
Clam Bay NRPA, that will identify management plans for county-owned
lands first. To a large degree a lot of the management
recommendations or a common theme of some of the common -- the
county-owned lands is exotics and exotics removal. But this is --
this is the direction that the staff will be following coming to the
board for the NRPA program unless, of course, you wish to give us a
different direction.
Objective 2.4, the -- basically the -- we have been
working with an agreement with FDEP, basically with Rookery Bay in
terms of providing them information concerning land development
projects as they come through the cycle plus water quality
monitoring. It's somewhat of a cooperative agreement. Language is
initially developed, and we'll be coming back to the board with that
agreement. It's simply nothing -- the statement is nothing more than
continuing that policy and completing it.
Objective 6.1 relates to the habitat protection
standards, if you will, the habitat protection ordinance, and it
simply notes that we should develop incentives which would allow
development to continue at the same time insure that some of the more
ecologically sensitive habitats be retained. This is simply a
statement of what we will try to develop as we develop the habitat
protection standards and bring them back to the board.
If the -- the next -- the next item, if the county would
adopt an open space recreational system, that consideration simply be
given to incorporating linkage and protection objectives of retained
habitat, trying to -- trying to incorporate environmental objectives,
if you will, with the recreational system that we have.
Objective 6.2 -- the comment for objective 6.2 is
basically the county should continue with the NRPA estuary management
and coastal barrier beach system management programs. Basically the
board has, at least from my understanding, is -- has not -- or will
continue those items.
7.1 and 7.3 really detail continuation with our
artificial reef program. The county should also continue with the
coastal zone management plan, basically continue the evaluation and
data gathering that we -- that we currently have.
The second to the last item on this page is providing
educational materials related to exotic flora and fauna within the
county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That gets me back to my last
question, and it almost sounds like we're just replacing the one we
eliminated over here. But, again, how -- to whom do we provide
those? How do we provide those?
MR. LORENZ: Educational materials?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. LORENZ: We develop -- we currently have very small
pamphlets, three-page brochures that we hand out during various
county-sponsored events or other events. Or when people call in we
have information for them, and that's nothing more than that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's the extent of it?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. LORENZ: Any larger effort would require an
additional budget expenditure and, of course, we would come to you for
a budgeted request.
The last item on this page, I think, is significant
because we say the county should adopt the estuary management plan and
prepare watershed management plans as specified -- the watershed
management plans are specified in objective 2.1. We have developed a
draft estuarine management plan, and it was tied into the basin
study's recommendations from the drainage element. We were using the
basin studies from the drainage element to gather up information to
tie that information into our environmental planning. Since the board
several years ago did not want to see the basin studies to move
forward to the degree that we had originally proposed them, we've
placed on hold the estuarine management plan, because it used -- it
used that information.
The direction I have -- would take now, unless the board
gives me a different direction, is that the way staff would approach
the watershed management plans that we have in objective 2.1 is to the
degree that they're funded, to the degree that they're in -- if you
will, John Boldt's budget, we will continue to gather that information
and provide input into that process.
The -- page 8, top of the page, really this is a
recommen -- a statement of current status is for sea turtle monitoring
and lighting enforcement. We currently use our staff and natural
resources department and then the code enforcement staff as
appropriate to -- to conduct beach lighting compliance investigation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have a concern here
where it says by allocating, slash, expanding a portion of the code
enforcement's staff time, because I know code enforcement's stretched
very, very thin right now just trying to protect humans, let alone
trying to protect turtles. And I don't have any objection if the
natural resource staff gets out and does that, but I'm not sure we can
expand the scope of what code enforcement does right now without
adding additional personnel. And if we're going to add additional
personnel, it seems there are a lot of human needs in code enforcement
that might come first. So I don't know if I can support that
expanding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to see that clarified,
too. Accrediting of nature resources' staff so that they can perform
the work, because you folks are out there during that time period
already, so why don't we get you qualified to do that work or
accredited to do that work and let code enforcement continue to handle
the majority and bulk issues that they handle now?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the consensus then of the board is
to eliminate the portion referring to code enforcement?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'd like to eliminate all
wording after the word by in the second line up to the word
accrediting in the third line, so it would simply read, "LDC
regulations by accrediting the natural resources staff personnel."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll agree with that.
MR. LORENZ: Just recognize from a code enforcement
standpoint we obviously will still use code enforcement staff on a
limited basis but -- but really --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as you do now.
MR. LORENZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just as you do now. That's fine.
MR. LORENZ: The next -- the next statement, again, is
somewhere else in the text continue with the NRPA program. I think
the next objective is -- is somewhat significant. The following water
quality concerns should be addressed. Again, we can address them from
-- from a variety of ways. We don't have -- I don't see this being
-- being hard and fast from DCA. But what the -- the language is, of
course, very specific, retrofitting, improving, and upgrading existing
stormwater management systems that are not meeting state water quality
treatment standards and evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater
management systems by inventorying the existing systems.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, aren't we actually taking care
of this in another element?
MR. LORENZ: Well, not to this degree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm.
MR. LORENZ: I'm not aware of any very specific studies
or analyses that currently exist to look at, if you will, all
stormwater management systems to the degree that they're functioning
properly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think evaluating the
effectiveness -- that's the wrong -- wrong element for that in -- to
be in, because in evaluating the effectiveness, do you mean of the
stormwater management system or of the secondary impacts? MR. LORENZ: Probably both.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Both. Well, one is natural
resources, and one is not. You know, that -- I -- I have some
questions on that myself.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, today's the day to ask them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable with it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think as a first step have we
even identified the stormwater management systems in the county that
do not meet current state water quality treatment standards?
MR. LORENZ: I'm not aware that we have a current
inventory of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't know the magnitude of
the problem to make a commitment to retrofit, improve, and upgrade.
It's a step beyond where we need to go or where we are able to go at
this time. The only way I'm going to be comfortable with that portion
is to -- is to simply state that we will identify the existing
stormwater management systems that are not meeting state water quality
treatment standards, period. That's the first step.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd agree with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it's going to take some time
to do it. And I don't want to put a time line over our head on that,
but I think it's important that we at least understand which of those
systems are not meeting current state standards, and then how we
approach that will be the next step.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're saying eliminate
retrofitting, improving, and upgrading and put identifying in its
place?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir, and eliminate number
2.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Because that would be
redundant.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Once we identify them,
how we treat them is something -- a decision to be made later.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that acceptable then?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: (Commissioner nodded head.)
MR. LORENZ: The next two items basically to some degree
are housekeeping. The fact that as wewre going through this process
the state has a -- has adopted ERP, the environmental resource permit,
and adopted a consolidated wetlands delineations strategy. In the
existing policies we have referred to the definition of wetlands, and
in -- in dif -- in different ways this would -- basically would be to
try to make sure that the county is -- if you will, uses the statews
definitions, and wewre not going beyond what the state is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or falling short of.
MR. LORENZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have done that in the past.
Wewve attempted to mimic state standards in these areas in the past.
And what wewre recognizing is those standards may change in the near
future, and we want to remain consistent with them. Is that simply
what this is about?
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I think itls simply updating. The
language we currently have doesnlt refer to the existing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is to just to keep us in
consistency?
MR. LORENZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: And wherever it would appear that we would
have to make those types of housekeeping changes, we would come back
to you with those items.
The next item, I believe the board -- although we
flagged it for you this way anyway, but my recollection is that the
direction from the board was not to adopt the FDEPIs coastal
conservation control line, the CCCL line as -- as the countyls setback
line. But this is the language that does appear in the report in a
variety of different pages.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question was, what is the
application of this. What undeveloped coastal barrier islands do we
have and so forth. And I was unclear on that. Some others seemed
clear, so '-
MR. LORENZ: Keewaydin Island is an undeveloped coastal
barrier. Actually the Clam Pass Park is considered an undeveloped
coastal barrier segment. Lely Barefoot Beach -- I think the -- from a
-- from a private property rights perspective, Kee -- Keewaydin would
be the area that is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I like the part in here that talks
about giving the neighboring property owners a chance for a public
hearing process, too. I think thatls always something that I like to
have is the public hearing process to let the people voice their
views, and I like that portion of it. Do we have any objections for
that one, or shall we move on?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thatls fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next one.
MR. LORENZ: This is pretty much a statement of, I
think, existing conditions that we are participating in the beach
renourishment maintenance advisory board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next.
MR. LORENZ: The next one is -- does recommend that a
new policy be added. I think this is somewhat significant. Basically
it says the county shall establish prohibition zones that states
personal watercraft within selected estuarine areas. I think that at
least the language is and my understanding is that we canlt -- if we
wanted to prohibit motorized watercraft, we could -- we could do that,
but we couldn't put it simply to -- to personal watercraft. That's
been our experience that because of the natural resources protection,
we want to minimize motorized watercraft, that would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me those are
items we ought to take on a case-by-case basis rather than writing it
in as a standard policy overall.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Each situation is
dramatically different, and I don't see any reason to write it in the
growth management plan. We get plenty of pressure to look at those as
is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the board consensus then would be
to delete that one?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That -- that then is the end of
the summary changes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I know you're
going to need to take a break here in a couple of minutes. Just a
suggestion when we come back. It appears a lot of the folks here are
here for the church item that appears later on in the agenda. Maybe
after the conclusion of the EAR portion of this, we can jump to that
item rather than go through the other public hearing items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I have no objection to that if
that's acceptable to the other board members.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The phrase the patience of Job I
think is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any questions on this
element for Mr. Lorenz then? If not, then we will go ahead and -- and
break for lunch and be back at 1:15.
(A lunch break was held until 1:20 p.m.)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county
commission meeting. Mr. Dotrill, we're at the point of taking our
public comment on the conservation and coastal management element,
essentially those items which we had discussed today -- this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, for which I have two.
Mr. Erlichman, are you still with us? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: He appears not to be.
MR. DORRILL: If not, Dr. Stallings. Then we'll have
Mr. Fitch following Mr. Stallings.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings representing the Florida
Wildlife Federation, Save the Manatee Club, and Environmental
Federation of Southwest Florida. Not quite as many as A1 Perkins, but
I'm getting there so -- I think I've already discussed some of my
specific concerns with you, and I'm not going to go back over those,
but I just wanted to express a little bit of dismay about the way the
process is going because I think there are a lot of good things in
there no matter what your perspective is, whether it's from the
development perspective or the environmental perspective, and somehow
or other we need to -- to better get the information up in front of
you in a timely manner so that you can have the time necessary to
really work through it and I think to, you know, examine it in greater
detail. So that -- that's my primary concern, that there's a lot of
things in there that would help us all, but we really haven't had the
time to sit down and give them the consideration I think some of them
deserve. So hopefully as we move along maybe we can somehow improve
the process to accomplish that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I appreciate those comments. I
believe that is very similar to what the board said on a couple of the
items --
DR. STALLINGS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- as well too.
DR. STALLINGS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hmm-hmm.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Fitch.
DR. FITCH: Good afternoon, and for the record I just
wanted to mention that my name is John Fitch, and I am representing
The Conservancy at 450 Herrihue Drive in Naples. I just wanted to
mention something very briefly on this, that I know that there was
some mystification before about the term "biomes," and there is --
there are a lot of different terms that are used for discussing animal
and plant communities. And by an animal or plant community, we simply
mean a group of interacting plant and animal species that inhabit a
certain area. Normally the term "biome" is used in a far more general
way. If we were to talk about the tundra, the tundra would be a
biome. But in this particular case, the term "biome" is being used at
about the same level as the term "habitat" or "community." Now, the
important thing to realize is that within the EAR on page 42, there is
a discussion of native habitats that is really consistent with our
understanding of exactly what either habitat or an ecological
community is, and so I would like to call your attention to a whole
listing of different habitat types there, and I think that that's
extremely important for your consideration of 4.1.3 because that
simply -- as a recommendation, simply says to implement -- to
implement water conservation strategies that will serve to maintain
identified -- and you can easily substitute in there -- it may be more
accurate to say native ecological communities or native habitats. And
if you did that, those would all be referenced in the tables that are
provided, table 4.1 or 4 -- 4-1 and 4-2. So those are all carefully
referenced, and I think the important thing with this policy is, do
you want to adopt water conservation strategies that will serve to
maintain identified native habitats. That's -- that's what -- That's
what this issue really is speaking to, and it seems to me that we've
-- we've -- we found out very directly in Clam Bay the cost of -- of
not following that pretty closely because it's a lot easier to be
proactive on something like this than to try and go in retroactively
and do something. So I -- I'd like to really recommend this policy to
you and to indicate that in this particular case, a biome, habitat,
and community are all one and the same, and that is confusing. It's
probably better to adopt a standard term, and I would be more in favor
of something like a community because that represents the fact that
there is a grouping of plants and animals that coexist together, and
so that's probably more accurate ecologically, but also this has been
quantified by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. So
they have listings. They have maps. So, in other words, this is not
coming out of -- or this is -- this is very well defined, but I think
the principal issue here is, do you wish to adopt something that has a
water conservation strategy that serves to maintain identified natural
systems, and it's just as simple as that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I beg to differ. It's not as
simple because unless we can specifically identify the native habitat
you're talking about, then we don't know what it is we are
strategizing to protect and my -- Let me finish, if I may, Dr. Fitch.
DR. FITCH: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said those communities are
already spelled out or indicated in our Growth Management Plan. Was
that -- did I understand you --
DR. FITCH: It's in the EAR in tables 4-1 and 4-2.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Were those tables adopted, or
were they excluded in our past actions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're in the existing EAR?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're still there.
DR. FITCH: They're -- I believe that they're still
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aren't they still there?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Temporarily.
MR. LORENZ: They're simply informational to able to
determine how many habitats --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're going to stay no matter
what.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
DR. FITCH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Show me -- I'm sorry. My
package here -- lead me to them.
DR. FITCH: Okay. Page --
MR. LORENZ: 3-42.
DR. FITCH: Right. 42, 43, and 44. So I wanted to
bring these to your attention if -- because there is a lot of
information on what these are. There's also information on how these
are distributed. Conservancy, for example, has completed a guide to
conserving Collier County's native communities, and we have mappings
showing where they are. So this is definitely something that is -- is
well documented, and the information is actually there but I --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, I can't resist
saying that I think part of what's wrong here is that our staff can't
give us the answer that we have to get out of our own plan from
somebody else, and I just think that's too bad because I think we
could have avoided a half an hour discussion if that answer could have
been given to that question a couple of hours ago.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mentioned to Mr. Lorenz at the
break, you know, I wanted clarification on what's a native biome, what
are we talking about, give me the list, and after all this
discussion --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in the planning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Dr. Fitch references it to me,
and I'm -- I'm a little frustrated with that, as is Commissioner
Hac'Kie. We can -- We can beat up on that later, but right now let's
try and get through --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- this item.
Dr. Fitch, what you cite on page -- section 3, page 42,
if that's all included, that's everything in the county. We have --
We have --
DR. FITCH: These are -- These are simply listings of
acreages, and I think the -- the issue is obviously some of the
uplands would not be included in this because there are not -- but I
-- I think the -- the question really that relates to policy 4.1.3
is, do you wish to implement water conservation strategies that
maintain identified native communities.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I heard a majority of the
board say, yes, we do, if they are identified.
DR. FITCH: Hmm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me -- Let me throw
out some language that if they are identified clearly I think would --
would give us most of what we're looking for. Policy 4.1.3 in my
opinion should read, "pursue and identify water conservation
strategies with regard to protection of native communities as
identified in section .... fill in the blank.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Why don't we finish with the public
speakers, and then we'll discuss all of these at once. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Write that down.
DR. FITCH: Okay. This is the -- This is the extent of
my comments but I -- again, I -- I believe that this is an overall
policy, and for an overall policy I would just ask whether it's
necessary to identify every single area or whether you're really
talking about an overall policy which is, do you come up with water
strategies that will conserve natural areas. It's that simple. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is a much easier way of
saying the same thing.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A1
Perkins, Belle Meade groups, citizens for constitutional property
rights.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just keeping score of who has the
most.
MR. PERKINS: I can't keep up with Fran.
The part of this that I want to address is the water,
especially the effluent. Now, apparently from all -- everybody
involved, we're going to be short of water here in 2020. Now, I'm
advocating finding out how we can totally reuse the effluent,
regardless of what you call it, into drinking water. We have the
ability to recycle it, but we need to know how. We also need to store
it. If we recycle the water, we do not have to take additional waters
from some other place, nor do we have to take and take the effluent
and ruin some other place with it, such as deep-well injection. We
know what the problem is. Just remember, I'm not Ross Perot; I'm A1
Perkins. I can see the problems, but I don't have the answers. We
can fix this problem because we have the technology. If we put a
person on the moon, damn it all, we can fix this.
Plants and animals. Okay. Now, we've heard about this
biodes (phonetic) is it? What's -- Is that the term? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Biomes.
MR. PERKINS: Biomes? Okay. Now, if we flood the
entire area, you're not going to have any biomes. It's just that
simple. You're going to kill them off. You're going to drown them,
and in this past summer we've done a pretty good job of that. We
killed the deer. We've killed the raccoon. We've killed the possum
and all the rest of them. And they were smart enough to move the
panther out of here.
Other than that, recycling and especially on the water.
