BCC Minutes 03/12/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 12, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & 3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order on this 12th day of March, 1996. Mr. Dorrill, could I get you
to -- as soon as everyone is ready, Mr. Dorrill, could you lead us in
an invocation and pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Heavenly Father, on -- on this,
which is the first election day of this year, we give thanks for the
opportunity that we have to participate in the democratic republic
process of the United States of America, which is what we feel to be
the greatest nation in the world. We thank you for the right to
vote. We thank you and encourage the citizens of this community to
vote and exercise their opportunity to choose and make a difference in
Collier County.
Father, we thank you this morning, and in particular we
thank you for the dedication and the interest of young people within
Collier County who are here and will be recognized and are
participating and interested in their government. We ask that you
bless them and for the time and the dedication of those who have
scheduled this program.
Father, as always, we thank you for the hard work of our
support staff, and we thank you for the many citizens who choose to
participate in the government process here, and we ask that you bless
our time here together today. And we pray these things in Jesus'
name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any changes to
the agenda today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning. I have just
three changes to your agenda today. The first I have is a withdrawal
at the request of the staff, and we will reschedule this as
necessary. It's item 16(B)(2) on the public works consent agenda will
be re -- withdrawn and rescheduled if necessary.
Then I have two add-on items. The first appears under
the board's proclamations and presentations. It will be 5(A)(3),
which is a proclamation designating this week, the week of March the
10th through the 16th, as Kiwanis Week in Collier County. That's at
the request of the commissioners.
Then the final add-on item that I have this morning will
be under other constitutional officers. It is ll(A). It is a request
by the clerk as it pertains to a bond covenant review. And there is a
time specific for that request. He's asking that that be heard as
close to 11:30 as possible.
I do need to remind you there is an agenda note that
you're scheduled to have a luncheon today and will need to be able to
walk over and be at the Methodist Church in order to be on time for
the Know Your County Government --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's at the museum today.
MR. DORRILL: At the museum, I'm sorry. And that's all
I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the add-on, ll(A), what -- if it's
a review, what is the urgency that requires us to put it on as an
add-on? I have not been furnished any information on this. Are we
going to be asked to vote on something here or --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I can tell you I was asked
by the clerk to -- to support this being added on today. It has to do
with some arbitrage calculations for some bond issues that may require
us to authorize payment today.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is so pressing that I didn't
even get any information on this? And I know you're not the clerk.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good question for the clerk.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The other thing is the clerk has his
own agenda section on -- section 5, I think it is, or whatever it is.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we pose these questions
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Section 6. Why -- why would we add it
on someplace else? What's going on here?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- aren't we adding it
under the clerk?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item 11 is under
constitutional officers.
MR. DORRILL: There is a section that's called clerk's
report. I don't, frankly, know why it's not under the clerk.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked for it to be added, so I
may have just asked for the wrong section. I told them I'd asked to
have it put on. So if it's under the wrong section, wherever it
should go, please add it, and then maybe we can hear it at 11:30.
MR. DORRILL: I was handed a packet of information when
I arrived here this morning by your administrative aide, and I trust
that each one of you was at least handed the same information that I
have. If not, we'll make copies.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I got -- yesterday afternoon
about 4:30 I got like a listing -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of things, and it wasn't very
-- it didn't tell me anything, to be quite honest with you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to
a constitutional officer adding something on particularly when a
commissioner has agreed to it. So let's not spend too much time in
discussing it now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I do have an objection, because
I was not given any information prior to this, and I'm going to be
asked to vote on spending some money and time --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can always defer a vote.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we should hear the item and
then decide if we want to vote or not today. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can do that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know why, but I feel
similar to Commissioner Norris, a little in the dark on this item. So
I hear three people saying let's go ahead and hear it, so I guess it's
going to stay on the agenda. But I'm not real pleased in the manner
in which this has been brought forward.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Were you given information prior to
today?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a discussion with the
clerk the end of last week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Were you given information? Did you
have a discussion with the clerk, Hiss Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I did. That's how I came to
add it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you have a discussion with the
clerk?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you have a discussion with the
clerk?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nope.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Was -- I did not either. Was -- is
there some reason why the information was withheld from two of the
commissioners?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, I'd suggest that's a
question for the clerk at 11:30 or if -- unless if he's watching and
wants to come over and answer it now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Filson, would you check
my desk and see -- I don't remember seeing anything to hand out
either.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a little unusual, isn't it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it looks like we're going to add
this on, but we're not going to give a time certain for it. We have
other things to do, and this will fall where it falls.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then would you mind, Mr. Dorrill,
calling to the clerk's office to let them know that?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MAtthews, do you have
anything additional?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MAc'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve
the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #4
HINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 1996 REGULAR HEETING- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to approve the minutes of February 7, 1996, regular meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
ITEM #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MARCH 10 - 16, 1996, AS "KNOW YOUR
COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK" - ADOPTED
We'll move to proclamations.
I have a proclamation here. Is Jennifer Oldhan in?
Jennifer, would you please come right here and face the camera. This
is all going on national TV, so you'll be seen national and worldwide.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jennifer is being discovered as
we speak.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The proclamation reads:
Whereas, county government is a complex and multifaceted
process which affects the lives of all residents of Collier County;
and
Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects
of county government work can enhance an individual resident's quality
of life in Collier County; and
Whereas, Collier County 4-H, the League of Women Voters
of Collier County, and the Collier County Public Schools are for the
17th consecutive year cosponsoring a teen citizenship program entitled
"Know Your County Government," which program is designed to enlighten
selected local high school students in the area of county government;
and
Whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 10th
to the 16th, 1996, be designated as Know Your County Government Week.
Done and ordered this 12th day of March, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And I would like to make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Jennifer, congratulations.
(Applause)
MS. OLDHAN: Good morning. My name is Jennifer Oldhan,
and I'm a sophomore at Barton Collier High School. I'm a member of
the Corkscrew Swamp 4-H Club. We, the representatives of the future
of Collier County, would like to thank the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, the county manager, all the county divisions and
department heads, the constitutional officers, the adults from 4-H,
the Collier County Public Schools, and last, but not least, the League
of Women Voters. They have worked together to make the Know Your
County Government program possible.
The past three weeks have been a learning experience for
us. We have learned about the future plans of our county, how we will
house and provide for the growing population and economy, and who will
oversee and carry out these plans. We have toured and visited areas
of the government that are generally overlooked, yet they provide
essential everyday services and comforts like that of the water
treatment plants, the Collier County landfill, and the wastewater
treatment plants. We've also learned about the vast amount of public
services that Collier County provides from the upkeep of our parks to
the health-care services that are provided. There have been sessions
about how they tax us, why they tax us, and who collects those taxes
and what they do with them.
Last, but not even least, we have learned about what
they do with our Collier County emergency system. This is important
to the people in Collier County because flooding, tropical storms, and
hurricanes are often common in our area.
Today we are looking forward to seeing the clerk of
courts and observing the court session. We are also looking forward
to -- we are also looking forward to meeting our county commissioner
from our area.
And in addressing the board today, we are able to add
another experience to our learning component, an experience that will
be shared with our fellow classmates, friends, and family in hopes of
educating them.
I have but one last thing to say to the group; thanks
again for your support.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess we'll see these young
people again at lunch?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yup, 12:30 at the museum.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the meantime they'll be
subjected to more of this meeting.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 16, 1996, AS "BUILDING IHMOKALEE
TOGETHER/CLEAN-UP DAY" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next proclamation is Building
Immokalee Together/Cleanup Day, Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lucy
Rodriguez, is she here? Come on, Lucy. Lucy's been very, very busy
organizing lots of different things in Immokalee, civic -- civic
associations and main street and all kinds of stuff. She's a very
busy person.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Informal mayor of Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could be. A proclamation --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There will be a slight delay in the
action. Put that in, would you? You got it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A proclamation:
Whereas, the Building Immokalee Together Project is a
comprehensive approach for improving Immokalee. The efforts -- the
effort includes community organization, education, residential and
commercial improvements, economic development and coordination with
state and county agencies; and
Whereas, the cleanup day is the kickoff event for the
Building Immokalee Together Project; and
Whereas, citizens, community organizations, government,
and local businesses are working together to promote and enhance the
liveability of the community; and
Whereas, the stage has been set to ensure a successful
campaign against litter and garbage through the gracious donations of
time, money, and goods from -- and this is a long list -- Immokalee
Friendship House, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, HcDonalds of
Immokalee, Immokalee Rotary Club, La Favorita Bakery, Immokalee
Bakery, Daily Donuts, Immokalee Disposal Service, Immokalee Bulletin,
Sunniland Country Store, Immokalee Juicy Lucy, Immokalee Winn-Dixie,
United Methodist Women of Immokalee, E1 Floridida Restaurant, Redlands
Christian Migrant Association, Immokalee Fire Department, Immokalee
Civic Association, Radio Station WAFZ, Immokalee Beautification
Committee, the First Bank of Immokalee, Immokalee Ministerial
Association, Guadalupe Center, Immokalee schools and organizations,
Immokalee ROTC program, New Beginnings program, NationsBank of
Immokalee, Pacific Land Company, Popeye's of Immokalee, Golden Gate
Rent-All, Edison Community College, Barnett Bank of Naples, Sign
Craft, Ritz-Carlton Hotel of Naples, Coastal Beverage Limited,
Holland-Layne Research, Keep Collier Beautiful, Collier County Housing
Authority, Collier County solid waste, Collier County road and bridge,
Collier County EHS, Collier County parks and rec, Collier County
community development and environmental services division, Collier
County facilities management, Collier County Sheriff's Department, the
Immokalee redevelopment task force, Able Care, Immokalee Alumni
Association, Collier Family Foundation, Collier County Extension, and
individual citizens from Immokalee and throughout Collier County; and
Whereas, these meritorious, time consuming, and
unselfish deeds symbolize the commitment and dedication for the
betterment of our children, our families, our community, and for our
greater country as a whole; and
Whereas, the importance of a safe and clean environment
is being recognized and organized through efforts such as the Building
Immokalee Together Project/Cleanup day which fosters community
cooperation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of March 16,
1996, be designated as Building Immokalee Together/Cleanup Day.
Done and ordered this 12th day of March, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second a very winded
Commissioner Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whew.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion and second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to say from the long
list, which I am winded, that this is truly a community effort, and
I'm -- I'm just really pleased and proud.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you want to tell us a few
things about what's going on? The time? When it starts?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: On behalf of the concerned citizens of
Immokalee, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the Board
of County Commissioners for their support of Building Immokalee
Together Project in joining with community leaders and the working
class and many citizens of Immokalee coming together for the same
cause to fulfill our dream for a better and cleaner Immokalee and to
instill pride in our community. In closing I would like to share a
few words with you from Eugene Wier (phonetic). All glory comes from
daring to begin. Together let's begin a yearly event to beautify
Immokalee for our children and our children's children. Thank you.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 10-16, 1996, AS "KIWANIS WEEK" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next proclamation is for the
Kiwanis Clubs. Is there a representative of Kiwanis here to accept
this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up.
I'm pleased to read this proclamation this morning.
Whereas, the Kiwanis Clubs in Division 27 will be
receiving an official visit from the Florida district governor of
Kiwanis, John L. Williams; and
Whereas, Kiwanis throughout Division 27 direct their
efforts in many and diversified projects for the betterment of the
children in the area; and
Whereas, Kiwanis Clubs throughout the county participate
in the immunization clinics conducted through HRS. The number of
children being immunized by age two are steadily increasing; and
Whereas, Kiwanis Clubs throughout Collier County and
south Lee County have worked as a team to help provide a better living
environment for the entire family.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 10th
through 16th, 1996, be designated as Kiwanis Week for the many
contributions all Kiwanians have given to the local area.
Done and ordered this 12th day of March, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, John C. Norris chairman.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(Applause)
MR. WHETSELL: Commissioner Norris, I'm Allen Whetsell,
the lieutenant governor of Kiwanis for this area. Our governor, John
Williams, will be coming in to visit with us this weekend. And some
of the projects which we have done for the local area include the
immunization clinics with the Collier County public health and Lee
public health units. We have raised or helped raise the immunization
coalition statistics, which we started out at 60 percent of our
children being immunized by age two. This past report for District 8
we were up to the 80 percentile for immunization. So in a short
four-year term we have increased our percentages for immunization as
just one of our projects.
Our motto for this year for our governor as he chose is
called "Reach for the stars and make dreams come true," and that's
what all Kiwanians throughout the State of Florida this year are
trying to do. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #8D1
STATUS REPORT RE RESOLUTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA)
LAWSUIT IN THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AUTHORIZED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is 8(D)(1), a
status report on -- to the board regarding Fair Labor Standards Act.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board. For the record, Leo Ochs, your support services
administrator. I'm here this morning to present the board with a very
brief status report on the staff's efforts to resolve a lawsuit that
was filed against the county back in December of 1983 regarding the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The federal Fair Labor Standards
Act is a law passed by congress back in 1985 which, in essence,
requires public sector employers to pay employees overtime for hours
worked beyond a prescribed work period. Typically that's 40 hours in
a 7-day work week for employees that work a 40-hour work week.
As part of that federal law, an exemption commonly
referred to as a 7-K exemption was written into the law which sets a
different standard for overtime payment for public safety personnel.
On the advice of -- of the board's labor counsel at the time and --
and since that time back in 1985, staff has processed payroll for our
emergency services personnel in accordance with that 7-K exemption.
Back in 1983 there was a number of lawsuits filed not only against
Collier County, but many other public sector employers throughout the
United States by EHS personnel claiming that the exemption did not
apply. There's been several cases litigated in that regard.
Mr. Bryant from the county attorney's office is here
this morning to address any of the specific cases. But, in essence,
as a result of -- of the rulings in some of those cases, most recently
up in Lee County, EHS management has sat down with EHS employees,
paramedics and EHTs, and has worked out an agreement that would
maintain the high quality of medical care in the community and try to
mitigate the financial impact on any settlement with the -- with the
taxpayers.
As I indicated in your executive summary, in essence,
the agreement provides for a waiving of any potential back pay due to
EHS personnel as long as -- together with a waiver of future
cost-of-living adjustments for fiscal years '97 and '98. In return
EHS personnel will retain their existing work schedules. The board
will continue now to pay overtime for time worked in excess of 40
hours, and that is basically the parameters of the settlement.
I'm very pleased to inform the board that a hundred
percent of the non-plaintiffs in EHS have signed the -- the agreement,
actively participated in drafting of the agreement and explanation of
the agreement to their colleagues. We sent -- spent the better part
of the day with the county attorney and our labor counsel and attorney
for the remaining plaintiffs in court-ordered mediation yesterday.
And, again, I'm very pleased to report to the board that it appears
that a -- a settlement with the five or six remaining plaintiffs is
imminent. And, again, I'm here this morning to answer any questions
you may have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions from the board?
Commissioner Matthews?
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What type of personnel in
general are covered under this besides EHS?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the 7-K exemption applies to
firefighters, law enforcement officers, and historically emergency
medical service personnel, although that's the segment of that work
force that's been contested recently. Your Ochopee firefighters are
treated under that 7-K exemption as are your Isle of Capri
firefighters.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Have we done a similar exemption
-- or have we asked the employees of Ochopee and Capri to also sign
this?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. We believe, again, that -- that
the federal law is very clear with respect to firefighters and law
enforcement personnel that we can use the 7-K exemption and -- and we
intend to continue to do that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it -- so it's only EHS
that's in dispute as to whether we can use that?
MR. OCHS: At this time, yes. They're the only ones
that the courts have ruled specifically on.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it -- I don't want to
belabor this, but it seems to me that when I was at an FAC meeting
last year that there -- there is a court case, I believe, from Hiami
or one of the cities in Dade County about police officers requesting
overtime pay for bonding with their canine dogs, number one, and,
number two, requesting overtime pay for their workout time at whatever
gym they happen to go to. So I'm just wondering. This is only the
first it appears of several different similar cases.
MR. OCHS: There's -- there's certainly potential for
litigation in the future that they may have a specific effect on
firefighters or law enforcement personnel, and we're -- we're watching
both of those very closely. There's a series of means tests that have
been standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act that you have to
analyze to determine whether -- and the courts will use those same
criteria to determine whether or not the 7-K exemption would apply.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But they're all moving forward
on a separate time line, all those other cases?
MR. OCHS: As far as I know, yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion that we authorize you to sign the settlement agreements
and release and take care of the necessary budget amendments.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that motion with one
statement. Mr. Ochs, the people need to understand that this contract
was a product of the employees of EHS initially and not
administration. Those employees are to be commended for preserving
the work schedule and their quality of service and maintaining it.
And I think we need to recognize that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner. I couldn't agree
with you more. Actually this has been an item that's been very
contentious and somewhat divisive throughout the country, and I think
it's a real credit to your paramedics and EHTs in our system that they
have taken the community's interest to heart here and worked with us
to settle this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any public speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #9A
REPORT ON THE 13 FT. EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT RELATING TO "VILLA
FLORESTA AT WYNDEHERE PHASE II" - COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO FILE A
LETTER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING THE ACCESS EASEMENT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is -- gosh, we're
already onto the county attorney's report. That was quick. Mr.
Weigel, 9(A) is a report on the Wyndemere emergency access.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. I'm happy to report back to you this week the progress
that I believe we -- favorable progress we've obtained on this
matter. You may recall this last week. I discussed and -- and Mr.
Jerry Dobrovolny discussed with the board members the fact that a very
long cul-de-sac street in the Wyndemere subdivision was lacking --
officially lacking in emergency ingress and egress that was failed to
be depicted upon the plat that was approved back in 1987.
In speaking with Mr. Tom Haloney, attorney with Quarles
and Brady, attorney for Wyndemere Farms, the original developer, and
Mr. A1 Viggiani of Wyndemere Farms and with the engineers of Wilson,
Miller, Mr. Tom Peek and John Boutwell, I have had provided to me for
my review a proposed surveyor's affidavit that describes and would be
recorded and also be depicted on the plat indicated two changes to
show what the plat should have been and should have reflected from
eighteen -- 1987 and onward. Those two elements pertain to a lot 34
of the plat, a pie-shaped lot, adjoining another pie-shaped lot 35 on
the plat. And on lot 34 what has been previously depicted as a
drainage easement would be noted that it should have been labeled a
utility easement within a 10-foot area on the north part of the
pie-shaped lot. And also in the north part of that lot along the same
area contiguous with the utility or drainage easement should have been
a 13-foot emergency access easement. And they have provided me -- in
fact, I just received five minutes ago the sketch accompanying their
proposed surveyor affidavit, a sketch showing the emergency
ingress-egress easement as it should have been on lot 34.
Now, I do note that this lot has been built on. And it
appears that a sidewalk may encroach into that lot. I've also been
apprised from development services that a wall of the home on lot 34
encroaches within the easement area. These are -- these are both
impediments to the full and appropriate access that should be provided
and would need to be cured.
I am confident, however, that the filing of this
affidavit and the notation on the plat will serve as a good and
appropriate record to the present owner, Anderson Development, as well
as any future owner of the problem that exists, particularly with lot
34. Beyond that I would request and my professional suggestion is
that I file a letter with our development services department specific
to lots 34 and 35 of this subdivision of the plat that indicates that
no building permit or any type of developmental permit or order should
come forth from development services for lot 34, 35 until the access
easement is either appropriately provided for on lot 34, physically
provided for. And if it's not, then lot 35 will continue to serve as
it does presently as part of the access easement area.
And I believe there may be a speaker. Mr. Dobrovolny is
here with whom I met this morning also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jerry, go ahead and come on
forward. I just want to -- due to prior board action, we basically
got the attention of the right people here, and they willingly took
the appropriate steps to resolve this. I am going to access -- I'm
going to give direction that Mr. Weigel has suggested to provide that
letter to development services to insure that the 13-foot easement
occurs on lot 34, and if not on 34, 35 will continue to function as
such. So I think that's a sufficient safeguard, and I just want to
thank the county attorney and Mr. Dobrovolny for his persistence on
this and --
MR. DOBROVOLNY: My name is Jerry Dobrovolny. I was
prepared to make a strong statement this morning. However, I want to
take this opportunity to thank Mr. Weigel and the county commissioners
for hearing this and resolving this in a -- in a reasonable manner. I
would hope that the resolution of this would be forthcoming as soon as
possible so that we can write this off and I don't have to come here
anymore. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you trying to say you have
better things to do, Jerry? MR. DOBROVOLNY: Golf.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, you don't need any
further direction than what's -- MR. WEIGEL: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any objection to the
recommendation to file a letter with development services?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have one question. How --
and this is going to be recorded in the public records?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, at Wilson, Hiller's
expense.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you need a motion, Mr. Weigel, or
are you clear enough in your direction?
MR. WEIGEL: I think I'm clear enough, and the record
reflects the intent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good enough.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 96-134, POLICY TO COORDINATE ELECTION PETITIONS - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES AND EFFECTIVE DATE UPON APPROVAL
We'll move on to 9(B), the proposed policy to coordinate
election petitions. Commissioner Constantine, you may have something
to say about this one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I did -- I talked to
Mr. Weigel this week, and we had a couple of things. I also talked
with the League of Women Voters, and I know there's at least one,
maybe a couple of representatives here. And the one idea that I
mentioned last week to Mary Morgan had brought forward and I asked the
League of Women Voters about, and they had agreed that it might be a
good idea, and that is an increase of the percentage required if an
issue comes back again within a four-year span so that rather than 10
percent, it would require 15 percent and 20 percent and so on, a
gradual increase to avoid abusive use.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your base proposal is to start at 10
percent?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Can I ask where the
verbiage of that change is?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Mr. Weigel may need to
help me. One thing I wanted to be sure -- and this just occurred to
me as I was reading it over the weekend -- that we make sure that it's
the return of the subject as opposed to the exact wording, because one
person can alter one word in their petition -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nobody would do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, perhaps you can
help me out with that.
MR. WEIGEL: I would hope that I could. Incidentally,
this -- this came back on the board agenda rather quickly obviously
from last Tuesday's agenda. And so I endeavored in the short time
frame we had to make some clarifications and -- and for the record I
would like to be able to make a few more as well as address Mr.
Constantine's issue that he just mentioned. I also had opportunity to
-- to meet with the supervisor of elections who had a couple
suggestions of her own, which I think are appropriate to bring before
the board at the present time.
A couple kind of prefatory remarks. I had attempted to
-- where the word commission appeared to have the word board inserted
or board in a possessive form inserted as appropriate, and throughout
this draft policy where the words in brackets ordinance or rule showed
up, I -- my endeavor was to strike through those. And I noted that I
had missed a couple places in the -- in the petition along that line.
On page 2 in paragraph numbered 2 on the fourth line of
that paragraph, there is a -- a non sequitur, the word have is. It
says "electors have can readily," and the word "have" should be
omitted. And on page 3 on paragraph number 6, again the words
ordinance or rule should be removed in the final policy. On page 4,
paragraph 11, I've had the suggestion to add at the end of the
paragraph following the words "24 months," which is the end of the
paragraph, "from date of invalidation," the words "from date of
invalidation" to be -- to be added there.
For your attention, on page 5 under subparagraph C at
the top, following that there's -- you'll note that there's a
one-sentence paragraph and then a rather large bracketed paragraph
which is informational which suggests a place where current ordinances
that do provide for specific percentage requirements may be placed
there for information purposes. I have not crafted language to go in
there but thought I'd bring it to your attention now that the language
I would suggest is that we reference the two or three ordinances that
we have for lighting and drainage districts and also provide the
proviso "or any others that may come to be created" just to put people
on notice within the policy that there may come to be some requirement
outside of this policy by ordinance, although I don't expect that to
happen once the policy is in place. We don't want to fetter the board
with its ability to draft ordinances in this regard, because this is
merely a policy to be adopted by resolution.
On page 6 of the draft policy, subparagraph 2 toward
about -- about 3 inches down from the top of the page is talking about
size of the paper to be used for the petition. And there is a bracket
at the end of subparagraph 2 mentioning or 14 if that is the board's
choice. I would suggest the board may wish to make a choice. The
operative issue there is what works well for the petitioners, what
works well for the manager's office for filing purposes or any -- what
is more wieldy or unwieldy, an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven letter-size
petition document or eight and a half by fourteen, particularly with
some of the postscripts that need to be placed at the top, information
and statutory -- statutory language that we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a thought before we move
on. Considering we're requiring the wording to appear on each page
and we're trying to make it as easy as possible, I think it would make
sense to have the extra --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 14 inch.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There should be no objection to 14
inch.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't find any.
MR. WEIGEL: And the question may be -- is that you may
not care which one it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: There may be -- but that's not your --
you're not necessarily limiting someone to have to use fourteen inches
or that you're not going to just out of hand by policy throw out an
eight and a half, eleven-inch one because it works for the people,
does it not work for us. It can be crafted to show both ways if you
like.
Also on page 6 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're on page 7 now.
MR. WEIGEL: You are?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Six.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking at page 7.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, pardon me. I'm reading page 6 of the
document itself, page 7 as listed on the agenda.
At the bottom of page -- toward the bottom of page 6 in
line 7, it has in quotes, county manager's determination of
sufficiency on blank date or patens date. The recommendation is to
put "county manager's determination of sufficiency as to format,"
because that's the duty of the county manager in his review of the
petitions that are submitted or prepetition that's submitted.
The word initiative appears throughout, such as Collier
County citizen initiative petition number. And a suggestion has been
made that the word initiative be removed throughout just so as not to
confuse the public or staff or anyone that this is actually a local
policy and distinct from the Florida Administrative Code citizen's
initiative rules for petitions that exist under the Florida
Administrative Code. And -- and that's the sum of my comments for
changes that the board might consider in -- in considering this
policy.
A second thing that I would mention is an effective
date. If the board should elect to adopt the policy, they would --
they would be utilizing a resolution, which I would prepare, and you
may wish to determine an effective date. That effective date really
only means anything in regard to any previous petitions that you have
on file right now. You may wish to as a board speak to any previous
petitions, whether it's for Naples Park drainage district or any
others that may not have met the qualifications that are here, but
they were gathered and submitted some significant time ago. And I
have had some citizen inquiry to my office as to what would be the
status of any previous petitions that happened to be with the board.
And I explained to the citizen that inquired that it would appear that
those are -- are unaffected by this new policy and that they are
accepted for what they are based on what they may have or may not have
on them, the clarity of any question or issue that they have, and --
and that was the extent of my comment to them at that point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things. First, I'd like to
put this in English for our guests here. What the board is
considering here today is a petition that will allow people in the
community to put questions on the ballot for election. In other
words, if -- if you want something in the community, you can now go
out and get a certain number of signatures and place it on the
ballot. So that's what we're considering. Maybe we should have done
that about 10 minutes ago.
My question regarding the percentage, economic
percentage, in paragraph 24 of page 6 it states that a petition that
is turned down by the voters shall not -- the subject of that petition
shall not come back for 36 months except as otherwise required by
law. Does this, in fact, take care of most of the petitions if it --
if we get a 10 percent signature amount that fails -- if the
referendum fails, which -- when you say accept as otherwise required
by law, which ones are we talking about, because that would almost
eliminate the required -- the incremental percentage point that we've
been discussing.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's the safety valve that I added
there, "except as otherwise required by law," because you can reach
out -- I don't know that we can come up with anything off the top of
our head that would -- in which there is an absolute ability to
petition ad nauseum or with great repetition within a short period of
time, but that -- that's rather absolute as stated right there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure that someone limiting
the requirement -- because it says take your best shot, because you
got three years before you can do this again, and that may be enough
without doing the incremental stuff.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the whole idea behind
this is fairly simple. We currently have no policy. We can either
accept things and put them on a ballot or reject them at political
whim, and this creates a specific policy. I think you're right; that
may cover the desire.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a couple of questions, Mr.
Weigel. I assume that this will not affect any statewide petitioning
process?
MR. WEIGEL: No. That's covered under Florida
Administrative Code.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And the second one is will this
affect any referendum initiative that the board decides to put on? I
mean, if the board of commissioners decides to put something on the
ballot, do we have to go out and get 10 percent signatures as well?
MR. WEIGEL: No, absolutely not. Under your home rule
power, Chapter 125, you have all those powers, and they're not in any
way --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So this is merely citizen-driven
petition drives.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, for example, a bridge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about a jail.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's not. Are there any other
further questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any speakers?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that we adopt
the item as presented to us with the changes mentioned by Commissioner
Constantine and Mr. Weigel.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Effective date.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Effective date, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: The effective date can be today or
tomorrow.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Today sounds good to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And reserve the resolution.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Effective on approval, is that
what we're saying?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'll amend my motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-135, APPOINTING MARVIN COURTRIGHT TO THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
Being none, we'll move to item 10(A), appointment of
member to the airport authority.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve Marvin Courtright. He served before, did a
very good job before.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to vote against it
because the city has asked us to appoint Claudia Davenport. I didn't
get a chance to input there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion passes four to one.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-136, APPOINTING KENT KOLEGUE TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Item 10(B), appointment of member to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, one opening,
one applicant. I move to approve that applicant.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 96-137, APPOINTING JOHN DOUGHERTY, JULIE BURT AND DONALD
YORK TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED
Being none, item 10(C), appointment of members to the
Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we have one of
recommendation John J. Dougherty, three vacancies. I'd like to
propose the second vacancy be filled by Donald J. York. Is there a
preference on a third or a readvertisement that the board feels
strongly about?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the Don York appointment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might suggest a third
person, Julie Butt. I liked the idea of a -- we have a number of
large hotel facilities represented, and that's a smaller hotel and I
think as a result still a hotelier, but kind of a different point of
view.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make that a motion that we
appoint John Dougherty, Donald J. York, and Julie Butt all to the
Tourist Development Council.
MS. FILSON: May I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Constantine, do you -- is
Julie Butt going to be in the owner/operator category?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have to ask the motion
maker.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of the three vacancies, how many
owner/operator vacancies are available? MS. FILSON: Two.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She'll be filling the vacant term;
correct?
MS. FILSON: Okay, for Mr. --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then I'll amend my motion
to indicate that Julie Butt will be filling the vacant term.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we have a motion and a second to
appoint Julie Butt to the owner/operator vacant term, Donald York as
the at large, and John Dougherty as owner/operator category. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 96-138, APPOINTING ELAINE WICKS AND GAYE STAN TO THE PARKS
AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
There are none. 10(D) is member -- appointment of
members to the Parks and Recs Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see one of the
folks be Gayle Stan. She's done a number of things with kids and with
recreation, not the least of which is the Gulf Coast Skimmers.