We need to take a real good look, and we need to get some good advice
on how to fix this problem, not move it around, not make believe it
doesn't exist, but fix it for future generations. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: I believe Mr. Perkins was the last one on
that item.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if I could
comment.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mmm-hmm.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We all have our book here on
this -- on this effluent disposal versus tense water that we've also
discussed for about 15 minutes earlier. If -- if each -- each of us
would turn to policy 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, I'm going to read 4.2.3, and
listen to what it says. It says,"Identify existing and future
publicly owned lands suitable for irrigation with treated wastewater
effluent such as government building grounds, parks, and highway
medians, and incorporate these into future planning for effluent
disposal." The recommendation is that we change those last two words
to "tense water," and I -- I can't see that there's anything in there
that the DCA is going to come back at us and tell us that we can't use
deep-well injection if we don't have a way to get rid of the water in
the summertime. It merely says, "identify existing and future," and
at the end of it, "change effluent disposal to tense water."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me what
the disadvantage is of leaving it the way it is?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, it's
-- it's mostly a connotation problem of the word "effluent" versus
the phrase "tense water." That's all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My only difficulty with
that is that if it presents no practical change in the way in which we
are going to do things but introduces a new definition that is not
used elsewhere, I don't see a reason for change. I know we've talked
about connotation and perception, but there's only one effluent or
tense water that we talk about. It's the one we produce. And, again,
I understand, you know, what you're trying to do and -- and -- you
know, I just don't think connotation is enough to -- to inject a new
term into something that has no application as to how we -- we perform
the disposal of that material.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I -- I have a suggestion. Rather
than spend so much time on an immaterial change, why don't we just
decide to either keep it or change it. I don't know that we need
hours of discussion on the use of the term here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I just
suggest -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And I don't think we need legal
advice either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we run through the
-- one, two, three, four, five, six -- seven items on the page and
see what the consensus is on each and move on. I -- I need to go in
two hours, and I'd hate to spend the next two hours still doing the
same thing we've done for the last two hours.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure it would only take about
an hour to fix "tense."
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Policy 4.1.2, what is the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were going to make the one
change.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Acknowledge -- amend to
acknowledge recommendations within the water supply plan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Amend to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agree.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- acknowledge the recommendations?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Amend to acknowledge
recommendations. Okay. I agree. How many is that? Four? Five?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Simple.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agree.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Policy 4.1.3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to hear Commissioner
Hancock's language.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would recommend to replace the
language with "pursue and identify water conservation strategies with
regard to protection of native communities as identified in section,"
and I need some help from Mr. Lorenz. There's a section of our Growth
Management Plan in which identifying communities of jurisdictional
importance or local importance is appropriate. Which section is that?
MR. LORENZ: I would identify it as table 4-1.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Table 4 --
MR. LORENZ: Oh. Oh, wait a minute. This -- See, this
is the EAR.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is the EAR.
MR. LORENZ: This isn't the Growth Management Plan.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, I don't want to
include everything in table 4-1 because it includes disturbed
grasslands.
MR. LORENZ: Right. Okay. But the reference -- I mean,
these -- this is a listing of habitats as inventoried by the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see any reason to protect
every habitat listed there. So my point is, if there is not a
cross-reference to identify those habitats that need to be protected,
either develop one and include it, or this thing goes away in its
entirety. That -- That's straight and simple. That's my --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It takes us back to our
discussion of a couple hours ago, and that is, we don't have a clear
definition in front of us right now for which to reference, and I'm
not going to vote in favor of putting something in which we can't
define and don't have an answer for. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I agree.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And either we do or we don't,
and it appears we don't. So I don't know what the exact terms of the
motion are, but if we don't have a definition, I'm opposed to it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I -- I -- I go along with delete at
this point in time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What I was -- What I was asking
for is that definition, and -- and obviously there's no place right
now we have identified those communities. So if they're -- you know,
I would like to give direction to staff to prepare that, and if it
does not make the EAR-based amendments, we need to make the next
amendment cycle.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd agree.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'd agree with that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'd like to see that same
language with the section identified that indicates the vegetative
communities that we want to protect, and I want to see it, if not in
the EAR, at the next amendment cycle. Is that a consensus?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, if it's not in the EAR,
then he can't do it in the EAR.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It will be the one after that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then it's going to have to be the
next one. I don't want to lose it in its entirety, but it's not ready
to move ahead today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We seem to have at least
three.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a consent for that, yes, so
let's move on to 4.2.3.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave it as "effluent
disposal."
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to move to leave
it also rather than change it to "reuse water."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like "reuse water."
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like "reuse water" merely
because I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's politically correct?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- we can --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I get to be the swing vote. I don't
see the point in changing something just to be changing it if it has
no material effect and that -- and that I -- I think it was you who
made the point earlier that the term "effluent disposal" is probably
defined and is used several other places. So I don't see the point of
changing it just to be changing it. So I'll go with delete. That's
three deletes. 4.2.4, I assume, is the same?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And 6.5.1 we had amend --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- as to -- substitute the word
"invasive" for "noxious"; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And 4.2.6 was left as
is?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And 13.2.5 was to delete everything
after "evacuation zone."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. I'll close the public
hearing. We need a motion. Miss Student wants to jump in here.
MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to tell you -- and I needed
a clarification about objective 11.3 because at our last meeting I had
pointed out -- that's the language about moving the coastal
construction control line for undeveloped barriers, and I had pointed
out, while it might not be taking, we might have a problem with the
Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we took that out last
time.
MS. STUDENT: Well, I thought so too, but then I thought
-- That's why I wanted clarification because I thought I heard
comment this morning that because it was a public hearing process or
whatever, that that would be okay. So I was asking for clarification.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As legal counsel, you are advising
us to not include it at this point?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. It's not an actual amendment. It's
just changing the line, and I think we need to do some further study.
This -- this appeared on your ma -- on a matrix that was handed out.
It was a CAC recommendation, and it's not an actual textual change,
but if you change the line, then it has changed the effect of the
text. So I just was seeking clarification. That was all. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What was the clarification?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The clarification is that we
leave out object -- the change in objective 11.3 in order to avoid a
private property taking without compensation that might violate state
law.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's consistent with our
recommendation of three weeks ago.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make
a motion we ratify the consensus vote this board has taken, and that
will also include the items mentioned earlier. II.B.10 we replaced
some things with Commissioner Hancock's wording and so on, so not only
in those item -- five -- six items we just did but the items we
changed this morning as well.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Four to one on that one.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The opposition was to
ratifying the majority of the board's decision?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the opposition to?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The opposition was to not taking
a better look at the milestone which would get us to the culmination
of instituting the real impact of issues of our conservation coastal
element.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't remember having that
discussion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What is our next item, Mr. Dorrill?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All the things we threw out
three weeks ago.
MR. DORRILL: Land use and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Future land use item.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara
Cacchione of your comprehensive planning section. What I'd like to
present to you today are the proposed EAR recommendations for the
future land use element. I'd like to begin by thanking the future
land use subcommittee. They consisted of Michael Fernandez, a land
planner; Fay Biles with HITA, Marco Island Taxpayers' Association;
Mike Cart, a commercial realtor; Patricia Carroll, an appraiser and
environmental background; James Gore of The Conservancy; Leslie
Martin, a professor and professional facilitator; and Terri Tragesser,
a North Naples resident and involved in the traffic calming task
force. This group met together with us for about six months reviewing
the entire future land use element, Immokalee master plan, and Golden
Gate master plan.
I would like to begin by going over the changes on
attachment three. The first proposed textual change is a disclaimer
on the maps that are part of the future land use map series. These
identify the habitats in the county. There's a public facilities map,
and there's also a map of proposed purchase areas. We would like to
put a statement on these maps that these are not regulatory, that they
are informational and that they are to be used for those purposes.
The second change is to amend the commercial under
criteria section. This section has some difficulty with
implementation. The criteria are not well worded. They do not lead
to easy interpretation, and we'd like to amend this section and move
more towards a scenario of neighborhood commercial instead of the
commercial under criteria.
The next change is in regard to the mixed use activity
centers. In regard to this, we'd like to -- and there's also an
appendix C which identified in full detail what we've looked at in
terms of the activity centers. We've done an issue paper on that.
What we'd like to do is look at the specific boundaries and be more
specific in the definition of where those activity center boundaries
should be. Some may be recommended to be larger to you. Some may be
smaller.
We'd also like to develop guidelines for activity
centers which include building placement, connectivity to the
outparcels, parking lot design, landscaping, access management,
pedestrian movement and mixture of uses and signage. These are --
would enhance the development and the aesthetics of the commercial
areas and the activity center. The mixture of uses would be more in
the concept of what was originally intended with activity centers.
And basically we're not talking about color of buildings in regard to
this. We're talking about function and design.
The next item was to remove an interconnection
requirement where you either interconnected adjoining properties or
you lost a unit per acre. This has not worked very well with
implementation, and we're recommending that that be deleted.
The next item is in regard to the industrial, and
basically here we allow for expansion of our industrial areas. There
is no criteria for that expansion. We're suggesting that we either
designate it as a land use designation on the map or we add criteria
for how much area should be added to these industrial areas when they
need to be expanded.
The next item is to include -- and this was a
recommendation of the Planning Commission -- the area of critical
state concern amendment that you heard earlier to reinstate the
agricultural exemption as an EAR-based amendment. We have received
that back from DCA, but we are held up until we get our EAR sufficient
unless we make it an EAR-based amendment.
The next item we've already discussed which was the
urban boundary expansion, and we will delete that.
There are 49 objectives and policies in the plan in the
future land use element, and those are 100 percent complete. The
policies that we're recommending for amendment are as follows. Policy
4.3. We are in the process of preparing phase two of the economic
plan. When that is completed, we may need to look at the land use for
industrial in the coastal area, and we may also need to amend our
industrial under criteria section. So those will be amendments that
may be coming to you after we bring to you the economic plan for the
county.
Policy 5.1 is to look at a residential in-fill
provision, density averaging, transfer of development rights, and one
item that is on the next page with the studies that should be included
here as well is density and intensity in the urban area. So these are
the types of studies we'd like to conduct under this policy.
The next item is policy 5.4. We want to better define
the term "development" in this policy and provide standards for
compatibility, and this could be done through development standards or
community planning.
Policy 5.6 was to clarify that this policy applies in
the urban area and to provide more incentives for innovative land
development techniques. Policy 5.9 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is -- What is that a policy
-- I mean, I'm trying to find it.
MS. CACCHIONE: 5.6?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. CACCHIONE: The page number?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, wait. I just did. I'm sorry
to interrupt you. That's cjustering. That's what I was looking for.
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: Policies 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 refer to
the development in the county that has a higher intensity. These are
properties that have been looked at through zoning teevaluation, and
they are maintaining their intensity, and it is above what the plan
would normally call for in that location. We want to identify these
properties clearly in a mapped format so that they have recognition
that they can exist and can remain, and we also may want to look at
adjustments in density and intensity in these areas because right now
they cannot change their zoning to any other zoning category except
something lower. So there may be a need with redevelopment to look at
different zoning categories on some of these properties.
Objective 6 and the subsequent policies relate to
housing and should be moved and placed into the housing element so
that we have all of our policies there together in one format.
A new policy that's suggested to be added is to prepare
an urban area recreational space plan, and this was recommended by the
citizens' committee, the subcommittee, the full committee, and the
Planning Commission to look at a recreational plan for the urban area.
The intent was that it would improve the quality of life, and it would
also take land out of development potential. The intent was to
purchase this property, that it wouldn't be done through incentives or
-- or any other mechanism, but basically it would be a land purchase
and that we would have to also look at the maintenance of that area as
well included in the -- in the cost of acquiring the land as well.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Who -- Who is proposed to purchase
the land?
MS. CACCHIONE: That is something that we can determine
at a later time. Basically it could be a -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is it anticipated that the county's
going to purchase this land inside the urban area?
MS. CACCHIONE: It could be the county. It could be
another group that -- There are several groups in the country that do
that kind of land acquisition program. I think the main intent here
was to provide a policy which would come up with the plan and look at
the economic benefits and the cost and the cost benefit of actually
doing a recreational plan for open space in the urban area.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well -- well, I -- Maybe I'm
confused, but I thought the urban area was for people -- for people to
live in. Now we're talking about taking land out of the inventory of
the urban area and taking it away from availability to humans. I
mean, what are we doing here? Why do we have an urban area if we're
not going to let it be urban? Why do we have a non-urban area and we
want to also have --
MS. CACCHIONE: I think the basic reason here was to
look at our current urban area. We've done a buildout study. We've
identified that there's probably enough potential development between
what's approved and what could be approved on the agricultural land
for about 460,000 people, and that's in our current urban boundary.
One idea that was presented and seemed to have some positive response
was that that density in some ways may be too high, that they were --
they were looking for ways to maybe modify within those urban
boundaries the development potential. One way to do that is actually
to purchase the land.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I -- I have no objection to
private groups going out and buying land and putting it into a
conservation easement and holding it forever in place. In fact, I'm
all in favor of that. But to make it a county policy -- The county
has in its Growth Management Plan designated urban area, and that's
where we say this is land that's available for humans to use, people
to come here and use. Now, if we're going to go make a new policy
that says we're going to go out and buy that so nobody can go on it,
well, those are contradictory policies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're quite right that there
has been some concern expressed at the number of people at buildout
and that this is one possible way to deal with that, but it ultimately
costs -- if the county becomes the purchaser, it ultimately costs the
existing taxpayer more money. Another way of doing that is to have a
lower density level which costs the future developer money instead of
the existing taxpayer money, and that seems like a much more realistic
and cost-effective way of addressing the exact same problem.
MS. CACCHIONE: That -- That is a good point and -- and
basically you can do one or both of these mechanisms. If we look just
at the agricultural land we have left and we don't address properties
that are already approved as planned unit developments and
subdivisions so we're not going in to look at existing zoning, if we
just look at the agricultural properties, there's between twelve and
16,000 vacant acres. When we did the buildout study, we figured that
at 3 1/2 units per acre. We did not take it to the maximum of 4 units
per acre. So the net effect of that would be between 16,000 and
30,000 people in terms of the reduction that that would cause if we
lower density by another half a unit per acre.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Barbara, when you did that twelve
or 16,000 undeveloped acres, does that take into account what is
developable or available for development?
MS. CACCHIONE: That takes into account basically
agriculturally zoned property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it -- does it -- Did you
subtract from that the wetlands or the undevelopable property? MS. CACCHIONE: No. No, we did not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the real number is -- is much
lower.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no, not necessarily,
because if I own a piece of property, I can still count that wetlands
toward my --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Towards your density.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- density number, and I can
cjuster them in one area, but my overall total will still be the same.
MS. CACCHIONE: That's -- that's -- Both of those things
are true.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the other restrictions will
prohibit it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't want to put Miss
Cacchione in a position of answering on behalf of the CAC. These are
not her ideas but those of the committee; however, you understand that
you are in the conduit right now.
Was there any basis -- When we start talking about land
acquisition, I share some concerns of the tri -- the three-way cost of
public land acquisitions which is the cost outright, the maintenance
cost long term, and the production in taxes paid on those properties.
So there are three costs associated with it and -- you know, I guess
what I'm asking is, to have in a buildout -- and understand we're
talking buildout. Everything has to be maximized within every
reasonable term to reach 460,000 in the urban area. Okay? That's --
The difference between buildout and probable is -- is significant. But
at buildout, in order to get a 1 percent reduction, how many acres
will we have to take out of production? You know, to give this thing
some scale '-
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, I think that basically is the
purpose of the study. I think the things you -- you stated in terms
of the cost are true. All three of those are costs to acquiring land.
There are also benefits to acquiring the land. You are also taking
land out of development, and you are also by doing that requiring less
infrastructure to be provided in that urban area to some degree. And
to some degree, you would be increasing the quality of life. I think
the view of this was not as an environmental land acquisition but,
rather, an active recreational area that could be integrated, that
could be used for bicycle paths and sidewalks, and it would be a major
amenity to the development of the urban area. And in some cases we
may look at -- maybe looking at density overall and how that could be
modified within the urban area. I think Commissioner Norris is
correct in that the urban area is intended for urban use, and this
would be an amenity in terms of the potential property values that
could be increased within the urban area by having this open-space
system. And, again, the policy is just to do the study at this point
and to analyze the cost and benefit of acquiring land and to look at
the very thing you talk about, about how much development would need
to come out of the urban area in order to have a benefit because there
are costs --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me how this
relates to -- and, Vince, maybe you can help with this. October 24 I
wrote a memo relating to the -- reducing density and for many of the
reasons that you have just outlined that this suggestion is for. The
two have concurrent goals or parallel goals. Vince wrote a memo and
-- and apparently the CAC took the issue up, but whatever happened to
that? There was direction directly from this board to deal with that
issue and to look at -- not just to say, "Okay. We'll study it some
day," but to look at the specifics of it and be able to give us some
sort of presentation now at the EAR hearings, and what I'm hearing is
a suggestion that we should research something completely different,
and I'm hearing nothing in regards to exploring the proposed lowering
of densities.
MR. CAUTERO: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Vince Cautero, for the record. After the board's
directive back in October I believe, I submitted a memorandum to the
Citizens' Advisory Committee stating what your directive was. The
committee referred the matter to their future land use subcommittee
who recommended that a study be done, and you've talked about some of
the -- the items in that study with -- with Barbara right now that
deals with TDRs, in-fill, and the impact of lowering densities which
is what the original intent of the board was, and I went back and
listened to the tapes myself, and I believe that's what the intent of
the board was and what was said at that meeting in October.
We -- Quite frankly, we did not push the committee.
They -- They were strong in their conviction from what Barbara tells
me that a study be done and that the analysis of that, I believe, you
are looking for right now not be done in the EAR process that
concluded with this document but it be done later potentially as an
amendment to the comprehensive plan or some special study that could
be done during the year by staff or with assistance from the
committee. We did not feel that it was appropriate for us to get
deeply involved in it at that point and perhaps push the committee
because we understood that the board was strong in their convictions
about staff not doing it, that the Citizens' Advisory Committee do it.
Now, of course we're going to work with them, and we're going to
provide data and information and guide them in the process. You would
do that in any process when you work with a committee, but that is the
main reason why you do not have that documentation I believe you're
looking for in front of you. The only documentation that we can offer
along those lines is the buildout study that was prepared by Jeff
Perry and the addendum to that which was done in a memo form and some
preliminary analysis that was submitted by the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Fernandez. There -- There is documentation. We do
have facts I believe we can share with you, but I believe,
Commissioner, that you were looking for something more detailed. The
committee elected not to do that at this time but to defer it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- Yeah. I was just
-- I'm a little disappointed because if you listen to the tape from
October and November, then you know there was very specific requests
from the board to be able to bring back something of substance, not
just a recommendation that we study it. That's what we were asking
for in November, was that you -- not you personally but that the CAC
go ahead and study it. It just seems that the majority of the items
-- the rationale for this proposed new policy parallel the rationale
for lowering density and -- and -- so one is you can have the triple
shot of hitting the taxpayer by buying the property, maintaining the
property, and taking it off the tax rolls and lower the densities and
lower the impacts on transportation and otherwise, or the other is you
can have all the advantages of lowering impacts but not have that
triple hit on the taxpayer as part of it. So I'm just a little
frustrated.
MR. CAUTERO: I understand. And if -- if staff did
anything to -- to add to your frustration, I apologize, but we -- we
did state your intent to the committee in the best way we knew how.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let me make a suggestion
that might satisfy your intention, Commissioner Constantine. How
about if we reword this to say, "Add a new policy to reduce intensity
of the urban area to provide for quality of life by ....
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: .... studying density
reduction."
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: .... studying density reduction and
-- and preparing an urban area recreational space plan." We can do
both of those and probably come up with some sort of a mix but I -- I
-- I'll just tell you right now -- and I think you -- I heard you say
the same thing, that I'm not interested at all in considering having
the county buy land in the urban area to take off of the -- off of the
rolls. Now, if some private group wants to do that, that's fine, but
I just -- you know, I'm not even willing to talk about the county
doing that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. That's -- As I
say, that's kind of a triple hit on the taxpayer and -- and the intent
is fine, but there are ways to accomplish the intent without hitting
the taxpayer that way. So I agree. I hope if we give our direction,
they can look at it, but let's not waste a lot of time looking at
something that the board has expressed --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could be --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not -- not a strong
interest in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could be a third vote in
support of that if we could just study density and not necessarily
reducing density because I think that there may be areas where we
should have six and areas where we should have two or one and -- and
with no net increase in density and with a goal of decrease but not to
determine as a policy right now that we're telling staff go find a way
to decrease the density.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let's see if we have a
third.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, my
suggestion is not -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a third on the right
wing of the panel?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the right wing?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To clarify, my suggestion
isn't that we are going to lower. That's -- That's not how it was
intended. To study that option and -- and to see how that works.
Now, that may be through various means of shifting in different areas
different --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- densities but to study
that -- that topic.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I want
to clarify the study parameters. Our Growth Management Plan which
adopted 4 units per acre in the urban area is -- people say we don't
want to become another Miami. Miami would kill to have 4 units an
acre in the urban area, and there was a tremendous amount of citizen
involvement, not just developers, citizens involved in the development
of our current Growth Management Plan. So I think what we need as a
part of that study is to look at communities, to look at their
densities, to look at comparisons and so forth. If we just say we
just want to lower density, that doesn't give us a goal. We can do
that in minute fractions, or we can do it largely, and we don't know
if it's really going to give us anything worthwhile. So I think if
we're going to study it, we need to look at all these places people
say we don't want to be, what are their conditions, how much better
off are we than they are, and what is our target.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those are all good
points. I think the purpose behind this is -- and recognizing your
comments earlier on buildout is a number that likely won't be
achieved, but 458,000 of the urban area is the potential buildout at
three and a half and -- and realizing that through FOCUS or through
all the civic groups we speak to or whomever, that number scares the
heck out of people. And if there's a way we can make that three
hundred seventy-eight instead of four hundred fifty-eight or if
there's a way we can make that something lower 20 years from now, we
ought to start into that process now, but I'm not saying, gosh --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or if we can determine that that
number is unrealistic.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and that's -- that's
what I'm asking, is let's -- let's get some study done there, and if
there's a way to do that, then we should be planning to do that now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And -- and that -- that
frames it appropriately for me.
MR. DORRILL: Just a brief elaboration. Following up
Mr. Constantine's original desire, staff did make a presentation along
the lines of the buildout study, and I think he referenced a
memorandum or white paper that had been prepared by Mr. Perry, and it
would be good if we could incorporate into part of your deliberations
some of those specific things that we are to explore. TDRs was one.
I don't know whether that's germane or not. I'm not a planner.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think so.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tremendously.
MR. DORRILL: But if you can at least incorporate the
preliminary work that the staff did as part of what your intent is,
then we will take that as an adjunct to the buildout study and I think
it will be a little more --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, let me tell you what I'm --
I'm expecting. If we're going to go forward with a study on the
density and its impacts on the -- on the community, then I think all
of those things are not only relevant information but probably some of
the questions that we need to have answered, and I -- I would expect
that as a normal course of a study like this, that all the questions
that we have been asking and been discussing here today would be
answered in the study but -- Am I incorrect on that?
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically we have done an urban buildout
study, phase one and phase two. Phase one was a technical report. We
did not use high numbers. We were conservative in those assessments.
We did not use the full density as allocated even under the plan. The
plan allows four. We use three and a half. We took out for wetlands,
and we also took into account developments that weren't reaching their
potential, and we worked very closely with CBIA and other groups in
developing those estimates. Phase two is the estimate of services and
what would be needed to supply the urban area and that population.
I think the next page -- the next attachment refers to a
study, and it's the fourth study down, and it says, "Complete a study
regarding residential in-fill, density averaging, transfer of
development rights, and density and intensity in the urban area." I
think if you wanted to add into that the component about a
recreational open space plan as a way of also looking at density
within the urban area, that could be another potential look-at as part
of that study.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm asking, though, is
not simply let's look at our buildout study and see at current
densities what's going to happen or what the needs will be. I'm
asking to look at ways that we can potentially lower that ultimate
buildout number, and that may be through lowering an overall number.
That may be through a mixed use, as Commissioner Hac'Kie said. But
I'm not simply asking for a rehashed buildout plan. I think -- and I
want to make sure you understand that clearly.
MS. CACCHIONE: We do understand that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah, because that's -- this new
policy says, "Add a new policy to reduce intensity of the urban area
to provide for quality of life," and that's -- you know, we don't want
just an elaboration of the buildout study. What we want to do is try
to figure out ways that we can effectively legally reduce densities.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd also -- if -- I don't
mind adding that wording in there, but I want to see if there's a
third voice saying what Commissioner Norris and I did, and that is, I
don't have a whole lot of excitement about even studying some program
that the county will go buy property with taxpayer money, take it off
the tax rolls, and then maintain it in eternity.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider that third voice
present.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if -- if you want to
explore an open-space program, that's fine, but let's not waste the
staff's time or waste any citizens' time that are doing the input into
this doing something that the majority of the board is not interested
in.
MS. CACCHIONE: So you would recommend not adding that
new policy that -- the next to the last one where you have a policy to
do an urban area recreational plan? I understand there's three votes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They can do it, just not at
taxpayer expense. If somebody -- If a private group wants to go out
and buy it all up, that's -- more power to them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can -- can I -- I'm sorry. I'm
listening to this discussion about a recreation space plan, the
recreation space is park lands, but when we're at 450,000 people in
the urban area, we don't have enough and -- and I -- I have to say
that we need to look at what our park lands have to look like 20 years
from now or 15 years from now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we are in a different
element. We're looking at -- we have -- Is Mr. Olliff here?
MR. OLLIFF: (Mr. Olliff raised his hand)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We -- We have a particular
ratio I believe of recreational or park lands according to population
and according to growth. So we're already doing that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it won't be any good if we
don't have any land to put them on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the -- the difference here,
I believe, is focus. No one can argue with an urban area recreational
space plan. To say that there -- we need enough area in the urban
section for people to recreate, no one can argue with that, but this
was not included as a recreation element. This was included as an
attempt to take properties out of inventory, plain and simple. What
I'm hearing is that the goal is simply for government to use tax
dollars to buy land and take it out of inventory for development. I'm
not hearing from my constituents that that's -- that that's efficient
use of their tax dollars. So, you know, I'm not going to support that
element of it. What I am willing to support is exactly what Mr.
Olliff is supposed to be looking at, which is -- not that you're not,
Tom. You understand -- is -- is that -- do we have enough open space
in the urban area for the recreational opportunities that people will
need. I don't think anyone's objecting to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, frankly, we're all aware
that there's a group that our state representative has formed that's
investigating this. So maybe we can leave this to the private sector
to bring to us.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think we're closing the
door on that by not having our staff do the research.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think we -- you know, I
don't -- I want the staff to do the research and -- and to look at
recreational space because I think we're going to need a whole lot
more of it than we have right now. I mean, I believe Miss Cacchione
said that the county buying land was one of the many methods that
could be used. I'm opposed to the county buying any more land than
what we need for park lands and so forth, but I -- I think we need
this recreational space element as much as we need lessened densities.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And the rest of us are agreeing to
that as long as it doesn't include a study of the county buying
property just to simply take it out of inventory. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's -- Let's go to the next
policy.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our -- Our TDRs may well provide
the open space that we're looking for. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, it might.
MS. CACCHIONE: So we'll delete that policy. The next
item is to add a new policy under -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. Did you say delete that
one?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll delete that proposed new
policy.
MS. CACCHIONE: The recreational open space plan is
something you do not want staff to be working on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we've offered a clarification
on policy 5.1 that it's not just a rehashing of the buildout but is
with the intent of looking at reductions of -- of what vehicles for
reduction of density may be available to us and is it warranted.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Then the next -- the -- the
last policy then.
MS. CACCHIONE: The last policy to look at the idea of
community, neighborhood plans within the urban area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got one vote.
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically this would -- In terms of how
we would go about this is not something we finalized yet, if they
would all follow the same format as Immokalee, Golden Gate, and Marco,
the communities we do have master plans for, but there does seem to be
concern in terms of looking at these areas by a community basis, and
there may be various approaches, and we'd like to be able to work on
that and make a recommendation to you as we get into the amendment
process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have what may be a really dumb
question, but if we're going to have individual neighborhood plans for
each segment of the community, then we'll have also the basic
regulations that will apply to what?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, I think the point is basically we
don't exactly have a good idea on how this is all going to
interrelate, and what we're saying is we'd like a policy that gives us
the ability to work on how we can mesh all these things together, look
at other communities that do community planning like Hillsborough and
Sarasota and see what format would make the most sense for Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can tell you, Hillsborough's
format I want nothing to do with. But let me -- The point we're
trying -- this is trying to make, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is that what
may be a suitable restriction in Pine Ridge and say my district, what
-- doesn't apply and doesn't have the same result as Vanderbilt
Beach, and what this is saying is that we need to have the ability to
tailor to some neighborhoods within the community certain types of
development restrictions or development parameters. We don't know
what those are, and we don't know the structure of it, but I -- I
think it's just saying let's take a more focal -- or a more focused
look at neighborhoods, and this will allow us to try and determine
what way we can do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I won't beat this to death,
but I just want to point out to you that that's always available to
organize neighborhoods to -- to privately restrict their own
communities, and I just think it's sort of too bad that we're getting
87 layers of restrictions on a local level, that Pine Ridge can have
their own declaration of restrictions recorded and do whatever they
want to do and so can Vanderbilt.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some do. Some don't.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they could if they chose to
and I'm not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You just need 51 percent of the
property owners to approve them?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think you need more than 51
percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If they're not there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. If -- you know, if you
can't get a majority to agree on it and get it implemented, then it's
of no use.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, you look like you have
something to add here.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
clarify one item here that may help the board. Vince Cautero, for the
record. These community-based or neighborhood-based plans that we're
talking about with this portion of the EAR do not necessarily need to
become part of the comprehensive plan, and that's an area that we're
going to explore a lot more, and I don't like the idea necessarily
that they're part of the comprehensive plan. It doesn't mean that
that's a bad idea in some instances. You've done that with two
communities. We're getting ready to propose that to you to Marco, but
in areas that we're working on now -- and you're going to see some of
those studies in our budget this year for East Naples and North
Naples. They don't necessarily need to be comprehensive plan
elements. They can be documents that are separate, and sometimes that
works better because you get more community input.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is this -- Are we really talking
about a code overlay, a zoning overlay, something to that effect? Is
that what we're talking about?
MR. CAUTERO: In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.
It's really a community-based effort as to what that community is
looking for, and that's what Commissioner Hancock was, I believe,
talking about a minute ago as tailoring it to their needs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If community redevelopment is
good enough for commercial properties, I hope it's good enough for the
residences in our county too.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It is but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting we shouldn't
do it. I'm just not sure we want to get DCA in on it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's my feeling. I -- you know,
I think this remedy has always been available to people. If they want
to organize and put a zoning overlay on, they -- they've always had
the ability to do so and will continue to in the future. I don't know
that we need to -- we need to add it into the Growth Management Plan.
What's the -- What's the feeling of the board on that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make sure it gets done.
Now, if you folks are willing to adopt an ordinance or -- or to give
some indication to this community that it is -- it's a priority and
it's something we want to accomplish or we'll try to accomplish, then
you've got my support, whether it's in this plan or whether it's
elsewhere, but I need to know that -- that it's -- that it's important
to this board and that it will get done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's only important to me if they
bring it to us and say please do this. I don't -- I don't support
having staff go and set it up.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Against their will, neither do I.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We -- We already have two
neighborhoods so to speak, community master plans that are part of the
comp plan, and we're getting a proposal soon from Marco Island. North
Naples is talking about doing one. It seems to me the availability of
a community to organize itself and request a master plan is already
there and -- and I -- you know, it's -- it's there. It's part of our
program now. I don't understand why we would want to put a policy --
MR. CAUTERO: I'll let Barbara address the issue --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- when it's already there.
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In answer to your question,
Commissioner Hancock, it is -- for me anyway, it is a priority. If --
Obviously it's community-driven, but it is a priority. If people come
to this board and say they want a specific set of goals they'd like to
accomplish, then it's certainly our job to assist them in that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- If we're going to strike
this from the EAR, can I ask for board direction to staff to go ahead
and look at how this can be accomplished and what framework can be set
up, that should a community want to take that on, that there's a
structure in which to do that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's already there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine with me. I just don't
think it should be part of the Growth Management Plan. That's all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long -- As long as we have
that direction to staff to try and develop that more specifically,
then I'm -- I'm comforted.
MR. CAUTERO: Just so the board has some assurances, if
you're comfortable, Mr. Chairman, even if you did delete that section
from the EAR and ultimately is not in your Growth Management Plan,
staff is very well aware of it. The comprehensive planning section is
very much in tune, I believe, with what the different needs are in the
various communities, and as I mentioned earlier, two specific plans
are in my proposed budget for fiscal year '97, and that's about as
definitive as it gets.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Public speakers
on this item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have a mixture. I'm not
sure whether all of these apply, but these are the ones that I have
remaining. Ms. Chenery, did you care to speak? MS. CHENERY: Preservation.
MR. DORRILL: Is preservation appropriate here, Barbara,
or elsewhere for comments?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Archaeology? Is that what we're
talking --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CACCHIONE: That would be under the conservation
element that you heard prior to this item. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me -- Let me reiterate what I
did this morning when we started this item. There are five
commissioners sitting up here saying that we are not going to expand
the urban boundary, and we don't even want to study it at this point
in time. So anyone that might be desirous of speaking on that item
needs to keep that in mind, that we -- You're certainly welcome to
speak if you want to on that item but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not hers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we're not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hers is the archaeology.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not reopening items we
heard last time.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. We're not reopening items that
we've already voted conclusively on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, one item on here --
I was kind of letting everything go through, and once they got done, I
was going to come back to some things, and there is something here
that I have a question on in the first portion on page 11. It's the
portion that mentions amending the mixed use activity center. I think
it's time we take the community response to the activity center at
Pine Ridge and Airport one step further. The response has been
negative. We see that. The community doesn't like it. They don't
want it perpetuated, and to me improving the concept of activity
centers is like massaging a broken bone. You know, all you're going
to do is improve something that's already broken. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It still hurts.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And activity centers as they are
happening we don't want spread out throughout the community. I don't
know of anyone I've met who says, "You know, we need more of those
activity centers." So I'm not so sure just massaging activity centers
is -- is -- is a worthwhile goal.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in seeing some
neighborhood commercial, and if that's mutually exclusive from
activity centers, then I'm going to agree with you. I don't mind
there being activity centers, but I want some neighborhood commercial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right now the pressure for
commercial development exists solely on the backs of what are proposed
activity centers, and if someone wants to build a shopping center and
they call up Collier County or they call a realtor or they call a
consultant in this county, the first thing they do is unfold their
future land use map, and they look for the little red squares and say
this is where you have to go. So the way things are set up right now,
there was a certain intent for activity centers. That intent may have
been met, but the consequences are not pleasant if you go out and ask
people about them.