MR. HANCOCK: I agree. I don't know the other two. Do
we have a recommendation from the Parks and Rec Advisory Board?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we do. The recommendation is
Elaine Wicks and Gayle Stan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion for Elaine
Wicks and Gayle Stan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Dotrill, one of these applicants was -- the one that
was not appointed here today has a current contract to provide
services for the county. Is -- would that disqualify him from
applying for one of these boards?
MR. DORRILL: I wouldn't think so. Under the ethics
laws is only in the event that there is a conflict. As long as that
conflict -- they're not precluded from participating.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a matter of curiosity.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the only one they would
be precluded from applying for would be the privatization committee
where we have specific limitations on people doing contract business
with the county.
Item #10E
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION CONCERNING REIMBURSEMENTS FROM LEE AND
CHARLOTTE COUNTIES REGARDING TRI-COUNTY LOBBY COALITION - BUDGET
AMENDMENT APPROVED TO RESTORE MONEIES IN THIS ACCOUNT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Item 10(E) is a discussion and
direction concerning reimbursements from Lee and Charlotte regarding
tri-county lobby coalition.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. This is not a really
difficult thing. Last June when we approved the budget, we approved
fifty-four hundred dollars in expenditures for our lobby coalition
effort in Tallahassee. And somehow twenty-three hundred dollars of
that money was budgeted as revenue coming in from Lee and Charlotte
County. And what that twenty-three hundred dollars is designed to do
is offset a hundred percent of the rent that we -- that we pay.
Collier County pays a hundred percent of the rent, and Charlotte and
Lee reimburse us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we receive a check from
the other two counties, and it went into general revenue.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It went into general revenue.
And as a result we had fifty-four hundred dollars in the budget. We
paid like forty-four hundred dollars out in total rent. And there's
not enough money. So the motion is to make a budget amendment as
prepared by Ms. Filson to restore the monies in our expense.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the money was provided by
the other two counties?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give a little more direction this
year. Make sure we don't let that happen again.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We won't let that happen again,
right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine budget amendment, Miss
Filson.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine job.
Item #11A
BOND COVENANT REVIEW - AUTHORIZATION FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT AS REQUESTED
BY CLERK, WITH A MAXIMUM OF $32,700 COMING FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES
AND TO BE RATIFIED ON 3/19/96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is item ll(A). The
clerk has an item that he wants to present.
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Jim Mitchell. I'm the director of finance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Jim. I'm going to
interrupt you for just a second. And I don't expect you to answer for
-- for Mr. Brock. If he were here, I would address this question to
him. In our discussion to put this item on the agenda, it was
discovered that three commissioners had been contacted, had met with
the clerk on this item, and two commissioners had not in any way,
shape, or form. In light of the individuals we have here today, these
young people, that I'm sure communication and government -- this is
important to them as anyone. I think this is an example of less than
acceptable communication, and I'm uncomfortable being asked to make a
decision today. And I'm not blaming you. You are not the clerk. But
I'm uncomfortable being asked to make a decision today when I was
excluded from discussions and, in fact, no attempt was made to contact
me on this item. So unless Mr. Brock is here to clarify that, I -- I
have no interest in hearing this item until I receive at least the
minimum information that my colleagues have received.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, we can -- Mr. Brock is not here
currently. He is expected. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: If you would like to hear from him before
we make the presentation --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple thoughts. One,
having heard it -- and I understand your comments. I think we need to
hear the item, because having heard it is of some import. However, I
think also important is the communication you're speaking of, and we
need to clarify that perhaps as a separate item. And when Mr. Brock
comes, I would ask the same question. But I'd ask if we could go
ahead and hear the item, because I do think it's fairly important.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Mitchell, is there any reason why
we need to hear this today? Is there a time constraint?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. There is a significant time
restraint. First we have got the deal that has to do with arbitrage
rebates to the Internal Revenue Service. And it is time specific that
we get payment out immediately to avoid any potential penalties. If
you would like for me to go ahead and proceed with the presentation
that I have, I'd be more than welcomed to do that. If you wanted to
wait for Mr. Brock --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's right behind you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Brock is here. Very good.
MR. BROCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Brock, the question has been
raised as to why -- why you communicated this information with three
of the commissioners and deliberately excluded two of the others. Why
was that?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I did not deliberately exclude
two of the others. Contrary to your statement, I had to contact three
of the commissioners to get it on the agenda. The reason that this
particular item was not placed out in front of the public in the open
was that this county has all sorts -- all sorts of liability exposure
as a consequence of what has transpired over the last 11 years. And I
was advised by legal counsel and by the accountants that if the
Internal Revenue Service found out about this before we had taken care
of it, that we could realize some of that liability. So my intent was
to try to avoid that at all costs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you met with the three
commissioners you could trust, and the two you couldn't you left out?
What am I missing here, Mr. Brock?
MR. BROCK: That's your statement, Mr. Constantine, not
mine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not Mr. Constantine.
MR. BROCK: I mean Mr. Hancock -- not mine. If that's
the way you feel, that's fine. That's not my statement; that's
yours.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've talked about communication
for a very long time, Mr. Brock, and I want you to know that I'm
disappointed in the way this has developed. I'm disappointed in the
fact that you chose to communicate with a portion of this board and
not its entirety, and I'll leave it at that.
MR. BROCK: Well, Commissioner Constantine -- I mean,
Commissioner Hancock, let me address another problem that I have in
communicating with the members of this board. In September of 1995
with the investment portfolio -- I'm in the process of trying to
obtain bids on some of the bonds that we had, and I'm advised by a
Miss Susan Grasp (phonetic) back in September the llth, 1995, by
letter that one of your employees, Mr. John Yonkosky, was obtaining
information at the same time that we were going to Meridian for bids
pertaining to pricings on bids. So I have a little bit of concern
about information escaping the county commissioners' chambers, getting
out to county staff, and as a consequence, becoming detrimental to the
people of this county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's move on and hear the
item.
MR. BROCK: Would you like to see a copy of this, Mr.
Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May -- may we move on with the
presentation?
MR. BROCK: That's fine with me.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, may we?
MR. BROCK: Let me explain to you in general terms what
has transpired. In 1986 this bond began issuing bonds, and in the
bond covenants it is required that arbitrage calculations be computed
and -- to identify what arbitrage is, arbitrage is the difference in
what we pay on tax-exempt money that we get and what we earn by
investing that money. And because we are paying tax-exempt rates, if
we earn more on that money than what we are paying for it in a very
general concept, we pay that to the Internal Revenue Service.
And in 1995 the finance director in my office at that
time discovered that we had problems with arbitrage, and we went out
for an RFP. Three firms responded to provide us with arbitrage
calculations. One of those firms was Arthur Anderson, who was at that
time our external auditors. They were the low bid, and they were our
external auditors, and we engaged them to do arbitrage calculations.
When they went through the process of looking at all the
bond covenants, they determined that the arbitrage calculations had
not been done as is required by the bond covenants and that those that
had been done had been done incorrectly, and we had overpaid. I will
turn it over to Arthur Anderson; Neighbors, Giblin; and Jim from my
office to present it from there.
MR. MITCHELL: Once again, Jim Mitchell with the finance
department. Mr. Brock is correct; we have engaged the services of
Arthur Anderson to go through and take a total look at our bond
issuance requirements looking at covenants. And what they found out
was every bond that we had issued since 1986 had either a covenant
that we would perform an annual calculation, or we would have an
independent party perform the calculation on what is known as the
rebate date.
What I'm looking for today from this board is the
authority to go ahead and make the payment to the IRS. We have
calculated the rebate plus the interest through today. I'm also
looking for the author -- authorization to make the budget amendments
to not only recognize the current liability due to the IRS, but also
the -- from a financial state -- statement standpoint, future
liabilities that will be due the IRS, and also the amendments to make
payments to Arthur Anderson for the calculation.
The -- the amount of the liability as it sits today is
approximately $842,632. And that's made up of three components, the
current portion which is the rebate that's due on three specific
bonds, the interest thereto related, the fees that are due Arthur
Anderson for the calculation, and also those bonds that have
liabilities. It's just that the cal -- calculation date has not
Come.
The three bonds that are in question, one of them is the
1988 capital improvement bond. That one has a rebate past due of
approximately $233,300 with interest on that of $44,271 for a total
past-due amount of $277,571.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Past due since what date?
MR. MITCHELL: That particular one is past due since
September 30th of 1992. The second bond that we have a rebate issue
with is the 1989 Marco Island beachfront renourishment facilities
MSTU. That was a five-million-dollar issue, and the rebate that's
past due is $194,100. The interest on that issue is $19,051.65 for a
total this is due to the IRS of $213,151.65. That particular rebate
was due on September 30, 1993.
The third one is a line of credit revenue note, which is
known as D-3. It was an original issue of $2,920,850. This one was
refunded on April 23rd of 1993, which meant -- means that it was
discharged, and you would have 90 -- or 60 days to make payment to the
IRS. The rebate calc due on this one is $5,906.97 with interest of
$723.84 for a total amount due of $6,630.81. The total rebate past
due is $497,354.
The calculations that I have just presented to you is
carrying interest through to today. As Mr. Brock alluded, we are
significantly past due on these payments, and there is a potential for
a penalty. On these type of payments, the penalty is 50 percent of
the rebate itself.
We have prepared all of the filings that need to be
prepared. We're ready to file. We're just looking for the
authorization today to make payment.
I have gone through -- my staff has gone through and
looked at the fiscal impact on making payment today, and there are
dollars available in the bond funds with the exception of a few. And
that is those ones that were discharged prior to date. The total
impact to general fund reserves is expected to be $32,700. The rest
of the monies are available either in the debt service fund, the
construction funds, or the reserve funds.
I have brought with me today Steve Miller with the firm
Neighbors and Giblin who is bond counsel on this issue, also Miss Joan
DeMarco (phonetic) who is the manager for the arbitrage services group
with Arthur Anderson out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and we'd like
to address any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one. Who discovered that we
were not doing this appropriately?
MR. MITCHELL: It's my understanding, Commissioner, that
it was an issue that came about in the early summer of 1995, which
would have been my predecessor, Miss Kathy Hankins.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It was discovered almost a year ago,
and all of a sudden it's a emergency today? I'm not sure that makes a
lot of sense.
MR. MITCHELL: It's a time element where -- these
calculations just don't happen overnight. We had to go through the
RFP process to get someone on board to do them. Once we had somebody
on board, we had to go through and review all of the bond covenants.
We had to go back to 1986 and look at every transaction that occurred
in regard to these bond funds. The type of work that's done here, it
does not happen overnight. And I agree with you; it does seem to be
somewhat of a time element, but it is, as you can see, a very
time-sensitive issue.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, let me respond to that. In
August -- I think it was August of 1995, we identified a concern. At
that point in time we engaged -- or we went out for an RFP. It
obviously took time for that RFP to take place. These calculations
are not sitting down and adding one number to another one. It's much
more complicated than that. We went out with the RFP. The RFP was
for a limited number of issues.
When the issue became apparent that it was much larger
than what we had originally anticipated, we expanded the scope of it.
And, again, we expanded the scope of it based upon the representations
of the accounting firm and legal representation that if the Internal
Revenue Service discovered this before we had reported it, that we
would be in a much worse position in getting them to waive any
penalties than we would be if we reported it all to them at once.
That was a long, involved process, and we did it in a manner in which
we intended to limit the exposure of the people of this county to any
more losses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a follow-up, so, Mr. Brock,
from 1995 until now there has been no notification to the IRS that we
believe that we owe money and that we are investigating it?
MR. BROCK: That is correct, Commissioner, because we
did not know that until about two weeks ago for a fact when we got the
draft report from Arthur Anderson.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But between 1995 and now, had the
IRS discovered it, we would have been penalized; is that correct?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I do not know that for a
fact. We may still be penalized. It was represented to us that we
would be in a much worse position if they found out about it before we
had corrected the problem and reported it than if we took care of it
and dealt with it in the manner in which we have dealt with it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point is Mr.
Brock's office discovered a problem and tried to discover the exact
nature of that problem and is now prepared to report it to the IRS so
we can hopefully further avoid any penalty. And while I understand
some communication may not have taken place that probably should have
taken place, hopefully we can keep the two separate for the time
being.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did the board -- did the investigation
by Arthur Anderson require board authorization for expenditure of
funds to Arthur Anderson?
MR. BROCK: It will, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It has not to this date?
MR. BROCK: It has not to this date. I have
appropriated the funds in my budget, and you will be receiving a bill
from me. The requirement that this take place is part of the bond
covenants that you passed. And I might add on two of the biggest ones
the responsibility of calculating that rests upon the board or its
designated agent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Which is you?
MR. BROCK: No. I'm sorry, Commissioner, it's not me.
The clerk is identified in some of the bond covenants as being the
one, but in those two it's not me.
But something that hasn't been gone over by Mr. Mitchell
is that if there were some calculations that took place and those
calculations that took place were incorrect -- it was brought to this
board. The board approved expenditure of monies, and there's about
$200,000 worth of money that this board approved to be expended in
arbitrage payments which were incorrectly calculated, and that will be
presented at some point in time also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there was an overpayment?
MR. BROCK: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- a question that comes to
mind is where was the -- where was our external auditor in this
process, and why didn't they bring it up that these arbitrage
calculations weren't made?
MR. HITCHELL: Commissioner, that's a question that we
also have. If you look at the general scope statement of the auditors
that were engaged at that particular time --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which was Coopers and Lybrand.
MR. HITCHELL: Yes, ma'am, it was. They did have a --
part of their scope included verifying or determining that the county
was in compliance with all of its bond resolutions. It does have to
be noted that in fiscal year 1992 there was a management letter
comment that addressed the arbitrage issue, but there was no further
comments made in 1993 or 1994.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does that mean, there was a
management letter comment?
MR. HITCHELL: They identified a weakness in regard to
the way that arbitrage was being managed, and they brought it forward
in what's known as the management letter comment that's reported to
the auditor general.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In what year?
MR. HITCHELL: In the fiscal year ending September 30th
of 1992.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did they perform the external
audit in '93?
MR. HITCHELL: In '94.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And were they satisfied that we
were doing it right in '93 and '94?
MR. HITCHELL: As I was not here at that time, I would
-- I can't answer that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, let me
comment that typically -- and I don't know the background behind this
particular management letter, but typically if there is a concern
stated in a management letter which is no longer stated in subsequent
letters, it's a prima facie assumption that the problem's corrected
itself.
MR. BROCK: I think it's more than that, Commissioner.
I think it's stated in the prior years' comments. It says the
deficiencies other than identified below have been corrected.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we -- we won't know that
without looking at the work papers to see if they truly looked at it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are we doing that?
MR. BROCK: Well, we went back to the work papers from
Coopers and Lybrand. I did a demand to look at the records of Coopers
and Lybrand work papers for 1994, and I sent Mr. Mitchell and my
internal audit staff over to look at those work papers. And in those
work papers we discovered a letter that had been written in December
of 1995 by, I think it was the in-charge to the partner, Phyllis
Jones, which indicated that they did no arbitrage work in 1995. We
have requested that they provide us with that document and one other
document, and they provided us with the other document but have failed
to provide us with the copy of the letter that was sent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned there was an
overpayment --
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on a couple -- in a couple
of situations. Is there a way to recover that overpayment?