So my feeling is that if -- as long as the pressure is
solely on activity centers, we're going to perpetuate something that
is not in the best interest of this community. What I would like to
see us do is pursue a commercial siting criteria standard, whether
it's neighborhood commercial, whether it's larger than neighborhood
commercial, that will serve the purpose of taking the pressure off of
activity centers being the only location for future commercial
development.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's two votes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, you know, I was hoping that
was going to come out of this process, and it didn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind exploring it. I
have some questions along the way, but I -- I concur. If we can
explore that, then --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not far enough along to say
this is what I propose --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but '-
MS. CACCHIONE: If I could respond to that, please. If
-- if you look in -- in terms of the first study on this page, it
basically says we have an inventory of our commercial land uses, and
what we would like to do is go to a system of neighborhood community
regional type commercial. We need to have a commercial study done
which gives us our parameters so that we don't overallocate those land
uses like we've done in the past, and basically this is what we're
planning to do, is go to the system of neighborhood community or
activity center and regional.
In the -- appendix C which is your activity center issue
paper, you can see that basically the main reason that the activity
centers have failed is because they have not been fully implemented as
intended. They didn't occur as a mixture of uses. They did not have
the design guidelines that we're proposing here. Architectural theme
was not taken into account. The access management was not thoroughly
thought through. The connectivity of the outparcels and the main
center were not addressed. The pedestrian movement was not addressed.
Our code does not thoroughly address those things, and that is what
we're asking to be addressed as part of this. Whether we do anything
with activity centers or not, we've zoned so much in those activity
centers that even if we took them away because of property rights,
that zoning would exist over time.
So we're trying to look at these in three phases. One
is existing centers could have these design guidelines as they
redeveloped, basically approved centers that are not yet built could
implement it, and those that we have not zoned yet. And then the
other thought was to go through each of these activity centers and
modify those boundaries as they're needed to be modified and also
introduce the neighborhood commercial component. This is all part of
the EAR, and it's part of the recommendations that we're making to you
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And understand I'm not talking
about taking an eraser and rubbing out all activity centers. We can't
turn around and just do that. I understand that. But we need to take
incremental steps to take the pressure off of those as the only
location for commercial development. And if what you're saying is --
you know, again, this is what I have to go on, Miss Cacchione.
understand when I read through this and what you just said didn't pop
out at me, I have some reason for concern. If that's what you're
looking at, fine. Let's go down that road. But I think it's time we
all make mention of what we're hearing, and what we're hearing is that
what is going on is not the pattern of development we want to see
perpetuated. So we need material change to it, not surficial, and it
sounds like that's the road you're headed down, and I appreciate the
clarification. I just -- I want to stress that as an emphasis for me
personally.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, we need the -- We need the
clarification because activity centers were invented in response to
the public's distaste for strip centers and has tried to keep strip
centers from proliferating. That's why we have activity centers.
now if people say we don't want activity centers, well, what do we
want? Do we want strip centers, or what do we want?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not one or the other.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You know -- Well, I know, but
that's what they're going to -- they're going to investigate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's what -- that's what I
meant about commercial siting criteria, is that just because it occurs
along an arterial road doesn't mean it has to be developed as a strip
center. It's not one or the other, and -- and that's the -- the
approach that seem -- seem to be missing in that public argument, is
that if -- we either put it at intersections or we have strip
commercial, and I think there's another option out there.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, you're clear with what
you're '-
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Public, please.
MR. DORRILL: It would probably behoove us to -- to
allow Ms. Chenery to speak even -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
MR. DORRILL: -- if it is for the preceding --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Please do.
MR. DORRILL: -- unit. She's been here, and it's just
my mistake, that I thought it was future land use. This is, I
believe, on the archaeological preservation board.
MS. CHENERY: Yes, it is. I'm Mary Chenery, the most
recent past chairman of the historical and archaeological board. I'm
representing Arthur Lee, the author of the 1991 ordinance establishing
the preservation board for Collier County. He had a family emergency,
and he's out of the city. So I'll try to explain as simply as
possible the specific details in policies 12.1.1, 12.1.2, and 12.1.3.
12.1.1 is the mission of the preservation board as
stipulated by state law.
12.1.2 defines precisely how the preservation board
implements procedures to identify and protect historic and
archaeological sites; how it works with the planning board updating
the site maps required by the state; how it works with the zoning
department to alert developers using sensitive lands; and how it works
with the developers to help, not hinder, development while identifying
significant historic and archaeological sites.
12.1.3 details the regulatory means to preserve and
utilize historic and archaeological properties. It details the
importance to register with our county, our state, and the national
register for historic places, all significant sites making such
properties eligible for grants, both public and private, to further
Collier County's recognition of its past.
These three paragraphs totalling less than one page were
carefully written so anyone dealing with sensitive lands will know
where to obtain information and cooperation to meet the state's legal
requirements. In short, it is a summary manual of the preservation
board. By keeping and enhance this material in the comprehensive
plan, the specific information is available to all concerned, and you,
my commissioners, will have provided the specifics of the preservation
plan for Collier County. I implore you to leave the material in as
detailed. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: The next speaker that I have is Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, are you still with us?
MR. KELLY: Yes, but this is on the Immokalee plan.
MR. DORRILL: I believe that's pertinent for this
section.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. No. Not -- That's the next
section.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. No. That's the next
one.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I'm sorry. Dr. Stallings, future
land use, and I have Dr. Biles, future land use.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I have just one more after the two that I
just called.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings, representing Florida
Wildlife Federation. Just two quick comments. One, I would encourage
your continued pursuit of this urban density and urban buildout issue.
I know I've been surprised at the amount of concern in the community
about it, and I think there's really a serious concern building out
there over the quality of our life and where we're going. So I just
want to, you know, encourage your continued movement in that
direction.
Also, we do continue to have concerns about this ACSC
area and the fact that we're not instituting what would seem like some
needed protection to at least partially take the place of what we're
removing, but I've already expressed that concern to you earlier, and
I think you made a decision on that basis, so I won't beat up on you
about it. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles.
DR. BILES: Fay Biles, for the record, and I sat on the
FLUE which is the future land use element committee, and I would like
to make just a few comments. I feel as if I've been kind of beat up
with some of the comments made here. First of all, many of your
comments that you've talked about today we discussed in detail ad
nauseam at times at many, many hours, and -- and, Commissioner
Constantine, we did take your mandate seriously about cutting the
density. We did. We discussed much, much time -- spent much time on
that, and we intended to bring something back to you, but I must tell
you that we had mild uproars from different -- different interests
within the -- within the community, and many people came to our
meetings, and we had developers, landowners, engineering firms,
environmentalists that argued that we can't possibly say this or say
that, that it was too delicate a topic, that land values would go up
so high, that we'd only have wealthy people live here. We even had
one person say, "Don't you want poor people there live in this
community?" It really made us think twice. And when we started
looking at all of the different influential things that would come
into this study, we just decided there was no way that we could do
anything to bring back to you that would, you know, interest you at
this point. It really needs to have a thorough study done to come up
with a balance so that we're not cheating the developers, we're not
cheating the environmentalists, that everything is taken into
consideration, and that's the reason that we didn't, and we apologize,
but we really didn't -- we couldn't do it. It was just impossible.
We had so many people descend on us that we couldn't do it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Cawley.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I couldn't tell if you were
describing your experience or my job.
MR. DORRILL: I've got two more now after Ms. Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Barbara Cawley, for the record. I just
would like to sort of echo what Dr. Biles said, and she's absolutely
on point, that there was more to that study than just coming up with a
recommendation for reducing density, and I'd just like to throw a
couple of other things in the mix that may be added to the study
because in order to have a balanced study, you need to look at a lot
of aspects besides just density.
One of them, I think, would be the actual impacts on the
facilities, what happens when you reduce density, what kind of
facilities can be reduced by how much. I think that's pretty
important to know.
Another thing is what happens to our tax base. And the
fewer people with the same amount of facilities, you're going to have
higher taxes. If you have lesser facilities, you may have not higher
taxes. I just don't know. But I think the tax issue is something
that's real important in the mix of how much density we have in the
community.
And the third thing that -- that Fay mentioned is the
affordable housing question. And if we reduce density down to a point
where people cannot put higher density in that would allow affordable
housing, even with affordable housing density bonuses, in our case it
can be pretty difficult to get and also difficult to -- the land gets
so expensive because you really can't afford to build housing for all
types of people. So those are, I think, three things that may just
want to go into the mix of this study to determine what our densities
should be. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton.
MS. STRATON: In the interest of time, this is a letter
from Collier County Audubon Society, and also Florida Audubon Society
joins in those comments. And I know we're not supposed to talk about
the urban boundary, but I do want to thank you. I learned an
important lesson, that you do listen to the community. The community
just needs to make sure we communicate with you, and I would hope that
the next time that phone starts ringing with 774-8097, it's people
telling you what's on their mind and also thanking you when you do the
right thing. And -- and on behalf of all the people that wrote the
letters and all the groups that were involved in this, I would like to
say thank you for listening to us and taking care of that.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Fitch. He should be your last future
land use speaker.
DR. FITCH: Okay. Well, good afternoon again, and for
the record I'm John Fitch, representing The Conservancy. I also
wanted to join Collier Audubon in thanking you for your actions
regarding the urban boundary. I think that that's a very important
step, and that is certainly appreciated. I also wanted to indicate
our very strong support for the urban green space program. I think
that that is a critical one, and I think it's something that is going
to be extremely beneficial to the community. And, as you know, as --
as was already mentioned up here, there is going to be a referendum
proposal, and I think that that might be one of the means of funding
something like this.
I also wanted to indicate and go on record as indicating
that we oppose very strongly reinstating the agricultural exemption
for the Big Cypress area of critical state concern. We believe that
this is a very sensitive -- environmentally sensitive area, and this
is something that is really consistent with many of the goals of
growth management. So I wanted to indicate those things because we
believe that those are really important steps in sustaining the
environmental and economic values of our community in the future, and
I will for the record also pass out some material from The Conservancy
on these. Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Fitch, just --
DR. FITCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to clarify some information
for me, nationally isn't The Conservancy one of the larger landholders
of environmentally sensitive lands?
DR. FITCH: One of -- One of the common misconceptions
in the community is that we are actually a chapter of the Nature
Conservancy. That was true for the first five years of The
Conservancy's life, but we have actually become a separate
organization, although we work very closely with them. But your
understanding is certainly correct, that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the Nature Conservancy,
and you're not affiliated with them?
DR. FITCH: That's -- That's right. We do land
acquisition as well as education and other things. We are perhaps a
broader-based organization. But I think there are many different ways
of acquiring and holding land. I would also submit to you that there
have been some very interesting economic studies that show that it's
cheaper sometimes to have open space land in terms of tax requirements
in urban areas as well as rural areas, and that's something that's
very important to consider, and also those are very, very helpful in
maintaining real estate values over time as well.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
DR. FITCH: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all the speakers. We'll
close the public hearing, and I need a motion to approve the changes
that we have discussed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- got one comment, and that's
on the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- interconnection thing. We've
been sitting here talking about reducing densities, and this is an
item that appears to be aimed at reducing densities. I've got some
concern about whether it does or not, and Commissioner Hancock's been
trying to help me understand why it is or why it isn't. But perhaps
that one, rather than simply removing it, we -- we ought to ask our
staff to take a look at why it's not working and make -- make a
recommendation to us as to what to do.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can someone quickly answer that
question for us?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My take is it doesn't work
because it's structured as a penalty, not an incentive. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Perry, you got the duty, I see.
MR. PERRY: For the record, I'm Jeff Perry from the
planning services department. That's essentially correct. It has not
been working. You may recall that originally it started out as a
density bonus when it was first adopted, that the plan increased
density by one unit per acre if you made an interconnection. The
previous board didn't like that idea. So we changed it to a
disincentive, that it had to interconnect. If you didn't, then you
got a unit taken way. That, again, hasn't worked very much. It
hasn't stopped gated communities. It was just felt to be
inappropriate in its present incarnation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is -- is there any -- anything
-- I mean -- that staff sees within this particular piece that could
be altered or changed that would help it work better? I mean -- or is
it just a bad idea and chuck it?
MR. PERRY: Prohibit gated communities, that would
probably be the biggest thing. That was argued back in 1989 and we
don't -- obviously did not see that as an issue that was negotiable or
even could be brought up today. So, no, we have no good ideas for you
right now. If we could get any, we'll be sure to bring them forward,
but we didn't -- we will continue to work for interconnections, you
know, when projects come in and there seems to be some logic in
interconnecting developments together, but the density subtraction
issue and so forth just didn't seem to make any difference, didn't
seem to work.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine. Do we have a second on that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, you did.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We do?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, you do.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
We'll move now to the Immokalee area master plan
discussion.
MS. CACCHIONE: There are very few changes to the
Immokalee master plan. The one change that was suggested is moving
the future neighborhood center in Immokalee from its current location
on Carson Road to State Road 29 and Westclox Road. The existing
location of the future neighborhood center is an environmentally
sensitive area and also is a cone of influence, and it was felt that
this other location would be more appropriate. And in addition to
that, we were to look at -- the Planning Commission recommended making
it an active activity center. Staff would like to evaluate the need
for the commercial at this time before we move forward with that.
The other issue was to go through the federal
empowerment zone/enterprise community application and to remove parts
of that strategic plan that would help implement some of the policies
in here and place those in and also to look at the greenways trail
plan as part of the Immokalee master plan and begin to try to
implement that as well. Those are the changes. They're relatively
few.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Any comments from board
members?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one, Miss Cacchione. If
-- If we were to agree to move the future neighborhood center from
Carson Road to State Road 29 and -- and continue to designate it
future, it -- would it be relatively easy for us to create that as
active when -- when you finish the analysis on it?
MS. CACCHIONE: And, in fact, we may recommend that we
make it active at that time. We just haven't analyzed the need in --
in that location for the commercial at that point in time, but that is
something we'll do as part of the amendment process. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Mr. Kelly waited all day, and
I've called his name at least three times. MR. KELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Third time's a charm, Mr. Kelly.
You're ready.
MR. KELLER: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my
name is John Kelly, and I'm a Florida attorney appearing today on
behalf of Florida Rural Legal Services in Immokalee. As I believe the
board members are aware, we have filed written comments in this
proceeding that are critical that the staff prepare evaluation and
appraisal report. Those critical comments are directed to the 1989
comp plan housing element and the housing component of the Immokalee
master plan of 1990. I'm asking indulgence of the board in speaking
to the separate but I believe inextricably linked components of the
EAR report. We recognize the award-winning status of the 1989 Collier
County comprehensive plan for its polished style and its elegant
presentation. Nevertheless, the experience of the last six years is
that insofar as the comp plan is addressed to low-income and farm
worker housing needs and programs, it does not and cannot perform the
planning function contemplated in the Florida Land Planning Act. This
failure is because, first, the comp plan lacks a specific numerical
compilation of current and projected low-income and farm worker
housing needs expressed in terms of persons, families, locations, and
particular types of building units. And, second, the comp plan fails
to set forth housing programs that will meet those specific needs
through the expression of measurable numericals in accordance with
particular timing schedules.
Of all the comp plan elements, housing best lends itself
toward numerical specificity and commitment to measurable achievement
within an expressed time frame. We believe the comp plan housing
element and the Immokalee plan for housing without significant
amendments to remedy these defects is legally nonsufficient under the
statutory and regulatory criteria of the EAR review process.
We urge major comp plan amendments setting forth first
precise numerical needs of various forms of low-income and farm worker
housing. And, second, we urge aggressive and specific Collier County
plan commitment to achieving precise measurable progress against those
needs on an expressed time schedule. We would welcome the opportunity
to work with the planning staff in regard to these crucial issues.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Cacchione, if a property
owner who has a farming operation wants to erect a dorm-type facility
for farm worker housing, do we have the ability in our zoning code to
approve that through a conditional use? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in Texas where a large -- a
farmer of large tracts decided it was to his best interest to provide
housing for his employees and did so, we have that vehicle in our
current code?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, we do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public
hearing. Motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like a motion -- I'd like to
make a motion to approve the Immokalee area master plan changes with
the notation that we make the neighborhood center at Carson Road and
29 future and allow staff to complete their plan to tell us whether it
should become active.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it currently listed future
or '-
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That passes. And that concludes this item, I believe.
MS. CACCHIONE: There's one item I'd like to bring up.
Basically you received under separate cover our responses to the
Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs. We
would like to include these -- language into the EAR. Our hope is
that by including these comments we will be found sufficient by the
region and the state. We'd also need to develop a schedule for the
EAR amendments. We'd like to call two items out for early adoption.