MR. MITCHELL: Working in conjunction with Arthur
Anderson and also bond counsel, we feel there is a way to it do it,
recover, request a refund from the IRS. However, we have taken the
position that we're dealing with two issues here. One of them is to
become current on our current liability, and then once we have got
through the penalty phase of that, we go after the refund. It's also
our understanding that anytime you request a refund, you're running
the flag up the flag pole, and it's an automatic audit.
We would like to do two separate issues. First of all,
we'll address the current issues due the IRS, which we plan to have in
the mail today overnighted to the IRS. Once we get through the 90-day
penalty period, then we'll go after the refund.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I understood from our
conversations before something that I think is important, too, to talk
about, and that is the reason for an add-on on this is that there's
some sort of like whistle blowers. You can get a finder's fee if they
were reported before we told on ourselves.
MR. MITCHELL: When it comes to bond issues, there is no
finder's fee as -- as with other federal type of whistle-blower acts.
With this one there's not. The reason we kept this one -- as Mr.
Brock stated, is if the IRS received knowledge that we had not been
managing our arbitrage properly, we would not only have the liability
that we're faced with today, but there is a potential for an
additional 50 percent which, as you can see, would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 200,000 additional dollars.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has our bond counsel or Arthur
Anderson given us any opinion about whether to expect a penalty?
MR. HITCHELL: Steve, Joan, would you like to address
that?
MR. BROCK: We've addressed it with them. I'll be glad
to let them address the issue. But, I mean, that's sort of like
asking us if it's going to be cloudy tomorrow. I can tell you from my
discussions with people that it has been indicated that the Internal
Revenue Service is beginning to crack down on arbitrage rebates, and
that was one of our major concerns, is that we try to deal with this
in a very expeditious manner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it a fair assessment that
if we turn ourselves in, that's a better situation than having the IRS
discover it on their own?
MR. BROCK: Speaking as an old prosecutor, Commissioner,
I always looked upon that favorably
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The last thing, just because I'm
not a stock person, I'm -- I'm trying to say this in as plain language
as possible. Basically what's happened here is that we borrowed money
cheap, and we invested it and made a high return. As a result of the
high return, we owe the spread to the federal government? Is that
basically --
MR. BROCK: That is correct. Commissioner, you know,
for fear of being criticized for not telling you something else, I'm
-- let's bare our sole. There is certainly the potential that
because these arbitrage payments were not made, that the commissioner,
Internal Revenue Service commissioner, could swoop down upon us and
say that these bonds that we issued, which we issued them as
tax-exempt bonds, are not tax exempt because of the failure to make
the arbitrage rebates and, therefore, retroactively then they could
make them taxable bonds to the holders. But, Commissioner, let me
also emphasize that I do not in good conscience expect that to happen,
but that is not outside of the realm of possibilities. If that
happens, then we potentially have the liability to the bondholders.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they became taxable, we
wouldn't owe the money then, would we?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's an either/or.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can't have both.
MR. BROCK: I am now advised that that would be
correct. We wouldn't owe the arbitrage, but we would owe the taxable
portion of the stuff to the bondholders.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And if that were to happen, what
would happen to our bond rating?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I don't --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't want to even
speculate?
MR. BROCK: I don't even want you to think about that,
because I don't think that that is going to happen, and I certainly
hope it's not --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's bad news, but we
have addressed it, and we have a reasonable plan for solving the
problem by Fed Ex'g out a check and a return to the IRS today?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, we are in the process as we
speak of developing and implementing a plan to insure that nothing
like this ever happens in the future.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have prepared a budget
amendment of what you want to do, because I have not been presented
with any information, and I can't vote on something until I see it?
MR. HITCHELL: We have not specifically prepared the
actual budget amendment. What we have is an analysis of the available
funds and the bond funds and where the dollars can come from that
shows the impact to each and every fund. And I'll provide a copy of
that to you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry I didn't ask this
before, too, but something else I would like, if you could explain it,
is the business of the noncurrent liabilities. I mean, the number is
really big here, eight forty-two, but it may be that a hundred and
sixteen thousand of this is never due since it's not current.
MR. BROCK: I mean, there's certainly that potential. I
don't think that's a likelihood. Maybe we can get it down some. That
depends upon our spending patterns in the future. That's one of the
things that we're trying to address and deal with and try to work on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, that -- the arbitrage
calculation is a constantly moving number. And the -- the first
reporting of it is in five years, and -- or unless you discharge the
bond prior to the five years. This number should be calculated each
and every year based on the monetary transactions within the bond
fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That it will be.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it will be in the future,
but -- therefore, because there's money moving in and out, interest
being earned and so forth, it's -- it's a constantly moving number.
It changes. So the -- these numbers on the noncurrent liabilities
could go up, could go down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what you're --
MR. BROCK: One of the things that we're looking at is
trying to identify expenditures that might be made for things that
maybe we're planning on doing down the road but would fall within the
window that would allow us to make the payments and reduce our
arbitrage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is five hundred and forty-six
thousand and two hundred one dollars and a quarter that you're asking
us to authorize today?
MR. BROCK: For payment of the rebate, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it --
MR. BROCK: I'm also asking you to authorize the
expenditure of $180,000 for the payment of Arthur Anderson's fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a flat fee?
MR. BROCK: No, that is an approximation based on what
has transpired.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That part makes me a little
uncomfortable because isn't it normal that we would authorize the
exact fee?
MR. BROCK: Well, because I have Arthur Anderson sitting
here today, that fee is not completed at this particular point in
time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all but 32,000 of that is
covered within the bonds themselves, though. You're looking for
approximately 32,000 out of the general fund to cover --
MR. MITCHELL: That would be correct, Commissioner. But
keep in mind that the -- some of the dollars that we're asking for
such as those ones related to utility projects, they would not be
specifically in the construction fund or the debt service fund or the
bond reserve fund. There's no excess funds in those particular
funds. However, there are available funds. There appears to be
available funds in the utilities administration, the 408 fund, so we
would prefer to hit -- go after those dollars before we went to
general fund reserves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's a legitimate
expenditure?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. As I understand it, you've got
five hundred and -- what was it -- for the IRS payment?
MR. MITCHELL: Actually the documentation that was
provided was overstated minimumly. The amount that is currently due
the IRS including the rebate portion and the interest portion is
$497,354.21.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HITCHELL: That's currently due.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then on top of that is another a
hundred and eighty to Arthur Anderson?
MR. HITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what else?
MR. HITCHELL: The hundred and eighty --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What else?
MR. HITCHELL: There is a noncurrent portion of the
liability that is recognized for financial reporting purposes only,
and that amount currently is $165,278.02. And that's -- that's
strictly for finance -- for presentation purposes only.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel --
MR. HITCHELL: What we're looking for today is a budget
amendment to satisfy the current portion of the rebate and the
interest along with the calculation fees for the services provided by
Arthur Anderson which would be a total of $677,354.21.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there any formal requirement
for how we have to process that amendment, Mr. Weigel? Can we just by
motion authorize that today?
MR. WEIGEL: You may.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I move that we do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, don't we have to know
from what sources and what funds we're going to make that budget
amendment? We can't just make a general budget amendment and figure
it out later.
MR. HITCHELL: That doesn't get down to the actual line
item, but I certainly agree with you. I'd like the opportunity to sit
down with the budget office today very quickly and identify where the
funding is coming from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I thought you just said
32,000 from the general fund and the balance from the funds and one
part of it from the utilities. It's not identified?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that was not specific enough.
There's a number of different funds that this will have to be coming
from.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, the one thing that we are
asking to happen is that this take place today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. BROCK: That we put the check in the mail and the
return in the mail certified return receipt -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fed Ex.
MR. BROCK: -- overnight to the Internal Revenue
Service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Weigel, how can I craft a
motion? I'd like to do that, but can I craft a motion without
identifying specific numbered budget funds?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you can craft a motion if you can
identify the major funding sources and then come back for ratification
next week of a specific pew in the church, if you will. I think that
that will suffice.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you repeat those for me
then, Mr. Hitchell, or Mr. Brock?
MR. HITCHELL: What we're looking for today is a total
rebate plus interest due the IRS of $497,354.21 along with $180,000
for calculation fees due the -- Arthur Anderson.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the source of those funds is
what I'm hoping I can get help in identifying.
MR. MITCHELL: The source of the funds --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can make a suggestion,
if we put a maximum amount as part of your motion to be included out
of general funds and then give a little bit of leeway on which bond
revenues we're deriving that from and then we ratify that next
Tuesday, the individual breakdown, but at least we'll have a maximum
out of the general fund that way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that number was 32,0007
MR. MITCHELL: It's expected it will be $32,700 coming
out of general fund reserves.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then my motion includes the
maximum of 32,700 out of general fund reserves with the balance to be
identified in the appropriate bond reserves and ratified next week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the total of the balance
and the general fund money will be --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have my sheet.
MR. BROCK: -- based upon this schedule.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of the motion, I'd
like to hear what that will be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's seven twenty-six --
$726,201.25.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's less than that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Do I have to also include
these non-current liabilities today?
MR. MITCHELL: No, no. Commissioner, I must -- let me
explain to you, we worked late last night, and I -- the interest
figure has changed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From what we got yesterday?
MR. MITCHELL: Correct. And I got an updated one. And
when we receive this, it will say total current liabilities. That is
the amount that we are looking for today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. Continued updates.
Oh, good, it's less. That's okay. So the total current liability
including the $180,000 due to Arthur Anderson is $677,354.21.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of which no more than 32,700
will come from the general fund?
MR. MITCHELL: That's what we're looking for.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm going to second it,
because we need to take care of this issue today, because I am truly
worried about potential penalties.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion maker includes it
will be ratifying the exact sources of the remainder of that -- or the
balance of that other than the 32,000 at next Tuesday's meeting?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I unfortunately am not able to
support the motion based on the information I'm given today. I
commend you for communicating with enough commissioners to get the
base understanding to get this approved today. I do not have a
financial background. Without the benefit of your input, what has
been presented today does not give me enough base understanding to
approve the motion. You've got your three votes, but I unfortunately
will not be able to support it for lack of information.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to suggest a couple
things. I think this is a very, very important issue, and
Commissioner Hancock's absolutely right. If he hasn't had the benefit
of full explanation, he's hard-pressed to support an expenditure for a
$677,000. But what I'd suggest is regardless of whether we have three
votes or not, I think it's important we take the time because this is
a pretty big deal. If we have failed to -- if we failed in our
financial obligations somewhere along the way, I think it's important
each one of us be clear on that. And if for whatever reason all of us
aren't at this point, we need to be because I think we want to avoid
any penalties. We want to take care of the problem now. But I want
to sit here as long as it takes to make sure everybody understands.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, my whole purpose for bringing
Arthur Anderson down here -- this is a very complicated process, and
for me to stand up here and suggest to you that I know the intricacies
of this would be ludicrous because I don't. I can read the bond
covenants that make the requirements that this be done and that these
calculations be done by independent sources. And that's what I have
done. And my whole purpose for bringing Arthur Anderson down here
today in front of you and the general public was to explain to you, to
educate you and the general public, what was taking place. And
they're here for that purpose in the sunshine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, perhaps my motion then was
-- was too early.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hold it in abeyance and have a
more general discussion because it is important.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am confident if I was given
enough information I'd be able to support the motion. But I'm not
going to waste the time of everyone in this room for the next 45
minutes being update -- getting up to speed on general arbitrage. I
mean, the first time I heard the word was something got to my desk
yesterday at 4 p.m. I'm not going to waste valuable time of everyone
here getting an update, okay. So I'm not going to ask that that
discussion occur.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me -- okay. We're going to
go ahead and call the question. I have one more question to ask
before we do that, though. The request is to bring the budget
amendments back next week. Will this be on the regular clerk's
report?
MR. BROCK: Sure, if -- that will be fine.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, one clarification perhaps
from a staff standpoint on just exactly what the motion is. It
appears that of all the issues that were reviewed, there are three
that have been identified as -- as where an arbitrage rebate is
required; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. McNEES: That -- it would be very simple from a
budget standpoint to identify the funding for those actual rebates
which I believe is the time-sensitive issue. There are 36 other bond
issues for which there's no rebate due apparently for which there's a
considerable amount of money allocated here. It may take more than an
hour or two for the budget office to go through for each of these --
they're all in different funds. They're all different issues with
different pay-back sources -- to identify -- I'm talking about where
the money to pay Arthur Anderson is going to come from. And I don't
know that that necessarily has to be resolved today.
So we may -- you may take this in two pieces. You may
take the money that's required for the arbitrage rebates; that's
easily identifiable, I'm sure, today. And I'm sure that Mr. Mitchell
knows exactly where that money needs to come from. Give staff the
opportunity to review the different pieces of this that go to Arthur
Anderson, and identify where that money might come from.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good point, but the motion is
to have them work with our budget department today and see if they can
have that back by next week. We have that motion and second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It passes four to one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take a short break.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, before we take
that short break, I would like for this board to give direction --
some of these bonds -- the two largest ones are the $200,000 worth of
arbitrage were it created -- because the covenants require the county
or a designated agent to calculate these, and none of them was -- as
early as '92 before anyone currently on this board was here. And I'd
like to have direction to the county manager as to how and why this
happened because we -- we need to safeguard it in the future should we
ever once again designate the county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Weren't some of these in '95
even?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the interim liability,
yeah. The point is is that we're a designated agent. And I don't
know about you guys, but I don't need these bonds, covenants, except
to go to sleep at night. And -- and I need to have some assurances
that I can rely on someone to tell me that we need to designate
somebody to do this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suggestion is to have the
county manager's office go through this and make sure --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Go through and find out what
happened, why it happened, and what we can do about it and make the
designation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But our outside auditor, I am going to
assume, is our designated agent for this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. HcNEES: And it's consistently been our
interpretation, if you want to call it an interpretation -- I would
maybe prefer to call it our understanding -- that the county's agent
for all of these types of issues has consistently been the clerk's
office and/or the external auditor. So there's going to be some
change, and if the clerk is now telling us there are financial
calculations that are part of these bond covenants that are now going
to be the responsibility of the county manager's office --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me suggest --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need to designate an agent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Let's direct the staff to
find out -- go back in history and find out who is our designated
agent so there's no confusion about it, and then we'll have discussion
with that designated agent. Take a short break.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-8, RE PETITION PUD-81-4(4), ALAN D. REYNOLD OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING WYNDEHERE FARMS DEVELOPMENT,
INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WYNDEHERE PUD (ORDINANCE 79-81)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) BETWEEN
LIVINGSTON ROAD AND INTERSTATE 75, CONISTING OF 480 ACRES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the meeting. We're
ready for public comment. Mr. HcNees, is there any public comment
today?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we'll move into our afternoon
agenda, advertised public hearings, 12(B)(1), PUD 81-4 sub 4.
MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Brian Milk. I'm presenting petition PUD 81-4, patens, 4,
the Wyndemere PUD. The thrust of this amendment has actually occurred
four and five years ago by virtue of language provided in the
Wyndemere PUD, which provides when 50 percent of the single-family
home sites have been sold, the property owners' association had the
ability to vote on whether they wanted sidewalks within the perimeter
of the project, which would be Edgemere Way, and the ability to
construct a bicycle path from the entrance on Livingston Road to the
existing clubhouse. In 1991 the property owners met and voted not to
install the perimeter sidewalk, and in 1995 the homeowners met and
voted not to install the bicycle path.