One is the area of critical state concern amendment which we would
hope to bring to you within a month or so, and the other is the Marco
Island master plan which will be transmitted on April 23 -- will be
presented for transmittal to this board on the 23rd.
The two other items I'd like to add in there are
justification for the removal of goal two of the Golden Gate area
master plan and also justification on the area of critical state
concern amendment and the language that was submitted to you under
separate cover which would require us to amend portions of the EAR.
And this we hope will lead to a sufficiency finding by the Regional
Planning Council. We've been told that it was actually a very good
document and that they were pretty impressed with it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That concludes the
presentation?
MS. CACCHIONE: That concludes it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. At this time we're going to
move forward in our agenda to item 13(A)(2), petition CU-96-1 in order
to accommodate some -- a group of people that have been here all day
long. Let's see if we can clear the house.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, ma'am?
MS. STUDENT: I believe we need a motion -- a total
motion to approve the whole resolution transmitting the EAR report.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved. Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let the record reflect that
this is on the previous item, the EAR report item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is on -- on the resolution
to transmit? Is that what we're -- Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's a resolution to transmit our
EAR to the Regional Planning Council, I assume; is that correct?
Okay. Good. I get to see it again then.
We have a motion and a second to transmit the resolution
and the EAR -- a motion to adopt a resolution transmitting the EAR to
the Regional Planning Council. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
All those opposed?
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-192 RE PETITION CU-96-1, MS. BARBARA H. CAWLEY, AICP, OF
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING THE NAPLES NEW
HAITIAN CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, INC., FOR CONDITIONAL USE "2" CHURCHES
AND HOUSES OF WORSHIP OF THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF BAYSHORE DRIVE BETWEEN REPUBLIC DRIVE AND KAREN
DRIVE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay. Now, we will take 13(A)(2) out of order.
Petition CU-96-1.
MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, for the record, current
planning staff. The petition that is before you requests the
conditional use of the church in an area zoned RSF-3. The site is
located on Bayshore Drive south of Thomasson. Immediately to the
north of the subject site is a residential development in the village
residential zoning district comprised largely of mobile homes to the
north. Did I say south? To the south is a single-family subdivision,
and you're going to hear a lot about concerns from the area to the
south. The frontage -- The land fronting on the east side of Bayshore
Drive is zoned commercial; however, you ought to appreciate that
there's only one retail establishment in the southeast corner,
Republic Drive and Bayshore. The property to the west across the
street from the subject property is zoned RHF-6 and RSF-5 with a cap
of three. To the east of the property is a PUD that is the county --
county park facility.
This area is located within the urban-designated area
zoned residential. The urban-designated area allows churches and
similar neighborhood-type facilities, churches, schools, day care
centers, parks, libraries, et cetera. If you approve this petition,
it would be consistent with the future land use element of the Growth
Management Plan for the fact that -- for the reason I mentioned.
Analysis of the petition relative to consistency with
the traffic circulation element indicates that the level of service
will not be affected to the -- below the standard required for that
finding of inconsistency; and, therefore, it is deemed to be
consistent with the traffic circulation element.
The native vegetation or coastal conservation management
element which is again another -- another major element that
consistency findings are always made for, we find that this petition
as presented would be consistent with the coastal management and
native vegetation protection element; and, therefore, we concluded
that the petition in all of its aspects is consistent with the
applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan.
As you know, all rezoning actions are reviewed for a
finding of fact to support whether or not the property should be
rezoned or not rezoned, and the preponderance of the findings and the
opinion of staff and in the opinion of the Planning Commission by
virtue of their unanimous vote for recommendation of approval is that
the findings are -- are supportive of a rezoning action.
I need to give you some exhibits that were submitted at
the Planning Commission meeting that you didn't get in your executive
package. They are these photographs. In your executive package, you
received copies of all letters of opposition or support. I don't need
to belabor the fact that there are a significant number of letters in
opposition to the granting of the conditional use. Again, I would
reiterate that this petition was reviewed by the EAB. The EAB has
recommended approval subject to conditions. Those conditions appear
in the resolution of adoption. The transportation concerns also
appear in the resolution of adoption. And the stormwater management
concerns again are also included as conditions of performance should
this petition be approved, again assuring their consistency with the
Land -- the Land Development Code. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the petition. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Umm --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock first.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The complaints -- The complaints
I have read surround two issues, water management and traffic. So I'm
going to ask three questions. One, if this were developed as zoned as
a residential single-family, would there be more traffic than a church
or less traffic?
MR. NINO: There would be more traffic if it were
developed as a single-family development. The property would be
entitled to 30 single-family lots. If you'll note, when you -- when
you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten trips per day per house.
MR. NINO: If you -- Miss Cawley's master plan -- there
are some upland areas that are not going to be -- that are going to be
preserved in this proposal, but I can assure you that if it were not
approved and the developer was forced to maximize the property, that
upland would be used. So we feel quite confident that they could get
30 single-family lots on this property. In our -- In our analysis of
that issue, we find that a single-family development would have about
4.6 acres of impervious surface area. The church has 2.8 acres of
impervious surface area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you've answered my second
question which is --
MR. NINO: I'm going to get to the traffic -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've already answered my
traffic question. The second question I had was, if this is developed
as currently zoned, would there be more runoff or less runoff than a
church, and you're telling me more runoff --
MR. NINO: There would be more runoff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if it were single-family
homes.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And my third question is,
has this property in any way been sited as contributing to flooding
problems adjacent to it? In other words, is the property causing
flooding in the area?
MR. NINO: It has not been sited. To our knowledge, it
has not been sited as causing any flooding problem in the area.
Obviously it's a reservoir or storage area currently. And, as you
know, our water management requirements are that predevelopment, not
-- that post-development create the same -- maintains the same
characteristics as predevelopment conditions, or there is -- there is
an outflow -- there is an outflow problem here apparently. If you
look at one of the conditions of approval, it -- it -- it requires
that that outflow problem be corrected or it be improved at the
prorata share of the cost of -- of doing that improvement. It's an
off-site -- It's an off-site drainage ditch. It's really under the
control of the county, and like all areas, if there's a problem, the
county or somebody has to step in and -- and correct the problem to
serve the areawide, not a specific site.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that the -- Is that the ditch to
the east there?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That's where the outfall of
this property goes?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. All right. And there's --
the charge is that either to the north or to the south there's going
to be drainage problems for the flow going either north or south onto
adjacent property, but you're telling us that this water is going to
be directed to the east to the ditch and behind there?
MR. NINO: That's the water management for this plan,
that it will drain directly east into -- into the public drainage
facility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, if you've been there,
there's not really a ditch. I mean, it's -- it's nee -- it's terribly
in need of maintenance, and I've spoken to Mr. Boldt about that who
tells me that it's on the schedule, although he doesn't expect it to
make it for this spring. If you look, there's -- there's not even an
indentation. I mean, there's nothing back there, but that's something
that's on the county's maintenance schedule and will be done, you
know, hopefully as soon as possible.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Then it's -- We'll call it an
imaginary ditch.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'd call it. Hay I
say just one other thing on the traffic? In my meetings yesterday
with Hiss Cawley, I asked on a couple of points if -- if -- to
preserve the residential neighborhood that's there off of Republic, if
we might be able to do a couple of things, and one was to eliminate
that access off of Republic so that the only access is off of Bayshore
Drive. That was something that the neighbors very much wanted to see,
and -- and that was acceptable to the developer. So I hope that
that's included as a condition.
The other was to try to continue to screen to provide
the -- the buffer that -- that undeveloped lot currently provides, and
I spoke to Mr. Weigel to see if there's a possibility of phasing the
removal of the exotics on the lot. Currently there's just a whole lot
of melaleuca that is obviously exotic and not something that we want
to see there forever or -- or support. But if that -- if the exotic
removal could be limited to the property that's west of Republic --
and, Barbara, if you would show them where that is. That's the
portion of the property that's scheduled to be developed -- then this
neighborhood could still retain the buffer that it has, and I
understand that we can fashion some sort of a phasing schedule for the
removal of the exotics to go ahead and continue to provide that buffer
to the neighborhood.
The only other -- The only other problem, of course, is
the drainage -- well, the major other problem is the drainage, and
that is one that, you know, we've talked about and that Mr. Boldt's
going to have to work into the schedule, but we can't hold this
property owner responsible for the entire canal problems.
But some other questions that were asked by the
neighbors is, you know, what are the potential uses of this property,
you know, that they're concerned that we might end up with a homeless
shelter or a day care center or a soup kitchen or a school or -- I
mean, a lot of other things and -- and I just want to assure them and
ask Barbara to confirm on the record again that all thatws been
requested here is the church itself and no ancillary uses so they
couldnlt do anything but the church without coming back.
Iim sorry, and I left one other condition out that I was
hoping to be included, and that was some lighting in the parking lot
for security purposes for the neighborhood because, as you said, this
is currently -- you know, therels -- therels the possibility of
commercial development there, but presently itls not developed as
commercial. So we hope that as it is developed with something other
than residential uses, we can get some lighting in the parking lots,
and I believe theylye agreed to that as well.
MS. CAWLEY: For the record, Barbara Cawley with Wilson,
Miller, Barton, and Peek. Iim here today representing the New Haitian
Church of the Nazarene. Iim getting from the discussion here that we
donlt need to have a big description of this project. Iim kind of
concerned that we need to put a few things on the record, primarily
because I know we do have some homeowners adjacent to the property
that are -- that are not completely satisfied with the -- the process.
The first thing Iid like to do though -- We waited here
all day, and Iid like to introduce the Reverend Jean Paul, and with
him today is Byron Shortinghouse, and hels the southern district
superintendent for the Church of the Nazarene and -- and his
parishioners who have waited here patiently all day, and I appreciate
them being here.
The first thing Iid like to say is -- to answer Pamls
question, and I -- and I can go through a presentation of the -- of
the site and all of that, but I think itls pretty clear from what the
staff has said that welre using a small portion of the site and that
we are in compliance with all codes, land development regulations, and
consistent with the requirements in the Land Development Code.
As for the removal of the exotic species, we would be
glad to put in language in the development order that said something
about the removal of -- phasing the removal of exotic species. The
only thing we need to be careful about is that we donlt get into a
catch-22 situation with the South Florida Water Management District in
terms of our -- of their requirements that we have to remove exotics
in mitigation for any wetland permitting that welre going to do. So
if we could add a little bit of language in there that sort of
satisfies that as well, that we donlt get caught between both the
county and the district, weill be glad to -- to -- to do that.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Just to the extent permitted by
the district, you would phase the -- the removal of the exotics to --
to minimize removal --
MS. CAWLEY: Well, in fact, we may be able to do that on
the uplands because from the countyls standpoint, theylre really
looking at exotic removal on the uplands, and the district is looking
for the wetlands, and there are exotics that are on the uplands as
well. So maybe therels a way of phasing in the removal of exotics on
the upland portion of the property, assuming that the South Florida
Water Management District is going to make us remove exotics in the
wetlands. I donlt know. So just as long as we can work out that
language in terms of which -- which exotics we remove when, Iim -- I
think that would be -- weld be glad to do that. Thatls not a problem.
In terms of drainage issues, I know welve spoken with
Mr. Boldt as well, that this is on the countyls long-range plan. I
have Tom Peek here who, as you know, is an expert on drainage issues
and that we will be complying with the -- the requirements that --
that we have to meet in terms of -- of runoff. This whole area, as
everyone knows, this summer was, just like the rest of the county,
under water, and I think it was a very unusual year for all of us to
base future -- hopefully -- hopefully it's not going to be like that
in the future. So we will be glad to work with the county in terms of
improving that ditch. We would like to have that ditch improved as
well and would do whatever we could to do that. Let's see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lighting?
MS. CAWLEY: Lighting's no problem. Actually, we show
lighting on our master plan here. We -- We -- We prefer to have that
as well for the safety of the -- of the parishioners as well.
The use of the church we absolutely understand that we
are not allowed to have any uses that are not granted with this
approval. We know this is just for a church, and this is a Christian
church that will be used on Sundays and Wednesdays, and it's not meant
to be homeless shelters or anything like that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Cawley, could I --
MS. CAWLEY: Yes?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: On this point, could I get you --
MS. CAWLEY: Yes?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- to state for the record that you
will not operate those uses?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes, you -- you may. We will not operate
those uses.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Which uses?
MS. CAWLEY: We will not operate a -- a school, a soup
kitchen, a homeless shelter, or a day care center on the property
without coming back for an additional conditional use request --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. CAWLEY: -- at some point in the future.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They have to, don't they?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, they do.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, yes, but I just wanted it on
the record.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, that's the law. So we will comply
with the law obviously. As you understand that this -- We understand
that this is a one-year approval, as all conditional uses are, that we
-- that we will be proceeding forward with that. We will be -- and
if -- if -- the law does allow us to come back for a one-year
extension if -- if for some reason we have a delay.
As I was saying, in terms of traffic, this is a regular
church, and the traffic from this church will be off peak. It will be
on Sundays. It will not be during your regular peak hours. And it
was less than the 30 units that is allowed out there in terms of
residential units. And, again, it's off peak, and that's not a
problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the -- What's the capacity
of the church once -- If it's built to the 20,000 or the 30,000 -- MS. CAWLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- how many people could be there
for a regular Sunday service?
MS. CAWLEY: We anticipate between 350 in the first
phase and 500 in the second phase, and that's pretty standard for
churches in the community. There's a Nazarene church right behind
Wilson, Miller on Bailey Lane, and it's about 20,000 square feet
anticipated about that congregation so -- and I look at that church
every day, and I know it's a very quiet use back there.
Other than that, I think -- I think we've -- we would
like to concur with the staff and would urge your approval of this,
and we would like to have the opportunity to rebut any statements that
are made that the folks --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't believe we have a court of
law here, Miss Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, this is a quasi-judicial hearing --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You're welcome to '-
MS. CAWLEY: -- so we would appreciate -- appreciate
that if possible.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We welcome you to put all your
stuff on the record now.
MS. CAWLEY: Or answer any questions if there are any
from the board.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Answer any questions. Sure.
MS. CAWLEY: That would be fine. Thanks. I have an
aerial too if you'd like to see where the property is.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We can see it, actually, from here.
MS. CAWLEY: Can you see it? Oh, good.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You don't need to move it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure can.
MS. CAWLEY: Oh, great. Okay. So you can see where it
is. One other thing I would like to put on the record -- one of the
issues that's come up is where the parishioners are located in the
community and whether or not they are within the neighborhood, and I
did a -- we -- we got the addresses of the parishioners from Reverend
Paul, and we found that 84 of the parishioners are located within one
mile of the church property itself. That's 31 families. And we feel
that that's basically a neighborhood church when you live within a
mile of your -- of your church. So we believe that's a pretty
substantial number of the population.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, we can't base the
zoning on a church and where the residents that go to that church live
anyway, can we?
MR. WEIGEL: No, but it is an issue.
MS. CAWLEY: No, but it is an issue that's been brought
up.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I bet we have some
public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We've -- We've got eight if
they're still here. We'll begin with Mr. Giardono. And then Mr. or
Ms. Wanzie, Wanzie, you'll follow -- if I could have you stand by,
please.
MR. GIARDONO: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the -- and
ladies of the commission, I've been a native here -- not a native -- a
25-year resident of Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your name -- your name, please,
sir.
MR. GIARDONO: Tony Giardono.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. GIARDONO: I'm a retired real estate broker. I had
an office on Bayshore Drive. My daughter owns property on Bayshore
Drive right now, about 400 and some odd feet on the corner of Colonial
Drive and Bayshore Drive zoned commercial and residential. Now, I'm
not against this church as far as churches go. I'm a churchgoer
myself, and I want to get to Heaven. But I do -- I do want to bring
to your attention that in this area of Naples we have 275 current
churches of all denominations, including Haitian. I sold a piece of
property of 5 acres owned by a Reverend Jonasite (phonetic) who passed
away recently, I believe, and he was going to put up another church on
-- on 41 just past 951 on the north side of 41 which I presume -- I
think -- I think they even bought it recently. I think they did. I'm
not 100 percent sure, but they were thinking about buying it for a
church.
Now, it seems to me that with 275 churches in this small
town, I think that's enough churches personally. I really do. And I
think it -- I think these people -- I know I belong to St. -- St.
Ann's and St. Peter's. I go every Sunday, and some Sundays in the
summertime you've got the whole place to yourself. In the season,
naturally they're loaded up. You can just about get in, but that's a
Catholic church, and I don't think there's enough people to support
that church. As a matter of fact, on the corner -- off the corner of
Barrett and Areca, between those two streets on Bayshore Drive, there
was a church there, and it folded up. It didn't have enough
parishioners. Now, I believe these people -- that they have 500
people going to be members of that church. By the same token, I don't
know if 500 people can support a church if they don't go every Sunday
and every Wednesday to keep it up. I don't want -- As I said before,
I'm not against a church, but I do think that 275 churches in the area
right now, I don't think we need any more at the present time. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Giardono, you say you had a
real estate office?
MR. GIARDONO: Yes, I did.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: How many real estate offices are
there in town?
MR. GIARDONO: There are thousands, thousands. I agree
with you --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. GIARDONO: -- but that's -- that's -- that's --
that's a different type of business. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm sure it is.
MR. GIARDONO: And don't forget, you've got a shopping
center on the corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson and one proposed
on the opposite corner, and you've got a housing development across
the street where these people expect to build, and it's a two-lane
highway and a dead end. That's something to think about.
MR. DORRILL: Francis Wanzie or Wanzie and then Mr.
Tribble. Mr. Tribble, you'll be after Ms. Wanzie.
MR. WANZIE: For the record, I'm Mr. Wanzie, and I am
the coordinator of Collier County Unity Council. That's a
broad-based, multi-cultural coalition of individuals and organizations
whose ideas are that we promote reduction of prejudice, fear, hatred,
and those kind of expressions as a way of making decisions. I am glad
to see that the board has been looking at the legal aspects of the
property and the effect that it would have geographically on the
community.
We support rezoning -- the rezoning request for New
Haitian Church of Nazarene. We also support a reduction in the
mythological belief that just because there is some cultural
difference or group with a cultural difference, that that will
necessarily mean a decrease in property values or running down of the
neighborhood and those kinds of things. That just simply does not
materially stand true, and so we pray that this board of county
commissioners will approve the request for this rezoning and make it
effective so that the people of this culture who have a need and use
for that property may be able to do so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Tribble and then Ms. Anderson.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If -- If the board members are
through with the display here, perhaps we could ask Hiss Cawley to
remove it. Anyone need it?
MR. TRIBBLE: Copies for each of you. For the record,
my name is Henry Tribble, and I am chairperson of your -- of the
Collier County Black Affairs Advisory Board that has been charged by
the Board of County Commissioners to -- to advise on issues regarding
or that affect the black community. However, in doing so, in terms of
advice that we have given you in the past and today, it's -- it's
geared to advise to the betterment of unity of all -- of all of
Collier County and not just the black community.
Based on having seen the Happy Easter edition of the
Naples Daily News regarding this issue on Sunday and upon the regular
meeting of the Black Affairs Advisory Board last evening, we have
prepared a resolution, and it reads: To the Board of County
Commissioners. The Black Affairs Advisory Board passed the following
resolution at its regular meeting on April 8, 1996.
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners will
deliberate on the Board of Zoning Appeal of the Naples New Haitian
Church of the Nazarene. And it gives the petition number; and
Whereas, there have been articles in the Naples Daily
News and discussion on local radio talk shows, one of which have
reflected opposition to the petition of the church on what can only be
called racist grounds.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Black Affairs
Advisory Board urges the Board of County Commissioners to be vigilant
to protect the consideration of this petition from being corrupted by
racist motivations which may be pressed upon the board in various
guises.
Now, that is the end of the resolution.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Tribble, I just -- I don't
suggest this is what you're indicating, but I -- I do want to use the
opportunity to make it clear that everyone who opposes this project
has not done it on racist grounds. There have been some real
legitimate neighborhood concerns that I respect people's ability to
raise while still trusting that they haven't been racially motivated.
MR. TRIBBLE: Yes. It's our hope and our desire and our
belief that not everyone who is in opposition comes from this vantage
point, but we have to make it clear that this type of attitude is not
acceptable in Collier County, should not be acceptable anywhere in
this country, especially in 1996, and I had a discussion at one of the
breaks with a young man who is in opposition and -- you know, he -- he
wanted to make it very clear, and I think he was sincere that that was
not the basis. However, on the other hand, there are people who use
other guises that appear not to be from that vantage point but are. I
mean, it is ridiculous the thought that a church that operates on
Wednesday nights for prayer meeting and on Sunday is going to cause
more traffic than 30 houses -- 30 families. You know, it's ridiculous
to be really concerned about lighting when now it's dark. Obviously
they're going to have lighting for the church. You know, when we see
all of these -- these things come up that do not make sense, do not
rationally make sense to anyone, we have to be concerned, and I'm glad
to -- to -- to perceive that the board is operating on the basis of
the objective facts that have been presented to you.
I'd also like to say I'm very concerned. I am
chairperson of the unity council, and it's a new organization, and we
hope to build bridges where there's division in -- in -- in this
community. Of all communities in Naples in Collier County, one of the
most that needs to be united is East Naples because there's not the
power of affluence in East Naples that -- that there -- that exists in
Pelican Bay or Marco. If East Naples is going to be improved, it's
going to be improved only because all of the inhabitants stick
together and operate on the basis of common good. Thank you very much
for today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Anderson and then Ms. Hahoney.
MS. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
Julianna Anderson, and I'm here representing the Collier County Branch
of the NAACP. Last night we met, and the Collier County Branch of the
NAACP passed the following resolution at its regular meeting. It
reads as follows:
Whereas, the Black Affairs Advisory Council has passed a
resolution regarding the zoning petition of the Naples New Haitian
Christian Church which this chapter unanimously supports; and
Whereas, this branch is committed to promoting the goals
of tolerance and acceptance of all people of goodwill throughout our
community.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Collier County
Branch of NAACP supports the resolution of the Black Affairs Advisory
Board on this issue and, further, that this branch urges the Board of
County Commissioners to affirm their support for tolerance and their
opposition to racism in all aspects of community life in Collier
County, including where its citizens choose to worship. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hahoney and then Ms. Cabana.
MS. HAHONEY: Good afternoon. Chairman Norris and
members of the board of commission, my name is Sandra Hahoney, and I
live at 47 Constitution Drive. My husband and I own our home and two
other pieces of property on Constitution Drive, and we've lived on the
same street since 1972. I have been asked to come here today and talk
to represent some of our neighbors so that we do not have a lot of
redundancy, and what I would like to speak about today is the site
selected along Bayshore Drive which is approximately 1,000 feet south
of Thomasson on a 10-acre tract next to Turner Oak Hills Estates which
is a subdivision that we live in.
And before I get into my little pages that I'd like to
say, I do want to say right now that I myself and I know several -- a
lot of my neighbors are very disappointed that this issue has taken a
racial turn to it. From the very beginning, this has nothing to do in
our neighborhood with racial remarks. I wouldn't care -- and I don't
think my neighbors would care -- if they were going to build the
Sistine Chapel on that corner. It is not the fact that it is a
Haitian church. It is the fact that it's a church all together.
Contrary to the newspaper article which was published on
Sunday, April the 7th, which we were all quite very embarrassed about,
in the Naples Daily News, Turner Oak Hills Estates is an interracial
neighborhood. We are not -- and I would like to repeat, we are not
opposed to this particular church being built on that property. The
focus of our concern is any church or commercial building being built
on this particular site.
And for those of you Commissioners who may not be
familiar with Turner Oak Hills Estates, I'd like to just give you a
very brief synopsis. The area was established approximately 27 years
ago with about 30 homes developed onto manmade lakes. It's a
beautiful, quiet little corner of Naples, and we're probably one of
the very few neighborhoods that can actually boast of
second-generation families that now live in the neighborhood. We all
get along. We all respect our neighbors' privacy, but we're
interested in being good neighbors. We're interested in doing things
together as a neighborhood. We're very lucky to be able to use the
facilities in Turner Oak Hills Estates. Our kids are still able to
play out on the street and not worry about the traffic. Our
neighborhood -- believe it or not, we celebrate holidays together. We
rent the trolley. We have Easter egg hunts. We have Halloween
parties. So my point being, it is a neighborhood area.
Neighborhoods such as ours are not easy to come by, and
that brings me to why myself and some of my neighbors who more would
have been here today but their work schedules prevented it, to ask you
that you please reconsider the approval of petition CU-96-1 for the
conditional use of the above-mentioned property.
I would like to give you some of our main objectives for
the use of the land in question. Flooding, number one. It is a
well-known fact that this area is in a flood zone. We recently had a
new home built directly across the street from ours. They were
required to build 9 feet above sea level. Even though the rains this
past season were hard for everybody to take, at one point the two
lakes on Republic Drive and Constitution Drive came together. There
was no land in our area that was not under water. The ducks were
swimming in my front yard. The fish were everywhere. Our concern is,
this was just one home that was built and affected our area. What is
going to happen when five acres of that land is developed and the
church is required to fill in the property? We will have a
20,000-square-foot building sitting on top of a hill. Where is the
drainoff going to go?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your -- Your time has expired for
your presentation. Could you wrap it up, please, for us?
MS. HAHONEY: Yes, I will.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Very quickly.
MS. HAHONEY: I sure will. Thank you.
Let me just -- We would like to just know briefly from
the church -- No one has discussed the aesthetics of the building with
us. We would like to know what this 20,000-square-foot building is --
is going to look like. And we'd like to thank you for your
consideration and appreciate your time.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. HAHONEY: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Cabana and then Mr. Fleming.
MS. CABANA: Good afternoon. My name is Arlene Cabana.
I would like to go on record as being opposed to building of this New
Haitian Church of the Nazarene. The reasons my family and my
neighborhood are opposed to this project is not because it is being
built by the Haitian community. We are terribly embarrassed about the
article in the Sunday Daily News. The quotes in this article do not
represent our views and our concerns.
We are extremely concerned by the impact that 500
churchgoers will make on the traffic flow through our neighborhood.
We do not want an exit onto Republic. This area is used daily by
young children playing in the streets. The cars coming and going
during church hours will increase the traffic flow and create a
dangerous situation for our children. Also Sundays this area at
Bayshore and Thommason is quite congested with boat -- boat traffic
going to the county ramp. The area does not need more traffic flowing
through an already congested area on a two-lane road. These roads
south of Bayshore are very narrow. Try walking in what the county
calls a bike path, and you take your life in your hands. I walked
this area last weekend with three children, one in a baby stroller,
and cars were coming speeding by, and it -- it -- it took a lot of
attempts to keep these children out of the road and not be hit by --
by cars. This is with the present traffic flow that it's dangerous to
be in this bike path. Build this church, and we can forget trying to
use the bike path whenever the church services are being held. This
road is too narrow for the kind of traffic that you want to put on it.
There is also another con -- great concern of the
neighborhood is the flooding. Last year Turner Oak Hill Estates
suffered severe flooding during the rainy season. Never before has so
much flooding been in this area, and my family and I have lived there
for 18 years. Since the installation of the sewers, we've had a
serious flooding problem and also the problem with the ditch that we
addressed before. Where is the rain going to go? Back into the
drainage ditch that doesn't drain anywhere, drains into our lakes, and
the lakes overflow into our yards and our properties? We are told by
Miss Cawley that the church property will contain this water. It
doesn't do that now. What makes her think that it's going to contain
this water by paving part of this area and putting up a building? Can
we get this in writing from the county that our homes will not be
affected by flooding due to this project? And when it does, will the
county come out and give us assistance?
We would like to take some -- We would like to also have
some sort of buffer put up so our neighborhood can still keep the
privacy and nature that we now enjoy. This is what makes our area so
peaceful and beautiful with the surrounding vegetation and wildlife.
We as a community want to thank the county commissioners
for the opportunity to speak, and we hope that we can work together to
keep our area as beautiful as we have worked so hard to do in the
past. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fleming. And, Mr. Dixon, you'll be
the last registered speaker.
MR. FLEMING: Good afternoon. I'm Jim Fleming. I live
at 28 Constitution Drive, and I'm here also to speak against, you
know, the building of the church there. I'm a layout engineer with
BCB in construction, and a lot I have to say about is, you know, the
size of this building. Now, for 500 people you only need
approximately 4,500 square feet to seat all these people. And then if
you allow, say, another 5,000 square feet for bathrooms and offices
and other meeting rooms, what's going to happen to this other 10,000
square foot of the building plus an additional 10,000 they're going to
put in later?
And then also -- I'd also like to talk also about the
traffic and -- you know, going back to this, there's only one entrance
in this whole neighborhood, and it's not only our neighborhood. You
have -- Cottage Grove is right before, and Karen Drive which people,
you know, will be coming in and out of there. And then we have --
what -- approximately six more streets farther south of the church
plus Holly Drive where another -- Turner Court is and all these people
-- this road is quite well used, and the church is just going to
generate, you know, a lot more traffic even though it's only supposed
to be on two days or three days at the most. And people keep saying,
you know, this is a low impact. Well, sure. I think a church on this
property actually would be real nice but a neighborhood church, and
this is not a neighborhood church. This is more the size of a
regional church. Twenty to 30,000 square feet is like saying you're
going to get a 7-11 and they put a K-Hart right next door to you.
There's a big difference.
And about the flooding, that's been gone -- went over
pretty -- pretty well I believe. And I'd also like to say, you know,
this is not against anybody personally. It's just -- this is a major
size building and church going in our area that I don't think can
handle that size of building and that size, you know, congregation
that's going to be coming in there. I thank you for your time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dixon. He's your last registered
speaker, Mr. Chairman.
MR. DIXON: My name is Hager Dixon. I live at 35
Constitution Drive. I bought there last September. I just got -- got
some copies of some papers that were put through -- through the board
by Hiss Cawley. I've got some questions. You know, they say that --
that this isn't going to affect our traffic, but yet in the criteria
evaluation, part C, it says right there that -- that, you know, it's
going to -- inherently has the potential for traffic accidents. How
can you not inherently have traffic accidents in our neighborhood but
there's only three streets and not cause a problem? How does -- I
don't understand how that goes. There are many things that -- that I
don't want to go on this property, and because it's a church, it
doesn't matter. I -- I would be here if it was a 7-11. I don't care.
In the summary -- In the executive summary, it also says
that no usage in connection with the church would affect, impact,
otherwise local subdivisions streets or homes. The traffic is going
to be well above that point to where it's not going to impact us. And
if you had 500 people leaving a church at any one time, they have to
impact you if you -- especially -- my house is right beside that
property. They have no choice but impact me. I don't care what their
summary says.
And the application for public hearing, question ten,
section three, what documentation is there on the economic impact? In
all of these documents, their heading says that they are looking at
the economic impact, odor control, and all this, but there's no -- on
everything there is a reservation of where they got their information
from except on economic impact. There's no mention of it at all. How
can they study it if they don't mention it? How can they mention it
and not study it?
On the resolution sheet, first page, lines 27, 28, and
29 says that -- That was from the Planning Commission. It says that
the board did give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard
at the Planning Commission. It didn't. They were going to lose their
quorum. They cut everybody off that had to speak and took a vote
then. According to their own bylaws, that's -- that's not what
they're supposed to do. They're supposed to continue it.
And the -- And for my final comment, I guess, the
distance between the four-way stop and this property is 1,000 feet.
All right. They've got two hundred six -- They have potentially 216
cars at this church. With the average length of a vehicle being 10
feet, giving a foot for each one, you've got 2,600 feet of a line of
cars trying to get out of this church at each time they have service.
Well, if you've only got 1,000 feet between that four-way stop and the
church, where is the other 1,600 feet of cars going to be lined up?
They're going to come out onto Republic, circle around, realize that
they're stuck there, and they're going to be lined up through our
neighborhood waiting to get out onto Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have agreed to eliminate
that access point just to --
MR. DIXON: I didn't hear her mention that she would do
that. I heard you bring it up, but I did not hear her mention that
she would do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll ask her to confirm that for
you. We'll make it a condition or -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I intend to propose it that
way.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there's a
couple of -- That's a good point. The petitioner agreed not to have
the entrance and exit on Republic. A couple other points, the
flooding, the one woman mentioned just with the addition of one home
how much flooding they had this past year. You need to keep in mind
as it's currently zoned right now, you could have 30 homes on that
property. So if your concern is what's going to go in there and what
the impact is going to be, if you don't change the zoning and you
believe that that home caused the flooding -- and I don't know the
particulars -- then theoretically you could have 30 times worse than
that when you have 30 homes, and that's the current zoning. Our staff
has told us this is actually less. It's about half as much, I think,
was -- roughly half as much impervious as far as actual water runoff,
but, more importantly, they're required under the agreement here to
have that runoff to a particular location. It just doesn't run off
wherever it happens to go. And the traffic -- again, I go back to how
it's currently zoned and -- again, I think it's roughly half. It's a
little over half of the impact because if you have 30 homes --
MR. NINO: Three-quarters.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MR. NINO: Three-quarters.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three-quarters. If you have
30 homes -- and, Commissioner Hancock, you can help me with this but
is it --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About ten trips per day per
house.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten trips per day per house
is average.
MR. NINO: 10.5.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me?
MR. NINO: 10.5.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About ten -- ten trips --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About ten trips per day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- per day per house on
average. So you're still looking at about 300 trips per day, and
whereas at a church, you're going to obviously have a big influx on
Sunday, but you're not going to have as much --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. We don't allow comments
from the audience. You must be registered, and you must be up here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the -- the point being,
the current zoning is going to have a more intense traffic impact than
the church is. So I understand there's nothing there right now, but
the way it's zoned, someone could -- whomever the owner is could
choose to build 30 homes there tomorrow, and those are the impacts
you're realistically going to feel. So if the flooding and the
traffic are a worry, this church is actually less of an impact than
the existing zoning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I need an explanation from the
petitioner. Miss Cawley, if I could ask you -- one gentleman brought
up a very good point. Why are we talking about twenty or 30,000
square feet for 500 parishioners? What -- What are we going to be
doing in there?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, remember, this is a church, and a
church is not just a room where people sit. It's a sanctuary where
you have a large space. I mean, it's -- it's a typical church, and
usually your churches have a larger space than just where people sit.