This is a matter of housekeeping. It would amend the
PUD document by virtue of deleting that language, which by --
historically has already occurred. Staff has had a public hearing on
February the 15th. The planning commission voted seven-zero to
approve this particular amendment. Staff has not received any letters
of opposition to the public hearing process.
The only thing I'd like to do is -- for a matter of
housekeeping is submit to you for the record five signed ordinances
that are exactly the same within your executive summary packet.
However, Miss Student had not signed the one in your packet, but it is
exactly the same. It's a strikeout ordinance that discusses the
amendment being brought forth today. If I can answer any questions,
I'd be happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, other than the obvious
changes, are they -- are the PUD monitoring folks consistent with
their PUD today? I mean, is everything up to snuff? No other
highlights, problems, questions, that you're aware of?
MR. MILK: Besides the issue this morning, no, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We already approved it. I don't
know why we need these.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to thank Mr. Milk for that
presentation today.
MR. MILK: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a darned good-looking
tie.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 96-9, RE PETITION PUD-95-14, BOB THINNES, AICP, OF Q. GRADY
MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING JOHN D. JASSEY, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM RHF-6(ST) TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
DAVID A GALLMAN ESTATE PUD CONSISTING OF 290 DWELLING UNITS, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE OF LAND FRONTING ON GLADES BOULEVARD, CONSISTING OF 30.45
ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO SIX ITEMS AND ADDITIONAL
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(B)(2), petition PUD 95-14.
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Nino for
the record. Petition PUD 95-14 is a petition to fezone land currently
zoned RHF-6 to PUD, planned unit development. The purpose for the
rezoning to the PUD classification is to introduce the opportunity for
consideration of a density bonus under the affordable housing density
bonus program.
The project is located immediately to the north of this
complex, and I'm sure you're all familiar with where it is by now.
But for the purpose of the general public, as I said, it's immediately
north of this complex. It wraps around the Galman dealership. It
doesn't have any frontage on Airport Road with the exception of access
driveways that would be into the project itself. And it is contiguous
on the north side to the back rear of the lots that front on Glades
Boulevard and extends to the east to -- to the west side of Tern
Drive.
The adjoining properties between -- between the project
site and Airport Road, that land is zoned commercial C-3. None of it
is developed. Across the street similarly you have C-3 development
with C-3 zoning with some development of that property.
To the south you have the -- the Pontiac -- the
dealership, which is zoned C-4. And further south you have the county
complex.
To the north of the property in the Glades. Along
Glades Boulevard it's zoned RHF-16. The property to the east, also in
the Glades. For a portion of the Glades area, is zoned RHF-6. But
then the property on both sides of Palm Drive itself is zoned RHF-16.
The request -- the -- the petition involves the request
for 290 dwelling units of which that six -- the -- the density here is
6 units per acre. The density bonus requested is 3.52 units per acre
for a total of 9.5 units per acre and subsequently the 290 dwelling
units.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, are they asking for any
impact fee deferrals?
MR. NINO: No, they are not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The only request they're asking for --
MR. NINO: -- is the density bonus.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They would be otherwise allowed to --
they wouldn't have to be here if they were asking for six units: is
that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct. That is correct.
One hundred percent of the project is to be set aside
for affordable -- for controlled rent structures, affordable housing,
which I believe addresses some concerns that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it does.
MR. NINO: -- this board has taken under advisement on
occasion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have some --
MR. NINO: I understand that the petitioner will be
making a presentation in which the number of dwelling units will, in
fact, be lowered additionally, and I'm going to leave that to -- to
Mr. Pires.
With respect to the project's consistency with the
growth management plan, the project is consistent with the future land
use element of the growth management plan. The density provided
within this project is authorized by the density rating system. The
project is consistent with the open-space element. More than 60
percent of the land in this project will be in open space.
The project is consistent with the traffic circulation
element. No road will be impacted above the significance test level
of 5 percent of level of service being traffic. The property is -- is
-- will be served with sewer and water. That addresses the utilities
element. The conservation and coast -- coastal management
conservation element is deemed consistent by virtue of the fact that
45 percent of the land will be placed into a preserve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. NINO: Therefore, the property -- the project as
presented in this petition is entirely consistent with the growth
management plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, I have a few questions for
Mr. Pires, if we can have Mr. Pires come up.
MR. NINO: Fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you bring a few more things
with you?
MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires, Jr., law firm
of Woodward, Pires, Anderson, and Lombardo with the petitioners and Q.
Grady Minor and Associates who are also the agents for the
petitioners.
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm aware of the conversations and --
and the cooperation between the petitioner and the Glades Homeowners'
Association, and I want to commend you for working hard with those
people and trying to get any differences ironed out before you came
here that that's probably the best way to do it, and I think that's
going to be helpful. I am in a -- in receipt of a letter that has
your signature on it that has a -- oh, a little list of things that
you have agreed to. It's dated March 8, 1996. Is there any changes
in the agreements that you have made with the Glades since that time?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. There have been some fine tunings
and some adjustments. If -- with the board -- chairman's and the
board's indulgence, if you wish me to go into that at this time prior
to the staff recommendation --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please do.
MR. PIRES: As you mentioned, Mr. Jassey has met with
various representatives of the Glades Country Club Apartments
Association; that's the association for this area. And based upon the
meetings with the representatives and the attorneys for the
association and based upon the rep -- meetings with members of that
association, we've come to an agreement with the -- with the
association, and as a result we are ready to agree to certain
additional stipulations to the PUD document today. If I could, with
the board's indulgence, I'll hand this to Mr. Weigel to pass out --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure, go ahead.
MR. PIRES: -- if I may.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now might be an appropriate
time to mention that I have had prior conversation about this
particular item, but it won't impact my vote, and my vote will be
based solely on the information provided in the presentation that we
hear.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same thing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I will say the same.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I too. I've met with the
petitioner. That's all that I've had --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think I have had prior
conversation on this, but that's okay.
MR. PIRES: And based upon that, by virtue of those
discussions and the agreement with the association, we have certain
additional stipulations that we're willing to enter into. And I have
a signed original copy here today to submit as part of the record.
The first one is that the maximum number of dwelling units that on the
30.45 acres will be limited to 260 thereby reducing it to 260 units
per acre, which yields a density of approximately 8.54 dwelling units
per acre, which is 2.54 above the RMF-6.
Furthermore, the developer agrees -- and this will be
part of the PUD document that's approved. Developer will place a
chain-link fence of a height no less than 6 feet on the north and east
borders of this property abutting the Glades as long as such placement
will not result in or cause any permitting or regulatory agency
problems in which case the fence will be placed on the Glades side of
the property line in the location free of man-made obstructions.
That's because of the wetlands issue on the north and east portions.
Thirdly, the preserve area and wetland area of 12.99,
plus or minus, acres north and east of the proposed boundary line as
outlined in the PUD master plan and as referenced in section 5.9(B) of
the PUD will be designated as preserve area for a minimum period of 30
years bonding on the successors and assignments of the owners of said
12.99, plus or minus, acres. Except for mitigation activities and
construction of the fence that we just talked about, no development
activity can occur on this area during said 30-year period, and a deed
restriction will be recorded prior to the initiating of actual
construction of the residences.
We've also agreed to number four about the dwelling unit
mix to -- it will not less than 20 percent of the homes will be one
bedroom. The total of two-bedroom and three-bedroom dwelling units
combined will not exceed 80 percent of the total dwelling units, and
no more than 33 percent of the total dwelling units will be
three-bedroom units. They will all be a hundred percent affordable,
but this is the mix that we are willing to stipulate to. There will be on-site management.
And lastly, number six, there will be a limited access
entry system to the development such as key-pad entry, card type,
et cetera, or other similar limited access entry system for the
residents. And those are -- really make that part of the record. I
have the signed stipulation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, that will become part of the
record. You have it signed -- your signed copy you can hand to Mr.
Weigel.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Pires, there's a couple of other
things, minor things. Once again, I commend you for working with the
Glades and getting all of this agreed on, but let me ask a couple of
things. First, Mr. Dotrill, if you'll look on agenda page 61, it
shows an accessway into our county parking lot. I'm not sure that's
what we would like to do. I'd like to know what your assessment of
that is. But my preference would be not to have that feed into the
county's parking lot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. It certainly seems
to be crowded enough as you travel through our parking area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that cause the developer any
concern?
MR. PIRES: No, sir, just consulted with the developer,
and that does not cause any concern. The accessway is a -- ingress
and egress.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On this chart or this map as it's
shown here, the thing right on the bottom, yes, that would connect
with our county entryway, and I would like to see that deleted. Would
the developer stipulate to that?
MR. PIRES: Leave it as a pedestrian accessway but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pedestrian is fine. I just don't want
__
MR. PIRES: Yes, we would stipulate to no vehicle
access, but pedestrian, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, because we would expect that
there will be some county employees eventually living here, and the
pedestrian access is fine. What we would be concerned with would be
cut-through traffic.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. That's been articulated, and
we're addressing it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There was some question at one point
about a drainage issue. But I think that that is probably resolved
within our Land Development Code, so the -- is our staff comfortable
with the drainage on this, that it's not going to impact the Glades
negatively?
MR. NINO: Yes, we are. And, of course, you realize
that the project will be subject to the SDP process at which time
detailed engineering and water management issues will be addressed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The last thing that I have is when I
was presented this in my office, I was shown a -- some photographs, I
believe, and maybe some drawings of the architectural renderings
perhaps of a similar project, I believe, in Orlando or someplace. And
my concern that I expressed at that time is that I would like to have
some sort of commitment as -- as to that will be the style of the
building that will be used as opposed to, say, the style of building
that's out there at Osprey Landing which look like Army barracks.
MR. PIRES: If I could have a moment to confer with my
client.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying no Army barracks.
I can go with that.
MR. PIRES: If I may -- Mr. Chairman, if I may, I
believe this may be the photographs. These are representatives of
other projects by CUD construction, make this part of the record. And
we have the representatives of CUD here if we can take a moment to
confer, and we have representatives of other projects in another part
of the state.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PIRES: The photographs.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Name please.
MR. SCHATZE: My name is Bill Schatze (phonetic), and
I'm vice president of CUD Construction. The pictures that you were
shown are identical to what we would propose to build here. We have
this -- I think this is in Stuart, Florida. That's in Orlando.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your statement is that you will use
this design for the buildings, and you have no objection to this --
MR. SCHATZE: No objection. They are fully
representative of what we would build.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. That's -- that's very nice
of you to commit to that on the record. That -- that was something
that I was concerned about earlier.
I don't believe I have any more questions at this time.
Any other board members? Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some. The entrance and
exit to this project, is that in alignment with the median cut on
Airport Road?
MR. PIRES: That's my understanding. And I think -- is
that correct? Yeah, it aligns with an existing median cut on Airport
Road.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So traffic will be able to come
out of there and go either north or south?
MR. PIRES: I believe it's proposed -- and possibly what
you want -- a entranceway they would be right in, right out. It's a
right in, right out on Airport Road.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There would be no left out?
MR. PIRES: With regards to the manner of the traffic
flow.
MR. MINOR: Grady Minor for the record. Right now the
entry is aligned with Calusa Avenue on the other side. That's a
directional median opening. The traffic here can only go north on
Airport Road. They can only go right out and right in. They cannot
make a left and go south on Airport Road the way it is now.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about
cut-through traffic then, if this board doesn't mind. If this is only
a right in, right out, those people who live in the development who
choose to want to get to 41, how -- how are they going to do that
without taking a right-hand turn and going to Glades Boulevard, take
another right-hand turn and get on Palm and then down to 41 --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Instead of the county parking lot
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Where if we were to open
this southern one, they could access 41 at the Wal-Hart entrance by
going through our little parking lot thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand the problem, but
I'm looking at neighborhood integrity also. I mean, you're going to
increase the traffic in the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm glad you mentioned the point
neighborhood integrity, because part of this is to try to reduce the
cut-through traffic that would use Harrison Road in the Glades, and
that's the purpose for closing this out as much as it is to keep it
out of the county's parking lot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm just suggesting that
they'll go up to Glades, down Glades to Palm.
MR. JASSEY: If I could address the commission for a
moment.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You may.
MR. JASSEY: For the record I'm John Jassey. To address
everyone's issue here, we are prepared to ask DOT to convert that to a
median cut so people will be able to turn left and go south on Airport
Road and be --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not DOT. That's the
county.
MR. JASSEY: The county. We discussed it with Ed Kant
at the county, and Ed's in favor of that. And that's a goal we're
trying to work towards to accomplish Commissioner Norris's request for
not going through the county. And your issue of, okay, you pull out,
how do you get to 41, which is certainly a big issue, Ed Kant seems to
be very cooperative to work -- we've all decided that that's what we'd
like to accomplish, and it's this -- if we get past this stage, then
we work that out, you know, in formal site plan approval, so on and so
forth.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While we obviously don't want
to increase traffic in the Glades, a public roadway is a safer place
than driving through that parking lot out there where people are
dodging and weaving and walking constantly. As you come into our
office virtually anytime during the day, there's so much hustle and
bustle. I mean, this isn't an issue of not wanting traffic in my
neighborhood. It's an issue of safety. And we're -- we're at maximum
capacity driving traffic through our parking lots right now, so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In any case, the petitioner has
stipulated that they would have no objection to closing that median
cut, and that they will -- they will work with the county
transportation department. I'm sorry -- to close the access into our
county parking lot and to work with the county transportation -- MR. JASSEY: To create a median.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to create a median opening.
MR. JASSEY: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have one speaker
before you go too far.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Pires, if you have nothing
further, we'll go to the public speaker.
MR. PIRES: Nothing further. Once again, we have the
planner and the engineers if the board wishes to ask any further
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. MArlin.
MR. MARLIN: My goodness, I got stiff sitting there.
I'm Earl MArlin. I'm representing East Naples Civic Association.
We're opposed to this granting of density bonuses for any purpose. If
there's a reason for a density bonus, it should apply to everyone. It
has been used as a sort of a bribe seemingly to builders to build
certain types of property and, frankly, we are opposed to that.
I know there's an area right south of 41 here where
there's a certain density bonus, and the reason they give for it is
that because of the danger of evacuation in event of a storm.
However, if -- if you build affordable housing, you can get much
heavier density. I suppose it's all right to drown poor people is the
only way I could figure that. The -- anyhow, we are particularly
opposed to the granting of the density bonus at this location because
it is a highly congested area, and we recommend that the zoning laws
be changed to abolish the granting of density bonuses. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Marlin, could I ask you a
question?
MR. MARLIN: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is your objection philosophically --
is your objection more geared toward the philosophical granting of --
of density bonus, or is it this particular location itself? Which is
it, really?
MR. MARLIN: The discussion we had was that it's both.
It's more the former, truthfully, but in this case we think this is a
fine example of -- of where a density bonus has been granted in a
highly congested area. There's -- there's no question that this is a
congested area because of the various things that are in it and
Airport Road so that our objection -- our objection is on both
grounds, but primarily we are opposed to the granting of -- of density
bonuses and particularly in highly congested areas. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm sorry. Maybe I missed
this. There is what; C-3 zoning both north and south of your
entranceway, is that correct, Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: C-4 in one location, C-3.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would the access of those
properties be allowed or encouraged to use the entrance to your
project, or would they be prohibited? How has that been addressed,
because obviously what Mr. Marlin just brought up about traffic in
this area was -- my predominant concern was that this is probably the
worst section of road in this part of the county. And with the
potential for the God-awful strip commercial that we all hate so much
to occur there, I'm a little concerned about whether they'll have the
ability to use your entry as an access to their property.
MR. PIRES: I think Mr. Minor might best address that by
his discussions with county staff with regards to transportation. MR. MINOR: We haven't.
MR. PIRES: I don't know if they've had discussions with
county staff, but we haven't determined that yet or had any
discussions, I don't believe, with the property owners up front with
regards to using that as joint access.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my suggestion is that as a
part of this approval that we, I guess, encourage -- I'm looking for
something a little stronger than that -- encourage a connection from
your entrance to the commercial properties to avoid increased --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Similar to like Kings Way and
the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Identical to Imperial up in -- on
north 41 where you can -- you turn in the entrance to the project and
make a left into a commercial center.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: High Point would be another.
MR. PIRES: If I can have a moment to discuss this with
my client.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The idea is otherwise they have
to come out onto Airport and go into the commercial is just to let
them --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It does two things. If --
otherwise they have to get access to strip commercial directly onto
Airport and Glades to the north -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotcha.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and directly on Airport to the
south. This way they will not be able to -- there's already a median
opening there. We can create safe ingress and egress there without
messing anything else up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, it's a
great idea. And my support for this may hinge completely on that
issue.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My Lord, this is getting heavy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear what they have to
say.
MR. JASSEY: First of all, may I address that according
to county staff and our records that the level of service in that part
of the road is level of service A.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I could care less.
MR. JASSEY: Okay. And that the TIS study works, you
know, with three hundred --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm talking about reducing curb
cuts in a very -- we can talk level of service. I'm sure it is A, but
for people who drive it every day, you know, it doesn't feel like A.
And this is going to be a more highly congested area. It's going to
continue to get increased emphasis. So what I'm trying to do is by
approving this project is reduce the curb cuts both north and south of
your entrance by joining those entrance opportunities.
MR. JASSEY: We'd be glad to study it and work with --
again, we only have a 60-foot entranceway also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that.
MR. JASSEY: But we will work with them and try to
coordinate together.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to want a little
more solid than that, than just work with them. When this is
installed it will be installed as a private entrance?
MR. JASSEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. JASSEY: It's a -- it's a gated private entrance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Where does the gate
Occur?
MR. PIRES: I believe the gate on this rendering is at
this location, the property line; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I be clear, Mr. Jassey? I
think all they're talking about are so the residents of your community
could access the adjacent commercial development when it is eventually
developed without going out onto Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one part of it. The other
part is about the other people who would use the commercial. We're
going to have a median cut there, okay. We're potentially going to
have a median cut there, and we're not going to have it elsewhere.
And a commercial strip for some reason produces a fairly continual
amount of traffic throughout the day.
So here's my suggestion, and see if the board likes this
or not. The section from Airport Road to your gated entrance should
be constructed to county standard and be allowed to provide access to
the commercial properties both north and south of the entrance.
Responsibility for median landscaping will still be that of the
developer. That's my -- my requested addition.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- let me clarify this then.
So you're suggesting then that the C-3 property north and south of the
entrance -- whenever somebody comes to development services -- I don't
think they have to come to us --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for approval. We're giving
staff direction right now that there will be no curb cuts.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, no, not that there will be
no curb cuts, but that I think this provides a safer ingress and
egress for that property. And if they do have to have a curb cut, it
will be right in, right out, only elsewhere.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from Mr.
Archibald maybe or our staff planners on whether -- just to get an
additional opinion. Since this isn't a recommendation that came out
of the staff, let's hear what our staff has to say about the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may not want to be this
bold.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, the access plan for this
project is, in essence, right in, right out. That's the safest that
can be provided. As part of the right in, they're going to have to
build a turn lane, a northbound right turn lane. To build that
they're going to have to actually buy property from the dealership to
the south and close off some of the access at that location. So we're
going to be accommodating some improvements not only for the existing
commercial to the south, but for this particular project itself. So I
think that if the board sticks with its current access management plan
and also sticks with some of its criteria for driveway design to
include throat length, both this project and the future commercial can
be accommodated.
Staff -- at the point in time when that future
commercial to the north does come in, we will be looking at trying to
create joint access. But keep in mind that it -- it may be difficult
because of the volume of traffic entering and leaving this particular
project. So I'm not so sure that at this point in time we want to
make the decision of going ahead and forcing the interconnects.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it a good idea to leave that
option open and have that option stated clearly on the record today?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it would be a good option to make
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all you're asking
for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm not mandating that they
connect. What I'm saying is I want to make sure that option is
available, because if this is a private road without any statement in
the PUD to that effect, down the road the idea that we can force a
connection is eliminated.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Not necessarily.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, okay, without --
MR. ARCHIBALD: It makes it more difficult, granted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, and I'm trying to avoid that
difficulty.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support leaving that option
available, but not a requirement. I'd like for the staff to work that
out at the appropriate time so just to have the option available.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The only problem we run
into, and I've run into this at Imperial, is that the homeowners end
up paying for the maintenance of the roadway that is being used by the
commercial property to the north.
MR. JASSEY: Our concern is that if a HcDonald's or
church or somebody that had huge traffic, A, we'd be paying for it
and, B, the congestion and everything for the disadvantage for our
development would be substantial, you know, the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But all we're saying, Mr. -- Mr.
Archibald just told us that the option exists whether or not we put it
in the PUD. And we're just clarifying that the option exists by
putting it in the PUD. That's what I'm interested in supporting,
nothing more than that.
MR. JASSEY: Okay. We can agree to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would just like to support what
Mr. Archibald suggested.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then the record reflects that the
petitioner agreed to that request. Yes, Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one -- one concern that
just arose out of Mr. Archibald's comments, and that is that we were
just told that you've been working with Mr. Kant about a full median
cut and that he's supportive of that. But Mr. Archibald is telling us
that right in, right out is the safest egress-ingress. So I'm a
little bit concerned about whether a full median cut is ever going to
happen.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Okay, let me clarify. What's been
discussed with our staff is a directional turn lane and not a full
median opening. And the reason for that is that your access
management plan doesn't provide for adequate distance for spacing and
location of a full median opening. So the best we can look at is to
see whether we can determine a possibility of a southbound directional
turn lane.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's the best that can be considered
here. But, again, right now the plan that is being approved shows
access constrained to right in, right out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we just got done having a
discussion on congestion or perceived congestion on Airport Road
there, and adding the left-hand turn is going to lower the level of
service, I'm assuming. Am I assuming incorrectly, Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: You're correct, and what we have to look
at is the point in regards to southbound access on Airport Road. We
foresee a large number of U-turn movements to the north. But to the
north of this project we have a series of directional turn lanes that
will provide for that U-turn movement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But let's not kid ourselves
into thinking it's going to be something it's not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's my point. We were
hearing one story and then another story, and I wanted to get that
clarified as to exactly what the concept will be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I know we're trying
to wrap this up. I'm not completely satisfied, so let me take one
more run at this. And if I fail, then I'll leave it alone. What I'm
suggesting is that between Airport Road and the gate entry, that that
section of road be built to county standards. And if the developer
chooses to dedicate -- give that portion to the county, so be it, the
county then maintains it. What we have done is secured an access for
commercial properties both north and south of that that won't need to
be recreated on Airport Road. That doesn't prohibit us from, you
know, requiring them to have certain accesses of certain
configurations. But that type of step makes it solid, and it voids
what is going on in Imperial right now, which is a privately
maintained road, that they are required by private access to a
commercial area, and now the residents are paying to repave a road
every three or four years that commercial activity is using but has no
responsibility to pay for.
So what I'm suggesting is if it makes sense to have
fewer curb cuts, that we require that that access from Airport Road to
the gate be built to county standards. That way they can give it to
the county if they so wish. It can be county maintained -- allow us
to access the north and south properties from that without a hitch
down the road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They need to put concrete in
if they're repaying every three years. I don't disagree with you at
all. It's just good planning. One of the things we need from time to
time is not have a long-term agreement. I think that's exactly what
you're doing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if it never needs to be used,
then fine. You know, we've -- we've -- we've got a bird in the hand.
We don't need to use it. But let's -- let's at least set that aside.
And, you know, it doesn't mean that the developer does not have the
ability to maintain it, to put landscaping in per this plan. You
know, I want to allow that to happen. But, again, that's the thrust
of what I'm asking. And if that's too much for this board to accept,
or if you think it's going too far, fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I would think -- I would
think the petitioner, if he were going to allow the commercial
property north and south of them to use this road and allow a curb
cut, that they would certainly extract from them a maintenance
agreement to help them maintain it. I think the -- the problem with
the Imperial commercial area when it was approved, it was all under a
single owner at the time, that it -- that it was approved, and this is
not the case here. And -- and, you know, I know it's a problem. I've
been there -- there many times, and it is a problem, but this is not a
single owner.
MR. PIRES: If I may address the board, Mr. Chairman,
with the board's indulgence. I thank you, Commissioner Hancock. I
appreciate your thinking process and thought process --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, you don't. I'm a pain in the
butt.
MR. PIRES: -- but I think actually the cure sounds
worse than the perceived illness because by dedicating to the county,
a couple things occur. First, the county standards -- we lose any
control. We have signage issues and other issues, and I think
Commissioner MAtthews also had a good point, that Mr. Archibald has
indicated that staff needs to study this as to how it may be
achieved. And they have the access management plan and enough other
policy statements out there to guide them during the SDP process as to
the access with this parcel to other parcels. And I think you are
engaging almost the reverse extraction. You're extracting it from our
client to provide access to these other people.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they were coming in, I'd
extract it from them.
MR. PIRES: In the world of flexibility, I think
flexibility is provided by virtue of your policies and transportation
and technical and engineering techniques that are utilized. As
articulated by Mr. Archibald, if you leave that as -- as part of the
review process, I think it would be more appropriate than requiring
the exactions that you're asking at this time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Maybe I
misunderstood. I thought you said that you're not willing to dedicate
it. I don't think that's what you were asking for.
MR. PIRES: I thought that was part of the discussion
was dedicating it to the county.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm saying, if it's built to
county standards, that gives you the option of doing it at some point
if you find a maintenance problem or you don't want to maintain it or
there's a connection that, you know -- forget -- forget the dedication
part, okay. What I'm -- all I'm asking is that the entrance be
constructed in such a way as to allow for interconnection with the
commercial parcels north and south at some time in the future,
period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Deemed appropriate by --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By Collier County
transportation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's a little watered down
from that. I wanted to be very clear about what I was trying to
accomplish.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I would recommend very highly that you
stay on that track and that the developer in this particular scenario
make some commitment to participate in those private cross easements
if staff so finds that they're in the benefit of both their
development and the future commercial.
MR. PIRES: The difficulty of that, though, is that the
extractions and seems like the concessions would be on our client's
part as opposed to the other property areas. Commercial I can't say
as articulated by Mr. Jassey on the C-3. High volume of traffic that
would render it difficult and even unsafe for our -- for the residents
of the complex --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not if our transportation
services department will not recommend it.
MR. PIRES: But that will be no -- say, for example, a
low-intensity commercial comes in there today to that site. Then
later on a high intensity and access is required that we provide
access by virtue of some cross easement to that northerly commercial
site. Then five years down the road a redevelopment of that site
occurs with very intense commercial. If that access point is already
there, then we are stuck with that. We have a greater level of usage
and very difficult -- you know, greater usage of the residents of the
complex. I think that's a fair statement. That's our concern.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the county transportation
services department would be responsive to it and work with you in
providing an alternative.
MR. PIRES: But I think at that point you will be in a
situation of denying access to somebody else. And I think you would
be in more of a pickle. You've already given an access point to a
property, and then you can't give it away with regard to
intensification. That's our concern. We don't know what's going to
be there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm hearing no?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What a coincidence. You may
hear the same thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any further questions from
the board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- just a comment that
to me the issue is very important to me when we're talking about
Airport Road perhaps among the top three traveled roads in the county,
if we can lighten congestion and if we can lighten the burden of 260
-- the occupants of 260 units from going out onto a major road in
order to go 50 feet down that road, then we should do that. That's
just good planning long term. And to not do that, I think, is in
error. And if you can't agree to that, I have a little difficult --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to shift the
financial burden to you of that road. There obviously is a joint
maintenance agreement which we have done many times -- that this board
has seen many times once a project comes in -- wouldn't have to be a
part of that. I'm not saying that you would have to bear the burden
of any maintenance cost but an increase due to additional people using
that entryway. Those maintenance agreements, you know -- and I'd be
willing to stipulate that would have to be a part of any connection,
or else a connection can't occur.
MR. PIRES: And I don't believe we have any difficulty
with agreeing that the transportation department staff and using the
county's transportation planning criteria, their access management
plan. If all those criteria are indicating toward having this joint
access with the joint maintenance agreement, we're agreeable to
following that process and the staff's transportation and planning
department's review of that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the closest I'm going to
get today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need you to clarify what
you are and what you are not willing to do because it seems like I've
heard you say both sides of it. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Archibald indicated, and correct me if
I'm wrong, that part of review that the transportation department
would make would be on this particular roadway -- and George can
probably repeat it -- on the access to this parcel would look at
possibly requiring that there be connections to the other parcels as
part of the existing access management plan and good transportation
planning, is that correct, George?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. As an added stipulation in
this particular PUD, I'm sure that we can craft a condition that
dictates that if, in fact, there's some advantage and that that
condition contains a concern in regards to capacity then, in fact, if
it's shown that there's an advantage, then we would expect the PUD
developer to provide cross easements subject to those conditions.
MR. PIRES: The advantage would be to whom -- if I may
__
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pires, can I interrupt?
I asked a very simple question, and what I would prefer is a very
simple, neat little answer of what is it you are willing to agree to
in regards to the access issue. If you go back and forth with
Mr. Archibald for three minutes, that doesn't answer my question. I
need a very concise answer as what is it you're willing to agree to
with access to both the north and the south commercial properties.
MR. PIRES: If I could have a moment. The statement
that Mr. Archibald just made, we would agree to that stipulation.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If our transportation department
requires it, they will participate?
MR. PIRES: Right. I think if some advantage to the
county and all those other conditions, however he -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Volumes, and that all has to be a
part of the analysis.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, we would agree to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that satisfy you?