It's -- It's meant for aesthetics. It's a typical church and the --
as I'm trying to point out what church would be similar to that, the
Nazarene church directly behind Wilson, Miller on Bailey Lane is about
20,000 square feet and -- and -- total. I'm talking about with
classrooms and for --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But we're not having school here.
MS. CAWLEY: For Bible --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sunday school.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Bible class.
MS. CAWLEY: Sunday school.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sunday school.
MS. CAWLEY: Sunday school. We're talking -- I mean,
you have to have classrooms for Sunday school and offices for the --
for the reverend and those types of things. So you do have ancillary
uses with a church that are typical and traditional uses.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's unusual.
I mean, the fire limit in this room is what? 250 or 280 people or
something, but that's not comfortable. Can you legally get them in
here? Yeah, you can, but I wouldn't want to sit here for, you know,
regular time periods for worship services with 300 people packed in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner, while Miss Cawley
is here, could she talk a little bit about the aesthetics or -- I've
heard questions -- I know this isn't relevant particularly to our
decision, but is it going to be a metal building?
MS. CAWLEY: It's -- It's my understanding that it's not
going to be a metal building but I can't -- you know, it's not
designed at this point, but it will be done in accordance with county
codes and fire codes, and it will be aesthetically pleasing for the
neighborhood. It's not meant to be a warehouse. I mean, this is --
this is meant to be a church.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Miss Cawley, if you would,
put on the record, please, that -- MS. CAWLEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- there will be no exit on
Republic.
MS. CAWLEY: We agree that if it's the wish of the
county -- the reason that we -- We will have no exit. The reason we
had it there is because it was -- it's a requirement under county code
that we have two access points from the parking lot. So if you would
like to change that, that's fine with us.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve the petition with the condition that there be no access on
Republic with the condition that the -- that to the extent permitted
by South Florida Water Management District, the existing vegetation be
retained on the site east of Republic Drive.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were all the conditions
already agreed to on the record by petitioner earlier in this hearing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hmm-hmm. And with the security
lighting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
Before we call that, Mr. Nino, one point that was brought up was
lighting, and the discussion went, well, there's nothing there now so
we'll put in lighting, and that will be more than there was before,
but does our current code provide for shielding of lights?
MR. NINO: It doesn't -- Yes, it does. The site
development plan section allows us administratively to -- to address
lighting and to make sure that it doesn't glare on anybody's home.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That's what we want to make
sure as well, that we're not going to have --
MR. NINO: It would be a function of our SDP review.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have to keep the light within
the perimeter; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No -- Okay. So they will be
shielded.
MR. NINO: No off-site glare.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes?
MR. WEIGEL: Just before you vote, I would appreciate if
the commissioners would note for the record any ex parte
communications and whether or not that affects their considerations in
vote today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've had about a million ex parte
communications, and I'm going to base my decision on the presentation
and the information we heard in hearing today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've had somewhat less than a
million, but I did have some communication; however, my decision is
based solely on the information provided as part of this public
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I had very little ex parte
communication. I will, however, base my decision solely on what I've
heard here in this presentation today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've been buried in the Internal
Revenue Service Code, so I've had none, and I will base my decision on
the presentation today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
grant the conditional use. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That's it. The conditional use is granted.
Item #14
LDC AMENDMENTS FOR THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 1, 1996 - CONTINUED
TO MAY 8, 1996
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
have to leave because I need to catch a flight to Tallahassee in a few
minutes; however, I did have one item under communications today that
I want to mention before I go. We have two meetings scheduled --
evening meetings scheduled for Land Development Code April 17 and May
1. May 1 I'm scheduled to be out of town, a fairly long-standing
commitment, and I cannot rearrange that, and I wondered if there would
be any objection to us bumping the second hearing back a week to May 8
so we can have all five of us here for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly no objection on my
part. I appreciate your indulgence this last week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Offhand I can't think of one.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does that cause us a problem, Mr.
Mulhere, advertising or --
MR. MULHERE: If it has been advertised, I wonder if we
could open the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Open it and continue it?
MR. MULHERE: -- open it and continue it. I'm just not
sure --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll have to do that but --
MR. WEIGEL: If it's been advertised, which I expect it
is, we'll need to open it to continue it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that is -- it's the
second one, not the first?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. We'll continue that one week,
the following Wednesday, the 8th -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. MULHERE: -- or we can readvertise. Either way
we'll -- we'll take care of it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's just continue it and reopen
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. I'll
give your best to everyone in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go and lobby.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure. Why don't we -- Why don't we
take a very short break and come back and finish up.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 96-17 AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-86, THE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene. We're ready now
for item 12(C)(3).
MS. THURSTON: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Mary
Jo Thurston from the revenue services department. Both items 12(C)(3)
and 12(C)(4) deal with the financing of water and sewer impact fee
criteria. Staff is recommending four basic changes, an amendment to
the current ordinances. Changes in both ordinances are nearly
identical with the exception of the wording water or sewer. You may
want to consider both ordinances at the same time.
The four recommendations that staff is making is, number
one, we're recommending that the criteria that's used for the
financing be property owners of existing properties that are mandated
to connect to either the regional water or the sewer system. The
second item is that doc stamps and recording fees will be borne
up-front costs by the property owners, and we would recommend title
verification and administrative fees be allowed to be rolled into the
financing. The third item deals with the interest rate. We're
recommending that rather than having it be a fixed rate at 8 percent
now over 7 years, that this interest rate be adjusted during January
of each calendar year and that this is based on the county's actual
cost of funds for the preceding fiscal year. And the fourth
recommendation is basically cleaning up the ordinance allowing that --
we're delegating either the public works administrator or the revenue
services director to have the authority to enter in and to release
agreements which are up to a $6,000 limit. Anything above $6,000
comes to the board for your approval. The older versions -- current
versions of the ordinance, if you will, had the utilities
administrator authorized. And, as you're aware, we no longer have a
utilities administrator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would the revenue director
need to be included in that instead of just the public works director?
MS. THURSTON: All of the impact fee financing criteria,
meeting the criteria, the actual agreements flow through revenue
services. We had talked to the public works administrator and felt
that it would be all done in-house which would be quicker, easier for
the customer as well as the two departments. We chose to go with
either/or to give us the flexibility in case one isn't available or
one is on vacation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When -- I guess I don't have any
questions other than I'm in support of this because it may assist
folks in getting into houses a little bit better, and it really
doesn't cost us anything, and as soon as we close the public hearing,
I'm ready to move on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there any speakers, Mr.
Dotrill, on this one?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Now, we're only -- we're
only amending ordinance 90-86 at this point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. I'll go ahead and make
my motion that we adopt the amendments to ordinance 90-86.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing so we
can call that question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 96-18 AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-87, THE REGIONAL SEWER SYSTEM
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
The ordinance 90-87 is the exact same changes --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve as amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say, if you'll
close the public hearing --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing and
take a motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve as amended.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Item #12C6
ORDINANCE 96-19 AMENDING ORDINANCE 88-96 RELATING TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE A COMHUNITY PARK FEE FOR
MARCO ISLAND DWELLING UNITS - ADOPTED
Let me take this opportunity to -- to alert the
petitioners for item 13(A)(3), the Powerhouse Gym, that it takes four
votes for that, and we only have four board members. If you want to
call it off and bring it back some other time, you need to think about
that right now. We'll go ahead with the rest of our items and give
them a few minutes to think about that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In fairness, the flip side is to
proceed with the item and if there are -- you don't see four votes
there, you may want to continue it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If we start on it, we're going to
vote on it. That's what we need to do.
Item 12(C)(6), amend ordinance 88-96 relating to parks
and rec's facilities impact fee ordinance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to start making Marco
pay. I'm for that.
MR. BRINKMAN: Good afternoon. Steve Brinkman, your
parks and recreation director and we would -- When the impact fees
were established a number of years ago, it was determined that Marco
Island had sufficient community park area at that time to accommodate
the public. Since that time, it is now the feeling of the park's
board that there are a number of expansion projects that are needed
down at the community parks, and there are also potentially a chance
of a future need to buy additional community park land in the future,
and because of that is suggesting or recommending that a -- that Marco
Island now pay a community park impact fee. This would make Marco
like everywhere else in the county. Marco now pays a regional park
impact fee as does everywhere else in the county. This would add a
fee of about $399 per dwelling unit, and that would generate about
100,000 to 150,000 a year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any questions from the
board of staff?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I had one. These impact fees
when they're collected, will they be maintained within a district
strictly for Marco Island?
MR. BRINKMAN: That will go into an overall urban
district that all the various community park districts pay into.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Any more questions?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a great idea.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Just one who is Mr. Mueller.
MR. MUELLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Gil Mueller. I serve on the county park and recreation board. About
a year ago when I re-enlisted for my third tour of duty with the
board, I realized that there was not a community park impact fee on
Marco Island. So over the period of the last year, with the help of
the -- the county attorney's office and the park and recreation staff,
we sort of evolved to this -- this particular day. I strongly advise
that you consider reinstating this fee. I see no reason why the
people coming to Marco shouldn't be responsible for paying an impact
fee like they do in the rest of the county in addition to the fact
that the park and recreation department needs the money. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mueller. Close the
public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: A motion and two seconds. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-193 RE PETITION FDPO-96-1, JOESPH P. ROBINETTE, P.L.S. OF
ROBINETTE & EATON LAND SURVEYING, INC., REPRESENTING ED AND SHARON
DWYER, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF
10 FEET NGVD TO 9.16 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 168 CYRUS STREET,
MARCO BEACH, UNIT 25 - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item, 13(A)(1), petition FDPO-96-1. Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Now known as Mr. Variance.
MR. REISCHL: Well, this is a request for an
after-the-fact variance from the flood elevation requirement on Marco
Island. The requirement is for 10 feet NGVD. The spot survey
indicated that the finished floor elevation was 10.13 which met the
requirement; however, after the survey was accepted and construction
commenced and the house was finished, the surveyor realized that an
error had been made, and the actual elevation was 9.16 feet NGVD.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does he have E and O insurance?
MR. REISCHL: I'm sure he does. We had a letter from
the property owner saying that the -- they realized that their
insurance may increase as a result of this variance request.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not what she asked.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about the
surveyor.
MR. REISCHL: About the surveyor. I don't know. I
don't see him --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Error and omission insurance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he here?
MR. REISCHL: I don't see him here today.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's really -- That's between
the property owner and the surveyor, isn't it?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. That's the -- well --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we approve this --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we approve it, there's no
problem. If we donwt, the property owner is going to want to do
something.
MR. REISCHL: Right. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they can --
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: No damages otherwise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does -- is -- Mr. Reischl, is
there any financial implication to the county tax base by this -- this
variance if it were approved?
MR. REISCHL: The infrastructure is already there. So
it wouldnwt affect infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if -- if they were -- if water
rose to 9.17 feet and they received damage, the county in no way plays
a role in correcting that matter or --
MR. REISCHL: The resolution states that we -- that the
petitioner waives all their damages towards the county. I donwt know
if therews any other legal pursuit, but thatws stated in the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I had a question about that, Mr.
Weigel. Do you think that was sufficient? I -- I wasnwt particularly
thrilled with that, that it just --
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thatws a good point. Iwm not thrilled
with it either. A resolution is a unilateral document emanating from
not the petitioner but the board when the request was made. We would
want, I think, that assurance to appear from the petitioner, not in
the document that wewre -- not merely in the document that -- that we
would be approving there.
MR. REISCHL: We just use the standard form that we had
in file so thatws --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I -- I would hope that theyld
sign a release as a condition of this and that the release be not just
in the event their flood insurance is more expensive but whether they
can get it or not. I donlt even know if they can get flood insurance.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, thatls their problem if --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Itls their problem.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- if we approve this. Mr.
Reischl, what -- if this is not approved, they have to tear the house
down and build it over or what?
MR. REISCHL: Either tear down -- I checked with some of
our engineering staff, and they indicated that there were methods to
raise an existing house, but it was very expensive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight-tenths of a foot is
actually -- when youlre talking an inch or two to, you know, jack the
pad, you -- youlre in the realm of possibility of eight inches or ten
inches. Thatls -- Thatls a lot.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, youlre going to break the pad
all to pieces if you try that anyway, arenlt you?
MR. REISCHL: Well, the engineers seem to think it could
be done, but it was a very expensive procedure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If Iim comforted that there is no
risk to the general tax base, that this approval in any way puts the
county in a position to be liable for any damages whatsoever, I donlt
have a real problem with this.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I -- We could condition it on
execution of a -- of --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- of a release.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- a release that Mr. Weigel
could draft.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be comfortable in that --
in that respect. I also want to make sure we're not letting an error
on the part of a surveyor off the hook.
MR. REISCHL: It definitely was an error on the
surveyor's part.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What is our recourse against the
surveyor? I mean, what -- what is going to happen as a result of
this? Nothing?
MR. REISCHL: As far as the county is concerned, I don't
think it's -- there's any re -- well, I'd leave that up to Mr. Weigel,
but I believe what the surveyor was discussing with me was that any
recourse would be his client with an action against him.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's my interpretation.
It would be a civil matter then on any potential damages.
MR. REISCHL: The client and the surveyor.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And the applicant -- the Dwyers
are apparently in concert with the -- you know, with the surveyors
that they want this approved.
MR. REISCHL: Right. And they were acting under the
belief that the surveyor was correct and that their house proceeded
forth with construction at a legal elevation.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I'm just a little bit
hesitant on it because we've seen instances in other areas of the
county where spot surveys were done and, lo and behold, after the fact
there's some changes that need to be made and -- and, you know, we go
ahead and approve them, but I think we've told one person so far to
cut part of a pool deck off and so forth, and I'm hesitant to tell
this person to either tear his house down or raise it and possibly
incur a lot of expense, but I'm -- I'm -- I'm just really concerned
about a spot survey being off by a foot.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what I read on this is that
mistakes are going to happen. You know, hopefully this property owner
will write a letter to the licensing agencies of the surveyors or take
some action even if they don't have damages and can't sue them again.
But, God, it doesn't seem right to make these people suffer since they
are innocent, and -- and it's not like somebody could write them a
check and make them whole. We're talking about their home and taking
it down and moving out and moving it up. You know, I just think we
ought to grant this variance.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. It's just
that we've had these after-the-fact guys before, and they seem to be
coming in larger varieties than ever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have taken a pretty hard line
on -- on things, particularly where the contractor has made a mistake,
even if they have just completed the job. If the contractor made a
mistake, then the contractor has to fix it, plain and simple, but I
think there's a limit to that, and here we have -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: A house.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We have an entire house.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The whole house.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm ready to move ahead with a
motion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I -- I don't disagree with
any of that, but I just want to know -- I want to know what is going
to happen to the surveyor. Is nothing going to happen because of
this, Mr. Weigel? Do we have a mechanism to automatically turn this
over to the licensing board, or what do we do here?
MR. WEIGEL: No. No. Nothing would happen as far as --
as far as the county and the surveyor are concerned. Of course, we
don't have a contract with the -- with the surveyor. These owners --
homeowners may have their own problem with their insurance which they
seem to be accepting by petitioning for the variance in the first
place, and our resolution indicates that they accept and release the
county upon their acceptance of the resolution, and I think Ms.
Hac'Kie was absolutely correct that -- that it's -- we should get
something in writing from them indicating that they accept and release
us pursuant to the resolution, not withstanding that they're the
petitioner in the first place. There's always -- the Contractors'
Licensing Board might take care of the surveyor, but that's -- that's
raised by individuals bringing them in typically and not by -- not by
the county on its own behalf.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But surely the property owner is
going to be madder than us about it, and they'll take appropriate
action.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, if the -- if the property
owner gets what he wants, he's probably just going to go away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's not -- his insurance is
not going to be a simple matter even if we allow it.
MR. REISCHL: A review by Mr. Pineau said that the
property may be uninsurable --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I think.
MR. REISCHL: -- after this. He said maybe. He didn't
know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that becomes, in my opinion,
a civil matter. Surveyors are licensed by the state as professional
land surveyors, and they receive a seal from the state that they
practice in, if I'm not mistaken. So there is an appeal process to
the state, and whether or not we have the responsibility to notify the
state of that mistake or not or maybe the potential liability if we do
so, I -- I don't know that that's ground we -- we should get into. We
do not license these individuals, and, again, we're not the
complainant. So I'm -- I'm hesitant to -- to reach for the hammer
because I don't think we wield it in this case.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we do this -- I mean, I -- I
don't want to penalize this particular homeowner but -- I mean,
really, this is a variance that in the three and a half years I've
been on this board, I really haven't visualized a vertical variance,
and -- and this is -- this is new and different, and I know we've --
we've asked our staff to do something about all the after-the-fact
variances that were horizontal and notifying the builders and
contractors and so forth that the next guy coming in, we're going to
tell you to tear it down. And I -- I think this is an imaginative
thing, and if it was in error, fine, it's in error, but I think I'd
like our staff to do something similar with this even on the vertical
variances because I really don't want to have to do this again, and I
don't know what we can do about it, but I don't want to do it again.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I'm not sure what we can do
about it either.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The bottom line is I'd like to
see somebody make good on the surveyor for their mistake, but, again,
that's not our role, and the Dwyers are not asking us to do that.
They have the ability to do that now through the civil court
proceedings. They can file suit now without asking for this variance.
I think what they're looking for is a way to live in their home and
put this little nightmare behind them in some way, and if our
assistance in doing that does not affect the general tax base of the
county adversely, then -- then I think we're serving the Dwyers as
they're asking, not necessarily the -- the mistake of the surveyor.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: One other problem -- let me -- let
me check. Mr. Weigel, if we grant this variance, the variance runs
with the land, and then somebody could build something else on this
property at some point in the future at the same varied height?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I -- I -- I don't think so. I think
that this variance is for this particular structure as constructed.
It -- obviously it's site-specific, but I think that it's not a
variance for -- I don't know if Mr. Reischl has --
MR. REISCHL: I -- I believe that this is a unique type
of variance, that it is for the structure itself. As soon as the --
if the structure is destroyed by some means, then the new structure
would have to comply with current elevation.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is the petitioner or homeowner
here? Do we have any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have no one registered.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the second time we've had
a variance and nobody shows up, and I don't understand that.
MR. REISCHL: The petitioner was adamant that he would
be here, but I don't see him.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move that we approve the
variance request with the condition that the petitioner sign a release
of the county from all potential liability as drafted by Mr. Weigel.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me -- Let me ask if we could at
least do this. Mr. Weigel, can the county commission send a letter
expressing our displeasure to the Contractors' Licensing Bureau to be
kept on file for this particular surveyor?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can we do that at least?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to put that in my
motion.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we don't license him.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hmm?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't license him.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you talking about the
county's contractor licensing board or the state agency that --
MR. REISCHL: BPR or whatever agency --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Yeah. The D -- DBPR.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: BPR.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Department of Professional
Regulation.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And business now. They've stuck
business in there now.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Business and Professional
Regulation, DBPR.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's in my motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You amend your motion to include
that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amended.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second, then, to approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-194 RE PETITION CU-96-3, MR. PAUL LISTENBERGER OF C.R.
FLORIDA, INC., REPRESENTING IN TRAINING THREE, INC., REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A PHYSICAL
FITNESS CLUB FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 WITHIN
NAPLES TOWNE CENTER - ADOPTED
Next item is 13(A)(3), petition CU-96-3. This is the
conditional use for the gym.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current
planning staff. Petitioner proposes conditional use 1 of the C-3
zoning district. They -- They propose to operate a physical fitness
facility within existing Naples Towne Center Shopping Center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I apologize for interrupting, but
on the last matter Hiss Filson was just saying to me that there --
apparently we didn't communicate real well with staff. The -- The
business in the resolution that says that the petitioner indemnifies
the county in the event that their insurance rates go up, you were
going to take that out and replace it, Mr. Weigel, with the --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it has a provision in there saying
that in accepting this variance, the petitioner assumes all
responsibility for any property damage but -- that's fine in the
resolution, but we're going to get, as you indicated in the motion
passed, a release --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So it can stay in the
resolution as is?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to get an additional
letter indicating a waiver to the satisfaction --
MR. WEIGEL: That's really pursuant to the resolution
because since it says in accepting this resolution, I want an active
acceptance to be manifested, so we'll get that.
MR. REISCHL: That does not have to be --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But since they're not here to
accept -- MR. REISCHL: That doesn't have to be an exhibit on the
resolution? Then that could just be -- MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. REISCHL: -- Separate?
MR. WEIGEL: It will be separate. We'll submit it to
the record also.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I apologize.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Back to the topic du jour.
MR. BELLOWS: The traffic impact review indicates that
the project will generate approximately 235 trips per day which is
less than other permitted retail uses in the C-3 district. There are
no environmental stipulations. Staff has received no letters for or
against this petition; therefore, the Planning Commission has
recommended approval. That concludes my presentation. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: One. Did we jump the gun on this?
The sign's up.
MR. BELLOWS: The sign's up.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The sign's up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I thought they were
operating because I was there for lunch a couple of weeks ago, and I
saw the -- everything looked like it was in place.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure of the timing of that part.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they should tell us. Maybe
the petitioner will.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're already doing business
there?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Would you identify yourself for the
record, please?
MR. LISTENBERGER: Paul Listenberger with C.R. Florida,
Incorporated. Actually, it was submitted in there for a demo permit
and then later found out about the zoning change and had to go with
the conditional use.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So they are operating?
MR. LISTENBERGER: Not as a gym. Just as far as getting
memberships and putting in --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's operating as a gym. I mean,
you're getting memberships for the gym; right?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't think it's in actual operation.
It may be just in an operation where they're taking in names for --
MR. LISTENBERGER: Yeah. They're just doing
reservations and putting it in an escrow account through the
attorneys.
MR. BELLOWS: I don't think there's any equipment in
there yet.
MR. LISTENBERGER: So, you know, as far as any operation
or anything like that, there's not.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, we had a discussion
about a small shopping center on Marco Island, that when the person
came in for a change of business in a shopping center, it goes through
a process where we checked for compliance of parking and is it an
allowable use and so forth. Is that what -- Is that same process what
caught this particular operation?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. He was pulling a -- part of
that is -- also included a zoning certificate when he applied for his
occupational license. Part of that is the zoning review or planning
staff issues a zoning approval or zoning certificate. It was that
time the use was determined to be a conditional use, C-3.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So even though taking
reservations is probably not advisable, they're not -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- operating as a gym at this
point. Okay.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No questions? Any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 96-195 RE PETITION V-96-4 WAYNE FURFEY REPRESENTING SUN
HARBOUR CLUB, LTD., REQUESTING A 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 15 FEET TO 7.5 FEET FOR A BOAT DOCK MOORING PILINGS AND BOAT
LIFTS FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON COLLIER COUNTY ON MARCO ISLAND -
ADOPTED
Next item is 13(A)(4), petition V-96-4.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have some handouts.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, this is
another typical boat -- boat dock?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We've done a number of these.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've done a number of these.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The issue --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The configuration of the --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, the issue is that the DEP
wants you to put in boat lifts now. So the end docks -- you can't put
the boat lift in without two pilings -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gottcha.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and the pilings are the only
thing that's actually out causing a variance and -- you know, you
could otherwise have a boat there floating, but to put in a lift,
you've got to have those two pilings which --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that a hoot?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- requires a --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a hoot.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- a variance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a hoot.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that's the way it goes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's do the public hearing. We
need to do it, I guess.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For the record, my name is Chahram
Badamtchian from the planning staff. As Commissioner Norris stated,
this is for a boat lift. DEP requires boat lifts for boat docks;
however, they have -- they have only 15 foot, and they have to place
two pilings on each side which are going to be seven and a half feet
from the property line, and that's what they are asking for this
variance. Either they have to remove two boat docks and not have two
boats there or get a variance --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Any objections?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have two letters of objection, one
from a condo next door; however, the condo next door -- they have a
boat dock going all the way to the property line. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got mine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't give them what we have.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In the past this board has approved
several variances like that. This is one of the last pieces of
multi-family -- small size multi-family, and we hope that this is the
last variance we are requesting. The planning commissioners reviewed
this and by a vote of four to one recommended approval.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. The only thing that's going
in the variance area are two pilings on each end?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Pilings for boat lifts. Correct.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close
the public hearing --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, maybe we do.
MR. FURFEY: Wayne Furfey with Custom Dock. If you have
any further questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not unless you don't want us to
approve it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Have we described the issue
incorrectly or is that --
MR. FURFEY: No. You've described it correctly.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-196 RE PETITION V-96-5, JOSEPH DELATE REPRESENTING
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION REQUESTING A 20 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 20 FEET AND A
20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 20 FEET
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON STATE ROAD 92 (SAN MARCO DRIVE) APPROXIMATELY
100 FEET EAST OF HEATHWOOD DRIVE KNOWN AS MARCO RACQUET CLUB ON MARCO
ISLAND - ADOPTED
13(A)(5), petition V-96-5.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is -- V-96-5 is a county project
for Marco Racquet Club. They have existing -- existing facilities
with five tennis courts and two racquetball courts. They are planning
on adding three more tennis courts in the back; however, the setbacks
have changed since they built the last tennis court. Now the setbacks
are 30 feet, and they are requesting to build on the existing building
line on the sides, and in the back they're going to be 20 feet from
the property line, and today's code requires 30 feet. Planning
commissioners reviewed this, and by a vote of seven to one recommended
approval. I have received a petition from some of the residents
there, but it appears that some of the names here do not own property
on Marco Island.
DR. BILES: They're tenters.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They may be tenters.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're not property owners?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are not property owners. They may
be tenters.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, we need to restrain
these outbursts from the audience. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Control yourself.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask what the one negative
vote on the Planning Commission was -- was for?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One of the planning commissioners
thought that this area wasn't really suited for more tennis courts and
county may have another place to have additional tennis courts, but
this area has already five tennis courts, and it's lighted tennis
courts. They are employees working there attending the place, and
it's going to be very costly to have some tennis courts in some other
places on Marco Island.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, haven't these courts -- these
courts in question actually been planned for -- for quite some number
of years?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were planned and built since
1970s.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. But I mean the additional
courts. Haven't they been planned as well?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Maybe Mr. Mullet could --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe since the mid '80s --
MR. DELATE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Joe
Delate from the office of capital projects management of your staff.
I can answer that question for you. Yes. When this project was built
by Deltona in 1978, they intended for that area in the back to be used
for future expansion. And the county took the project over in 1984,
and they also renovated it in 1992, and the intent all along has been
to expand to that area.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So this is not a new
proposal? This is just something that's been in the works actually
for many years?
MR. DELATE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anything else?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any further
questions. Are these courts going in -- I don't whether it's
appropriate or not, but I'm going to ask. Are they clay courts or
hard courts? Because they're adjacent to clay courts.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They're going to be clay courts.
MR. DELATE: These would be clay courts, three
additional clay courts and then one possible change from a hard court
to a clay court.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No further questions? Close the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #15
STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS
That finishes our regularly scheduled agenda. Hr.
Dotrill, do you have anything today?
MR. DORRILL: The only thing I have, Mr. Chairman, is to
remind the board members that we'll be in Bonita Springs next Monday
with your counterparts from Lee County.
Also the budget office has asked me to remind you for
those of you who are reviewing the discretionary program budget
expenses, Mr. Smykowski would appreciate your getting that information
to our office so that we can budget accordingly if there appears to be
consensus on the board in terms of eliminating certain programs at the
very beginning.
And the last thing that they have asked me to try to
clarify either today or perhaps next Tuesday when Mr. Constantine gets
back is there's a little confusion over the board's direction with
respect to the -- the overall budget reduction target, and
specifically was it 1 percent of the general fund, or is it 1 percent
below the rollback rate or 1 percent below the aggregate rate, and we
need to try and clarify that if we can.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I could answer that for you. It
was 1 percent below adopted millage of last year.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. DORRILL: As it pertains to the general fund or
countywide funds? I don't know that we got that specific.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As it pertains, I assume, to the
county manager agency. I mean, we're not going to be able to control
the school board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So regardless of what he meant,
that's what we're saying he meant?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The general fund is what we're
talking about.
MR. DORRILL: The general fund?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, I see what you're getting at.
As opposed to all the special districts and -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- fire control and all that.
MR. DORRILL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're looking for the
constitutional officers to share in that 1 percent?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have asked them to do the same.
Yes, we have.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what I thought
too. I -- I have a question, then, on the budget proposals for
discretionary items. I -- I finished my list on that -- I don't know
-- maybe ten days ago, and I've been waiting to see something on the
agenda where we're going to discuss it to give the budget department
direction on it. Are we just supposed to hand it in to the budget
department and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. We were going to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We were going to discuss that on
the 26th of March, but Commissioner Constantine never got it back on
the agenda so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I've been waiting
for it to come up on the agenda and -- and -- I mean, I've identified
about $1.6 million, but some of it is kind of like a wish list, and I
don't know how the others feel. I don't know. What do we want to do
with it?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It would make a good discussion
item for next week, wouldn't it?
MR. DORRILL: That's why I said maybe it would be better
if you want to just generally do that under communications next week
and you will all bring your suggested list -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
MR. DORRILL: -- that would probably be -- I think
Hike's made a good point. If there is consensus on the board to take
certain programs out, it would be better to do that now and just you
not even see them as opposed to have people preparing budgets with
money and programs in them that you don't intend to fund. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, would it -- would it be
appropriate -- I mean, mine's done up on -- I don't know -- six or
seven sheets of paper. Would it be appropriate for us to share what
we've written down in the interim, and then we can validly discuss it
next Tuesday and -- because, I mean, I've got about five pages of
things.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I would prefer the surprise element
myself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is -- There's a point to
that that's not bad, and that is that all of a sudden it begins being
debated in the media before Tuesday, and if all five of us feel the
same way in a certain area, then we feel the same way and -- and let
it go so --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Or three of us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or three of us. But I assume all
five of us are going to find some common ground so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gee, I hope so, or we're not
going to get there when we think.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. To avoid -- avoid the
public debate before Tuesday, let's just go ahead and fire the gun in
one shot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I meant public debates in the
media, not the public not having an opportunity to talk to us. Thank
you. Thank you for that clarification.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you trying to shoot yourself
in the foot?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I saw something bad coming there.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Nothing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I do have one additional
thing. Just because there has been a real clamoring on the part of
the -- the media to get the final proposal on the Lee Tran, that it
will be due and available in the morning, and I intend to either
deliver those to your office with the executive summary that I have
not yet had a chance to read and complete in advance of your having to
read it in the paper on Thursday. And if you would prefer, we will
either hand deliver that to your home or your office just so that
you'll have the opportunity to see it for yourself. If you give me
some indication as to whether y'all will be in tomorrow, whether you
would like to have it delivered to your office -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We are all full-time commissioners,
so I'm sure that we'll get it in our office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like it at my law firm.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like it at my accounting
firm. In fact, if it's not lengthy, why don't you fax it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like it at the only place I
have a job, here.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's not lengthy -- or is it
lengthy, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I think that we'll either have them hand
delivered, or we can fax them, but I just want you -- This is one of
those things where they're just dying to get it, and I want to make
sure you get it before you read about it in the paper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever you do, don't put it in
my in box.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Filson said that we could be
excused, so we're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
#96-2492 FOR SAFETY/SECURITY WINDOW FILM FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES BUILDING - AWARDED TO NAPLES SOLAR CONTROL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,524.35; AND BID #96-2491 FORAN EMERGENCY BACK-UP GENERATOR FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING - AWARDED TO PANTROPIC POWER PRODUCTS,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,300.00
Item #16A2
RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "PLAT OF PARCEL NO. 3"
Item #16A3
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LES CHATEAUX AT PELICAN MARSH - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PELICAN MARSH ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY INTO THE
OPERATING EXPENSE PORTION OF COST CENTER 138900 (FUND 113)
Item #16B1
MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING CONTRACT FOR DISTRICT TWO WITH IHMOKALEE
DISPOSAL, INC. AT $.95 PER MONTH FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,686 UNITS
See Pages
Item #1682
AWARD BID #96-2499 FOR ALUMINUM SULFATE FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TO GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION - IN THE
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000.00
Item #1683
RESOLUTION 96-189 AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE FLORIDA BOATING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CAXAMBAS PARK PUBLIC
BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY
See Pages
Item #1684
OBLIGATE FUNDS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PERFORM THE FIRST YEAR OF
POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #1685
AWARD WORK ORDER UNDER ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 95-2334
TO VARIAN CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT $177,950.00 AND APPROVE PURCHASE
ORDER FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES UNDER ANNUAL AGREEMENT 95-2445 FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO CAXAMBAS PARK TO D. N. HIGGINS COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$39,795.00
See Pages
Item #1686 - This item has been deleted
Item #1687
MINOR VARIATIONS FROM THE PUBLISHED SPECIFICATIONS WAIVED; PURCHASE ONE
(1) REPLACEMENT ARTICULATING FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE FRONT-END LOADER FOR THE
ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION FROM COASTLINE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. IN
ACCORDANCE WITH WITH BID #96-2476 IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $61,750.00
Item #1688
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PAYMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
Item #1689
RESOLUTION 96-190/CWS-96-~ IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY'S ~PPLIC~TION FOR
SOUTH FLORID~ W~TER M_~N~GEMENT DISTRICT'S FY97 ~LTERN~TIVE W~TER SUPPLY
GP~NT
See Pages
Item #16C1
EXTEND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK (SOLINET) FOR
THE PROVISIONS OF ON-LINE LIBRARY CATALOGING AND PERMISSION FOR
CHAIRNLAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16D1
AWARD RFP #95-2466 FOR ANALYTICAL SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO POST,
BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $110,000.00 AND
ORLANDO LABS AS A SECONDARY VENDOR
Item #16D2
WORKFORCE FLORIDA PLAN OF ACTION FOR COLLIER COUNTY
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-328, 96-342 AND 96-343
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1991 REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
289 03-27-96
1992 REAL PROPERTY
214 03-27-96
1993 REAL PROPERTY
240 03-27-96
1994 REAL PROPERTY
201 03-27-96
1995 REAL PROPERTY
210/211 03-11-96
225 & 227 03-27-96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
66/67 03-22 & 03-25-96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
AMENDMENT TO THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUND BUDGET
Item #16H2
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING
UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY
AFFAIRS' ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON
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 Christine E. Whitfield