MR. PIRES: Thank you. And also I believe as part of
this, if there is -- the approval -- requested approval and also
modification after the approval of density bonus with revisions to the
unit count and the unit mix as we have indicated in the stipulation
sheet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have made all those stipulations a
part of the record, and they will be binding on you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And we'll work with staff to
revise the actual agreement sheet itself.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I clarify that the motion
maker does include the most recent commitment that has not been
written down as far as reflecting Mr. Archibald's comment? Motion
maker include that in the motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think there is a motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There is not a motion yet, but
I'm willing to make one, that we approve petition PUD 95-14 subject to
the six items that were stipulated in this handout and the additional
stipulation stated by Mr. Archibald, that in the event our
transportation department requires or believes it is advantageous to
have interconnection, that these -- that this particular property
participate in whatever it is that our transportation department feels
is necessary.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask the motion maker; there
were two other stipulations that the petitioner made on the record
that were not written down, and that was, one, that the --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: To close the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The entranceway to the county property
would only be pedestrian and not vehicular and that the -- the
architectural treatment of the buildings will be as presented on the
photographs that they brought and put into the record.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, sir, I would include
those.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
I understand the concerns of the East Naples Civic
Association, and I don't know if I've ever voted against the East
Naples Civic Association. The -- the thing here is in discussions
with the Glades people that we have -- we have looked at a couple of
things. One, it cleans up that property, which we have had continuing
problems for years with homeless in there. And as all of us board
members know, the property owners had to spend many, many thousands of
dollars to clean that property up periodically. That would simply not
occur anymore. And the other thing is they are not asking for
anything from the county except the two and a half units of density
bonus. They're -- they're not asking for anything financially such as
impact fee waivers. They're going to pay their impact fees up front
like any -- anyone else. And I think in conversations with some of
the representatives from the Glades, the feeling is that the developer
has given a lot of concessions to try to make this an acceptable and
compatible project. And if this one is turned down, the possibility
that some future board could come in here and put in a less desirable
project with -- with eight units of density bonus certainly exists.
So with those statements I guess we're ready to call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And those opposed?
That passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you look good, Earl.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-10, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 93-13, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OF A LIMITED
NUMBER OF HIGH RANKING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is item 12(C)(1),
ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance Number 93-13.
MS. LEITH: Good morning, Sheila Leith, budget office
and staff liaison to the productivity committee. This item is an
ordinance amending Collier County Government Ordinance 93-13 and the
Collier County Productivity Committee to provide for the appointment
of a vice-chairman of the -- the vice-chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners and a limited number of high-ranking government
employees to serve on the committee and to further specify the powers
of the committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Leith, that presentation is
so well organized that I'm just compelled to make a motion to approve
the changes to Ordinance 93-13.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll be free to do that as soon as I
close the public hearing. Is there -- Mr. Dotrill, is there any
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. And I don't
know that this will ever take effect here. The vice-chairman's slot
or his or her designee, for some reason --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the vice-chairman should show
apathy or lack of interest.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or scheduling problems.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let me make a motion then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing so you
can do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Approve Ordinance 93-13 with the
change being that the vice-chairman or his or her designee be the only
additional change.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question that I
need to clarify.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You can't have any
questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't support that motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are going to be four
county employees of a high ranking -- I don't know what they are, but
my concern is that the productivity committee often does a lot of its
work in the daytime --
MS. LEITH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and -- and which are normal
working hours.
MS. LEITH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I'm a little bit concerned
about how our people get the remainder of their work done.
MS. LEITH: I think the chairman of the committee, Jack
HcKenna, would like to --
MR. HcKENNA: For the record my name is Jack HcKenna.
As Sheila mentioned, I'm the chairman of the productivity committee.
The way the ordinance is drafted right now it would allow for a
maximum of four county or city employees. Certainly I think there --
the county manager's office would need to approve this appointment
also as it would be taking away some time from the normal staff
activities. At this point in time specifically we don't have
vacancies for that many employees, and so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my discussions with the
productivity committee on this have pretty much indicated that really
as a normal course maybe a representative of the county manager's
office would be there. But beyond that if there is a certain
department or an area that is being looked into, that -- that staff
input would be advantageous at the meeting, that this allows those
individuals to be there for that. And if it's a long-term situation
that their help is -- would provide assistance to the county manager's
agency, then they can be appointed as a vacancy becomes available.
I would only see maybe at the most that a representative of the county
manager's, you know, being the only regular attendee. And from there
need would -- need would create the demand.
MR. HcKENNA: Our intent of this was -- again, following
the Mini-Grace Commission, to allow the flexibility if there were
suitable members of the county staff or city staff that would be
beneficial to the committee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are those people excluded from
applying to the productivity committee at this point?
MR. HcKENNA: Prior to this amendment, yes, they have
been.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They have been excluded by
ordinance?
MR. HcKENNA: They have not -- it has been a citizens'
committee, and we're trying to allow that flexibility to allow them to
be included. We've limited it to four county or city employees so it
doesn't become a government committee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many total members are on
the committee?
MR. HcKENNA: Thirteen.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four plus the vice-chairman out
of thirteen. I don't know. We're getting toward having the fox watch
the hen house.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have three questions. Mr.
Weigel, will we have to -- if we approve that portion of this, will we
have to rewrite some other ordinance that disallows county employees
from serving on county boards? MR. WEIGEL: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Number two, the -- how are we
defining high ranking?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good question.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a recommendation, Mr.
Dotrill? Division heads, department heads?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It also includes the city
council, and they may have different terms for the same position.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want to just eliminate
the adjective because there may be employees who are --
MR. McKENNA: We've tried to encourage higher-level
participants in the committee, but we haven't defined high ranging
per se. That's why we suggested having --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think just if you remove high
ranking and if Commissioner Matthews wants to reduce the number from
four to three, these are malleable things. Again, this is based on a
system that is working very well in West Palm, and it's an attempt to
-- to take what we have and mimic that structure here. So, you know,
we're -- you know, these things are malleable. They're not set in
stone.
MR. HcKENNA: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my other question is
would an employee be paid in comp. time for the time that they spend
with the productivity committee?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would certainly hope not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you say that louder?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Huh?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you say that louder?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think everyone heard me. Mr.
Dotrill, we seem to be talking around you without talking to you.
Does this, in your mind, create a problem or a staff expense? You
know, do you have a problem with this layout and what it may do,
either comp. time, budget-wise?
MR. DORRILL: My only inclination prior to this is
rather than focus on top executive staff people, I think there is a
wrath of talent, and I'm forever being surprised as to the abilities
of people like Hiss Leith and others. And I think, frankly, with all
due respects to division administrators, they're busy and preoccupied
and have too many meetings to already go to. And my focus would be to
look for mid-level management talent and -- and creativity in people
who can otherwise be taken away from their position for a couple of
hours a month, and I'm not particularly concerned if it doesn't exceed
that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm going to amend my motion
to eliminate the term high ranking.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought it had already closed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had some more public comment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ahh. In that case I will
withdraw my first motion and now make a motion that we approve
Ordinance 93-13, the amendments to 93-13 with the elimination of the
term high ranking and including in the body of that ordinance that any
county employees must be approved by the county manager's office prior
to participation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vice-chairman or designees also
would be changed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion. Is there a second?
MR. WEIGEL: I have a question, if I may, for
clarification.
In regard to vice-chairman or his designee, will the
designee be another member of the board or someone off --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or however we need to do that,
other board designee.
MR. WEIGEL: Designated by the vice-chairman. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We maybe want to include other
-- or other representative of the county commission designated by the
vice-chairman, whatever. Mr. Weigel can craft that. MR. WEIGEL: That's just fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to ask Commissioner
Hancock why -- why you would want to include in your new motion
approval of the county manager of whoever the city or county
representatives would be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, not for the city. The
reason I wanted to include that is because of the comment you made
regarding is this going to affect staff time. I mean, that -- before
we allow -- you know, we appoint a staff member to a committee, you
know, I would assume we are going to get the county manager's approval
because he knows that individual's workload better than we do.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we don't have authority to
tell staff what to do; he has to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can be in there or not in
there. The fact is they don't do nothing without their boss's okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think that it matters
that it be there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine, take it out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank God, the kids left early.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-139, RE PETITION AV-95-011 TO VACATE CERTAIN 20 FOOT
ALLEYWAYS AND PORTIONS OF CERTAIN CUL-DE-SAC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON
THE PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 AND UNIT - ADOPTED WITHIN ONE
CONTINGENCY
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Petition AV-95-11
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this was an
item I asked to be continued from 2-27. I have just one item before
you close the public hearing. And that is as part of -- I don't mind
vacating it, but I do want to save a use easement on the east-west
portion between 28th and Golden Gate Parkway and the little northern
connector going out to 28th and the -- I had a discussion with the
petitioner -- they had no objection to that -- before we want to do
that fitting with the alleyway project we're doing in Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Commissioner Constantine, I
don't know which of you would be better served to answer this, but by
eliminating some of these cul-de-sacs, are we then forcing access from
Golden Gate Parkway on some of the lots?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because I'm a little
unsure how the lot lines fall. Is it a continuation of lot lines,
center of roadway --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Let me answer
that again. It will give an access from the parkway, but I think
that's -- for commercial purposes that's appropriate as opposed to the
back way would have been via neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are all commercially
zoned?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, under this PUD we just
approved, the 27th.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is -- the parcel being
vacated, is it then deeded back to the landowner by continuation of
lot line throughout the same tangent that they're on?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And all I'm asking
is the -- the alleyway which is off -- actually off the edge of this
one I'm looking at, but -- but a use agreement still be allowed there.
Petitioner had no difficulty with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That answers my question.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers? Are
we --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the item contingent upon that one use agreement on
what used to be the public alleyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 96-11, COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEHENT ORDINANCE -
ADOPTED
Next item is 12(C)(3), the public nuisance abatement
ordinance brought forward by Commissioner Hac'Kie and Commissioner
Norris.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this brought forward to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we've all followed this
through pretty closely throughout the origination of this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Correct. We have public speakers.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we do have public speakers,
and if Ramiro would keep his presentation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nonexistent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- short.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That will do. Close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have motion and a second to approve
the nuisance abatement ordinance. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
All those opposed?
There are none.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-140 RE PETITION CU-95-25, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA, AICP, OF
FLORIDA URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING TRUSTEES FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH OF IHMOKALEE, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "RHF"-6
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST
MAIN STREET, IN IHMOKALEE, CONTAINING 4.79 ACRES, MORE OR LESS -
ADOPTED
Next item is 13(A)(1), petition CU-95-25, Dr. Spagna.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record presenting petition
CU-95-25, which is a petition to authorize a church conditional use in
an area zoned RHF-6 in the Immokalee -- community of Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you received any
objections to this?
MR. NINO: No objections.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. NINO: This site had previously been approved for a
church. That conditional use has expired -- had expired and
consequently --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have any conditions changed
since that original conditional use was approved? MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve the petition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A2
PETITION V-95-31, HICHAEL ROSEN OF VILLAGEWALK DEVELOPHENT COHPANY,
REQUESTING A 2.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK TO 22.8 FEET AND A 3.65 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
REAR YARD SETBACK TO 21.35 FEET FOR LOT 151 AND A 2.79 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 22.21 FEET FOR LOT 159
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE VINEYARDS PUD, WEST OF INTERSTATE 75,
REFERRED TO AS VILLAGEWALK, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 151 AND 159,
CERRITO COURT - DENIED
Our next item is 13(A)(2), petition V-95-31.
CHAI~ NORRIS: The usual questions, Hr. Hilk. Who
caused this variance? Was it our fault? Their fault?
MR. MILK: Villagewalk is a unique community in which
they plat each street with single-family lots. They develop each
street with a particular model. What occurred was a platting for this
particular single-family street -- there's 38 single-family lots.
There's 12 Manor models, which are thirty-five hundred square feet in
size. The lots are 10,000 square feet plus.
During the platting process they revised the Manor to
what they call a Windsor, which is a twenty-five hundred square-foot
model, that model on two lots, 151 and 159. The lots are slightly
irregular.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it's a plat problem?
MR. MILK: No, it's not a plat problem. It's just that
the house was a little bit longer than the building envelope as
created during the initial plat, therefore, the need for the variances
to both lots.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But could you fit a -- that's
twenty-five hundred square foot -- could you fit a twenty-four hundred
and fifty square foot or twenty-three hundred square foot -- MR. MILK: Sure, you could.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is still allowed in
there.
MR. MILK: But the essence of Villagewalk, they have
four or five models that they design, build, and the same model is
configured exactly the same on each street. This particular model has
a large window in the bathroom with an architectural-designed fence
and open area with a fence and a corner of the buildings. And believe
me, through the auto-CAD computer system, we've tried to identify an
exact location. This is the least amount of variance that was
required for each of these lots due to the configuration of the lot
itself.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's only two lots involved?
MR. MILK: That's correct. There's two lots involved,
151 and 159.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me if we're
going to maintain the hardship rule here, I'm hard pressed to see a
hardship. While they may only market certain homes there, is there an
ability to build a home there of still substantial size that would
fit? If there is, it's not that particular model, but there is that
ability.
MR. MILK: Actually, they could build a larger home
there. It's just that the up front -- there's 38 lots on the street.
The first six lots to the north and south already have the Manor model
built. They want to develop the remainder of the street, the 26
additional lots with the Windsor model. Therefore, it's a uniformed
development architectural-style housing type.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Manor model is small?
MR. MILK: The Manor model is a larger model. No, that
would fit but then you'd have the Windsor model, the Manor model and
another Windsor model.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Heaven forbid.
MR. MILK: It's a unique community and, again, I agree
that -- in fact, staff said there was no hardship and our
recommendation was that of denial. The consequences here are this
particular developer has a theme for each street. There's walkways.
There's landscaping. There's open space. It's a community unique to
the Boston Villagewalk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could they -- could they solve
their problem by replatting and this is just a more efficient way of
addressing the --
MR. MILK: This is probably a more efficient way to
resolve the issue, and we've been looking at this for probably six
months.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't -- I don't see any reason
not to do it. If we can accomplish the goal one of several ways, why
make them jump through a different set of hoops since they've jumped
through this set.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm traditionally Mr. Meany Pants
on variances, and two of these variances don't bug me because they're
the little jet-out privacy walls. They're not hard structure, but one
of them is a hard structure variance into the setback. I guess maybe
if the petitioner can -- there's got to be a compelling reason that
creates a -- a hardship, if you will, something that has a negative
impact on the neighborhood, the community, the street, and it's not
being shown to us. So unless, you know, I -- I have yet to find a
compelling reason other than we platted it for X, we decided to build
Y, and Y doesn't fit.
MR. ROSEN: Mike Rosen with Boston Homes. We've tried
it geometrically, as Mr. Milk said, to fit the Windsor model on that
particular lot, and it just won't fit. I mean, we basically
discontinued the Manor home. So what we would have to do is go back
and build two Manor homes that would be more sellable on those two
lots. They would be odd-ball lots. We have a production type of a
development where everything is basically the same, and those would
stick out as two odd balls in the middle of the street.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the entire street Windsor?
MR. ROSEN: The first 12 -- excuse me. The first 12 are
Manor, then the balance would be Windsor. And so we would have two
Manors stuck in the middle of the Windsors.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has someone bought lot and home
on 150 and on 1607
MR. ROSEN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So they're not built yet?
MR. ROSEN: No sir.
MR. FOLEY: If I may, for the record, Jack Foley,
Coastal Engineering. The configuration of these are on a cul-de-sac
lot, so if you do get out on the property itself, visually you really
can't tell with these variances. They are an odd-shaped lot. We did
try everything we could to make the particular model fit, but due to
the configuration of the lot, if -- if you do take an opportunity to
get out there and look at it, it is a very peculiar situation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me, I mean,
you can buy prepared plan -- you can have a home built to preprepared
plans and make minor alterations in it. Two of the three are for
privacy walls. They could disappear, and you wouldn't need the
variance. You could certainly do something to alter that situation in
this particular home which leaves you only with one variance, and it's
only for a matter of a few feet. I'm just wondering; surely
architecturally there's a way to alter it. And would it be an exact
replica of all the other homes? No, it wouldn't. But it wouldn't be
an eyesore. It wouldn't mismatch the rest of the street, which
appears to be your goal, and it would meet current code. But I don't
think we can just arbitrarily say, well, gosh, you're trying to build
the street all the same.
There's no hardship. Our staff has said there's no
hardship. And we can't just arbitrarily say, well, we're going to
waive it because it seems like a neat house. We have to have some
reason for it, and that's what I'm looking for, a little help.
MR. FOLEY: If I may, the Divosta Corporation is very
innovative in their construction techniques. And they're not simply a
production company that goes out and lays block and does individual
designer homes, if you will. They actually have their own forms.
They pour the concrete walls. Options are really not available.
Their product -- they're followed from coast to coast. I mean, people
build the solid product. They follow them everywhere, and that's
really their signature, is that we build a home. We build everything
basically as best we can. They have their own formers. They don't
really have a lot of subcontractors. They actually have the people
working for them. So their problem is very unique, and we're excited
to have them in Collier County. And they plan to be here for many
years to come, and I think that should be at least considered, if
possible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my understanding, is that
it's not like a custom builder. It's almost like you have a precast
mold of a home, that they're able to build them at a certain price
because they -- there are no variations in structural type. My
question is when you went from the Manor to the Windsor, didn't you do
the layout at that time? Didn't -- you know, before making the
decision to change the model, I would have checked to make sure the
model can fit on what I'm changing.
MR. ROSEN: Yes, sir, you're correct. It did on 24.
These are the only two that we found out when we changed our product
that wouldn't fit. So this process started, as Mr. Milk said, six
months ago.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the construction of the Manor
home, its physical appearance, dramatically different than that of the
Windsor?
MR. ROSEN: Cost-wise it is. From the outside
appearance, yes, there's a difference. That's all a matter of
personal perspective, but cost-wise it's really different.
MR. FOLEY: If I may, one other item for Commissioner
Constantine. The wall you were referring to is directly in front of a
bathroom with a large tub, and it's critical that we keep that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Curtains.
MR. ROSEN: The Manor home, sir, does or did sell for
almost $300,000, and we're finding out that in our particular village,
that's not a selling product. And if we come down to a Windsor, which
is twenty-five hundred square feet as opposed to thirty-three hundred
square feet of AC and selling for at least 50,000 less -- and so it
would be a hardship because we probably couldn't sell the Manors.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Market forces are not what we look as
a hardship, unfortunately.
MR. ROSEN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not in our criteria.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just question -- on this
drawing we have a 151, which is the one that has the hard structure at
the rear of the property. There's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It won't work.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It won't work.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because if you try to rotate it
this way, the curvature of the road on the setback line continues
parallel to the road. So even if you rotate it, it will stick it out
even further on the front.
MR. ROSEN: That's correct. We have tried every
different way on the computer to make that work.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Make the lot a little wider in
the front and rotate this a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the setback line will run
parallel to its existing curve, which means it will stick out even
further.
MR. ROSEN: That's correct. Believe me, we tried. I
mean, we wouldn't go through this process if we could have done it the
other way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not unsympathetic, but I
just -- I mean, our role is to follow certain ordinances, and we can't
just arbitrarily ignore them. And unless there is a hardship, legally
acceptable hardship, then I'm hard-pressed to just say okay anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would this do? If this is
denied, what's the result in the community? I mean, if you're denied,
what are you going to do with these two lots?
MR. ROSEN: They could either remain empty, or we could
build the Manors and try to sell them. They'll sit there. I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no other questions, we'll
close the public hearing. Is there a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I don't -- I don't have a
-- the two privacy walls -- and I understand -- I understand hardship
and everything. I -- because of their -- their relation, where they
are and everything, you know, you're coming in before you're building
and asking for something and -- and that's not a hard-structure
question. I don't -- I don't have as much as -- I really don't have a
problem with that. But where your structure will extend out and,
again, we -- we -- we've been trying to hold the line on this
hardship. You know, there's got to be a basis, a baseline that we are
consistent, and we've -- we've actually caused people to go back and
tear off the corner of a pool deck that they built. To then say that
on the front end when another product can be built on this site even
though its marketability is -- is subjective, we would be inconsistent
with some of our past actions, and that's where I -- I have a
difficulty. If we're just talking these privacy walls, I think that's
-- that's in a gray area, and I -- you know, I'm easier to look at
that. But --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to make a motion to
deny.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have findings for that? Fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because there's no defined
hardship and our staff has gone on record saying there is no hardship.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give me a hardship, guys. You
know, we're not hearing anything here. If it's there, we need to hear
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The hearing is closed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I can't do that.
MR. FOLEY: If I may --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, the public hearing is closed.
Sorry.
Is there a second on this motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm looking for a reason not to
deny it, but I can't find one either.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have any authority outside
of the black and white letter of the law? As the policy makers of the
county, can we -- can we interpret what's best for the community as a
-- as a finding for approving a variance, or are our hands, in fact,
tied by the language of the ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, they're not altogether tied, but
there are criteria. The board is -- has a responsibility to review
the criteria and make findings pursuant to the criteria so there is a
record either supporting desire for approval or desire for denial.
you -- you create it -- you need to create a record based on the
criteria either way you go.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rosen, I'm not happy about
the way this is going, but I don't see a lot of options in order to
maintain consistency on variances throughout the county and variance
requests.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think Mr. Nino had something to
offer.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hay I ask, Mr. Nino, before this
goes much further, the planning commission recommends approval? MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What were their reasons for
recommending approval, because they have the same criteria --
MR. MILK: It did not affect the public health, safety,
and welfare of the community. That was their biggest rationale for --
and because these houses were designed for a conventional type of
development with -- as a cookie cutter type with all the forms in
place. They merely pour a slab, raise it up, put it on the next one.
To change that would be -- it would be an economical hardship to the
developer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which isn't a legal
criteria.
MR. NINO: If I may add to that, undue hardship is
really a nebulous legal concept, and you can make undue hardship out
of -- I think the Planning Commission's position is that they can make
undue hardship under any findings of fact. I -- my purpose for
standing here is to advise you that staff is -- has prepared an
amendment to the variance procedure which addresses the undue hardship
and adds to your ability --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That amendment isn't in
effect right now?
MR. NINO: Not in effect. And then it follows -- it
follows some research with practices in other parts of the country and
the -- the -- the basic conclusion is that you do have more freedom to
deal with variances than is met in the strict application --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like as much as the
rest of the board to be able to approve this. But I think the
integrity of the process is more important than this individual
thing. Do you have an ability to build a home of substantial size on
this property? Yes, you do. Is there a hardship? You had ample
opportunity. I asked a couple of times while you were at the podium
if there was a hardship, and there was not one presented. Our staff
can't present a legally viable hardship. As a matter of fact, our
staff has said there is no hardship and recommended denial. So I
don't know that we have a whole lot of choice. While we may want to
do one thing, I don't know that under our own codes and ordinances as
they currently exist that we can do that, and I think we've got to
maintain the integrity of our ordinances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor to
deny. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second the motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more question for
you. Mr. Nino, what you just said, when is that coming before the
board for change to the variance procedure?
MR. NINO: The next LDC cycle which the Planning
Commission will take up within the next couple of weeks, and we'll be
coming to you in May, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it's going to ease this
problem --
MR. NINO: It's going to ease -- it's going to address
the problem and remove the requirement, quite frankly, for undue
hardship as it applies to nonuse variances, which is the practice
throughout the major part of the country. The undue hardship --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll get to that.
MR. NINO: -- is imposed by this board, not by case
law.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If this is denied today, can the
petitioner bring it back under the changed rules?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or might they need to withdraw
it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Might they need to withdraw and
come back after the change?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that change actually
happens.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can they -- can they refile, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: To answer the question, yes, they could
refile, but please note that it's not a fait accompli that the
proposed rule changes are going to meet legal sufficiency review.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's another thing. It hasn't
passed yet. It's got to be passed into law. In the meantime we're
dealing with a situation -- we have to deal with the situation as it's
presented here today. We have a motion and a second on that. All
those in favor of the motion, please say aye.
And those opposed?
That motion passes three to two for denial.
MR. FOLEY: May I ask a question? Can we bring this
back? I didn't understand the answer to that should this be adopted
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, I believe, said that you
may bring it back at your convenience.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Foley, I would like to -- to
meet with you on that, because I think there may be -- looking at the
community, the way the community develops, there may be some reasoning
there that, in fact, has an adverse effect on the future property
owners on that street. So I -- again, you know, like I said, it
wasn't a comfortable decision, but sticking to what we have done in
the past, I didn't have much of a choice today.
MR. FOLEY: Understood. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We were trying --
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- we're down to the end of our
agenda here today. We're down to the communications section.
Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to tell you I really
like all of you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I love you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not getting my boat.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There was some comments a while
back about syrup.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, anything?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two items. One I
think we discussed previously but having to do with the Intellinet
Challenge and all of the inquiries came in via the 800 number on
that. There has -- have been -- has been -- has been inquiries as to
whether or not they can get that list. It's my understanding for two
reasons we've said no. One is we're not prepared to have mailing
lists available at this particular time, but also that that money was
granted to a group other than the county and what -- what response
they got is it's theirs and not necessarily the county and as a result
not available to the public. And -- but I think we need to have
perhaps from Mr. Weigel something in writing on that so if -- I know
there's some inquiries now, but if future inquiries come in, we have a
solid regular policy or answer for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I would encourage that
next year if there is county funding for next year's event and there
are phone calls generated, people be asked would you like to receive
additional information. And if they say, yes, then that's a separate
mailing list, and that goes out to whoever wishes to pay for the copy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I'd hate to be
encouraging junk mail. Second item is -- and the last thing I want to
do is reopen our whole situation into cash management. However, in
today's paper there was the comp. time issue, and I'm going to meet
with the county manager in regards to that. But I certainly hope that
just in general regards that for 106,000 or 108,000 or whatever we're
paying you a year now, you're not limiting that to eight to five, and
I don't think that's the case. But I hope that's not the case, and I
hope everything that goes above and beyond that isn't being tucked
away expected to be compensated for, because I think for the position
and for the kind of money, a little bit of extra time now and again is
warranted and expected as part of the job.
The last thing I want to do is reopen that whole thing,
but I think we need to make sure everyone's clear on that so that it
doesn't just grow into a little issue of its own.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not exactly the last thing
because you just reopened it. Mr. Dotrill, do you have anything
further today?
MR. DORRILL: I'll offer a brief response to that.
Then, yes, I do have one thing I want to talk to you about. I think
that if you'll check the various correspondence between my office and
the clerk and the clerk's attorney, they're of the opinion that the
records that I keep are the most expansive and complete records of any
public official so that I -- I do account for all of -- of my time.
And the answer to your first question is on average I
arrive to work between 7:30 and 8:15 and on average, stay well after
five o'clock. I don't log any of that. And I think, frankly, being
county manager is a 24-hour-a-day job. And, in fact, only for those
extraordinary requests or evening meetings or special speaking
engagements that occur before or after work do those get logged. And
on average I'll be willing to say that only less than half of that is
-- is ever taken in any way. So you're -- you're getting more --
more for your money than just a 40-hour-week position.
Item #15
STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS
The one thing that I do have today is the commission
budgeted $170,000 this year for a -- a new piece of drainage fighting
machinery -- and two things. It came in significantly under budget,
almost 10 percent below budget. You bought a piece of Hyundai
(phonetic) equipment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only because it wasn't available,
made in the USA.
MR. DORRILL: It is, but John Deer and Caterpillar were
not as competitive, and my understanding is that it will arrive this
week. And just because we don't buy a lot of pieces of heavy
equipment that are that expensive, that when it arrives we will make
it available here one day depending on its date of delivery.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Test driving.
MR. DORRILL: The affinity that Commissioner Matthews
and Hac'Kie have for equipment picture taking, if you all are here
that day, I'd like for you to see it before it goes out into the field
because it probably will not be back, and there's a lot of work that's
already been scheduled.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It will be really dirty, and we
won't want to get on it then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, just leave the key in it.
We might want to try.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: I'm ready for lunch.
***** 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
LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.359
"NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF COURSE" LOCATED IN SECTIONS 4, 9 AND 10, T50S,
R26E
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-128 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50420-012; OWNER OF
RECORD - DELTONA CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-129 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50420-011; OWNER OF
RECORD - DELTONA CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A4
LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.558
"GREY OAKS - PHASE 1B, LAKE #22 LOCATED IN SECTIONS 24 AND 25, T495,
R25E
See Pages
Item #16A5
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND COVE" - WITH STIPULATIONS, PERFORMANCE
BOND & CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1
REJECT BID NO. S95-2435, SURPLUS SCRAP METAL AND SURPLUS CONCRETE
POLES
Item #1682 - This item was withdrawn
Item #1683
RESOLUTION 96-130 RE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK,
UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD PROJECT, CIE NO. 055
See Pages
Item #16B4 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B5
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FROM THREE (3) PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED
IN TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, SECTION 15, ALSO KNOWN AS IMPERIAL GOLF
COURSE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL ALLOW THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO ENCLOSE AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING DITCH -
WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B6
PROPOSAL TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AT THE GLADES DISTRIBUTION
COMPLEX TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,481.75
Item #16B7
WORK ORDER TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR WATER AND SEWER
IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
See Pages
Item #16C1
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
IMPACT FEES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $159,217.00
Item #16D1
AWARD BID NO. 96-2488 FOR ROOFING REPAIRS AND INSPECTION SERVICES - TO
CROWTHER ROOFING & FLORIDA SERVICE ROOFING
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 96-131 AFFIRMING THE POSTING OF SIGNAGE THAT REGULATES
STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING OF VEHICLES AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX; ALSO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
DRAFT AND ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND COUNTY
ORDINANCE 80-47, AS AMENDED, AND THEREBY INCREASE PARKING VIOLATION
FINES FOR ALL NON-HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATIONS FROM FIVE DOLLARS TO
TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE POSTING OF SIGNS THAT
DESIGNATE AREAS AS VEHICLE TOW-AWAY ZONES
See Pages
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-132 ADDING UNITS TO THE 1996 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION CORRESPONDING TO THIS
RESOLUTION
See Pages
Item #16D4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST VARIOUS REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
See Pages
Item #16D5
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR REFUNDS AS
APPROPRIATE
See Pages
Item #16El
AWARD BID NO. 96-2478 FOR THE PRINTING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS' WEEKLY AGENDA TO KOZHIK KOPIES - WITH THURSDAY DEADLINE
& COST PER COPY OF $.31
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT #96-269
Item #16E3
CORRECTED PROJECT CODE IDENTIFIED AS 194-101540-88200-10215 ON FISCAL
IMPACT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR CONTRACT WITH NAPLES AREA CONVENTION
AND VISITORS BUREAU OF CATEGORY B TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995
Real Property
No. Dated
207 02/26/96
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1663
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
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE CARRY FORWARD IN COUNTYWIDE CAPITAL
FUND (301) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,900
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 96-133 AND CWS-96-3 SPLITTING THE WATER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR ACCOUNT NO. 119506 LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (PROJECT NO. 38000)
See Pages
Item #1612
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 51000, ACCOUNT NO.
213510
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan