BCC Minutes 03/18/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: Hike HcNees, Acting County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Going to call to order
the Tuesday, March 18th Board of County Commissioners meeting.
This morning, it's our pleasure for the invocation to
have Reverend Jim Cues of the East Naples United Methodist Church.
And after Mr. Cues gives us the invocation this morning, Mr. McNees
will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Good morning, Mr. Cues.
REVEREND CUES: Good morning. It's a pleasure to come
here and share with you. We pray for you everyday that -- we're in
our church right next door. So let us bow and pray.
Creator of all that is, we pause for just a moment this
day to give you thanks for this beautiful place where we live. We
pray, God, that you would bring your wisdom upon these commissioners
and those who make decisions that will help other people.
On this day we offer a special prayer for Joe Nemaczek,
a young man from this community fighting for his life in Miami, that
your healing mercies would be upon his body, that your presence would
be felt by his family.
And we ask this all, oh God, in your name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again, Reverend Cues, and
to the East Naples United Methodist Church. You're a great neighbor,
and we enjoy having you there. Thank you.
Mr. McNees, what kind of changes do we have this
morning?
MR. McNEES: Morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. We
have only two this morning, an add item from your Citizens County
Manager Screening Committee, which would become Item 10(F), which is
their final report.
We have one item under BCC Communications, Commissioner
Hac'Kie, discussion of the landfill and the South Regional Water
Treatment Plant. Those would be the only changes recommended so far.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Discussion of what?
MR. HcNEES: The county landfill and the South Regional
Water Treatment Plant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Help me understand. Our list
of changes shows 8(A)(1) being moved to 10(F).
MR. HcNEES: Oh, my list of changes has that change
removed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: We're not changing that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. 8(A)(1) will stay where it is;
so then 10(F) is the -- I had Development Services Advisory Committee
Annual Report. That's not correct. That will now be -- 10(F) is now
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: County manager.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: County manager.
MR. HcNEES: Okay. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then 10(G) is Commissioner
Hac'Kie's add-on discussion item.
MR. HcNEES: All right. We had that under -- actually
under BCC communications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. McNEES: We can add it either place.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't possibly wait two
hours. What's that going to be about, Pam?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Simply asking about the status of
the scrubbers at the south treatment plant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that will remain under BCC
communication?
Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, any changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as
amended.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second, since I have no changes.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Seeing none, Item 4.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of February 25, 1997, regular
meeting.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait for the court reporter to catch
up with your words.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You should do a FedEx
commercial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's unanimous.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CONTINENTIAL CABLEVISION AS A PROVIDER OF
FAMILY VALUED RPOGRA_MHING AND ENTERTAINMENT BY OFFERING THE DISNEY
CHANNEL WITH BASIC SERVICE - ADOPTED
Item 5(A)(1), proclamations. It's my pleasure this
morning to have a very distinguished guest this morning, the one, the
only, Hickey Mouse is here with us today.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With him is a similar individual in
stature, Mr. Ed Garcia. I meant professional stature, Ed.
Good morning. And it's my pleasure this morning to read
a proclamation that involves our good friend Hickey.
Whereas, children have greater access to television
today and watch more of the medium on a daily basis; and
Whereas, families are longing for better programs
depicting values, education, and learning of life skills for their
children or grandchildren; and
Whereas, programming that is appropriate for the entire
family to watch is much needed in today's society; and
Whereas, we as a community applaud the efforts of
organizations and businesses such as Disney Channel, which acknowledge
that television viewing can be fun and educational.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we recognize
Continental Cablevision as a provider of family-valued programming and
entertainment by offering the Disney Channel with basic service on
Channel 60 to the citizens of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 18th day of March 1997, Timothy L.
Hancock, Chairman.
And, colleagues, I move this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Hickey, congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Ed, we have another one for
Continental also. And as a father of an ll-month old, thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, thank you.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: A little something for each of
you to remind you to bring home the magic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that programming change is
effective when?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in effect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Immediately? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bye, Mickey.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will come see you at your house
real soon.
MR. GARCIA: I just wanted to say thank you on behalf of
the more than 300 employees of Continental Cablevision of Southwest
Florida. It is an honor to receive this proclamation recognizing our
commitment to family-valued, quality programming on Channel 60 as seen
on Disney Channel. And it has been in effect since January 1st
throughout most of Collier County for the Collier County citizens to
enjoy that programming.
Thank you for the time and for today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And for the record that
was Ed Garcia.
Item #5A2
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING MARCH 23-29, 1997, AS PUBLIC LIBRARY VOLUNTEER
WEEK - ADOPTED
Our next item this morning, we have a second
proclamation. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. This is concerning the
Library Volunteer Week, and is Fran Hays here? Fran and, let's see,
Anne Schuch, Bob Smith, Frances Lease, Charles Wright, Gwen Hayes.
Are all of you here? Wow, we have a whole crew here today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the library closed, or --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Come right on up here. You have
to turn around and get on national television here, satellite beamed
across the world, while I read this proclamation.
Whereas, the Volunteer Service Corp. is an integral part
of the Collier County Public Library System; and
Whereas, during the months of December and January,
these concerned citizens donated over 3,700 volunteer hours to our
public library system; and
Whereas, the total monetary value of this volunteer
service exceeded $30,000; and
Whereas, this volunteer service directly affects the
taxpayers by reducing the actual cost of library service; and
Whereas, the Volunteer Service Corp. now contains over
300 individual participants; and
Whereas, the quality of library service in Collier
County would be reduced without their presence and willingness to
service.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that extreme gratitude and
appreciation is extended to this outstanding group of citizens for the
successful partnership between the public and private sectors of our
community.
It is accepted by both that an investment in our public
libraries is not only an investment in our future, but in our present
as well. We, the Board of County Commissioners, do reaffirm our
commitment to a high-quality public library by proclaiming the week of
MArch 23rd to 29th, 1997, be designated as Public Library Volunteer
Week.
Done and ordered this 18th day of MArch 1996 by the
Board of -- Oh, that says '96, but I believe that we are already into
'97, if I'm not mistaken. We'll have this reprinted for you and get
it back with the correct date.
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Florida,
Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. And I will make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
The vote's unanimous. Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have been wondering how John Jones
has been able to do it. Now we know. Thank you for all your effort
and all your work. It means a lot to the residents who use the
library.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 12, 1997, AS NAPLES WOHAN'S CLUB DAY -
ADOPTED
Next item, 5(A)(3), a proclamation. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. If one of the busiest
ladies in our community, Mary Tinney, will come forward, I would like
to read this proclamation for Naples Women's Club Day. Good morning.
Whereas, the Naples Women's Club is celebrating 65 years
of service to the Naples community; and
Whereas, this women's club has been instrumental in
development and expansion of the Collier County Public Library System;
and
Whereas, the Naples Women's Club has established and
promoted Youth Haven facilities for dependent children during these
years; and
Whereas, in 1984 its members funded and erected the
Veteran's Memorial in Cambier Park; and
Whereas, scholarships amounting to hundreds of thousands
of dollars have been presented to local high school graduates over
these many years; and
Whereas, virtually hundreds of philanthropic
organizations have benefited from both the financial and volunteer
assistance of the Naples Women's Club members; and
Whereas, Naples Women's Club is so recognized as an
integral positive force in the Naples area; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wish to pay
tribute -- excuse me, whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wish
to pay tribute to these accomplishments and thank the Naples Women's
Club and its members for their continued dedication and service.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Wednesday, March 12th,
1997, be designated as Naples Women's Club Day.
Done and ordered this 18th day of March 1997, Board of
County Commissioners, Tim Hancock, Chairman. And I would like to move
approval of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
MS. TINNEY: As usual, the Commission helped me again.
It was supposed to be, as you know, from the date last week, and our
state officers were going to be in town last week, and we weren't
aware of it, and you graciously gave me a copy of this that I could
give on to them. Now we'll frame this one. And I thank you again.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #7A
ROBERT D. NADEAU, REPRESENTING THE JULY 4TH FESTIVAL (NAPLES JUNIOR
CAHHBER, INC.) REGARDING THE UPCOMING JULY 4TH FESTIVAL AT SUGDEN
REGIONAL PARK - CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE ON PARK AND FESTIVAL TO BE
LOOKED AT NEXT YEAR FOR THIS SITE
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are now to the item of our agenda,
public petitions. We have two this morning. I would like to remind
both individuals, under public petitions we give you ten minutes to
basically state your case and make any requests you have. We'll then
either give direction to staff or not, but the board does not take
official action typically under public petitions.
Item (7)(A), Bob Nadeau, executive director of the
Naples Jaycees.
MR. NADEAU: Morning, Commissioners. My name is Bob
Nadeau. I'm the executive director of the July 4th Festival for the
Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc. I have prepared packets for
you. I'll just briefly cover some of the items.
We are attempting to continue our tradition of 31 years
of bringing fireworks to the community started many years ago with a
successful run at the Naples Pier. Unfortunately, we are not wanted
back at that locale. So we have brought our proposal to you to use
the newest and best park the county has, which is Sugden Regional Park
at Lake Avalon.
This park will afford the crowd that we would anticipate
to attend. It would also give us a place where we would have a
controlled environment to eliminate some of the problems that have
happened in the past such as alcohol but, more importantly, personal
fireworks. Too many kids and people have been injured by personal
fireworks on the beach over the years and in days following the show.
It would also enable us to finally, probably, run a
break-even event. Our biggest problem was in 1995 when we lost
$17,000. We can't continue to go on and do that and still provide
other things to the community.
By having this festival at Sugden Park, we would be able
to have people come and enjoy a family-oriented festival with a
patriotic theme. We would be able to give better consideration and
exposure to our corporate sponsors, which we want to thank every one
of them that have helped us in the past and all of the ones who agreed
to help us this year.
This would be an event free to the public. You could
still come, bring your beach chair, and spend absolutely nothing.
But, as my packet described, we would have a festival from 4 until
10 p.m. We would have live music on two different sides of the
lake. We would have all kinds of entertainment, jugglers, clowns.
We would also have a food pavilion very similar to a lot
of the festivals. And when I use the word "pavilion," that would be a
tent because of the nature of the weather that time of the year. It's
either going to be very hot, or it's going to rain, or both. The
festival would culminate with a 45-minute fireworks display like never
seen in Naples before.
Basically, that's all I had to say. I would like to
open it up to questions. As I said, you've received your packets
which included the schedule and also the budgeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, just to be clear, what
is it you're looking for from us? You'd like permission to use the
park?
MR. NADEAU: A couple of things. One, permission to use
the park; two, that parks and recreation would be the supervising
entity because it is under their jurisdiction. And that does not mean
that they are going to do any work. I've had conversations with them,
and I said, "You just show up and enjoy it. You do whatever you would
like to do."
And thirdly, as we've discussed, a request for funding
in the amount of $25,000, which would be explicitly spent on
fireworks, paid directly to the fireworks company so that there would
be no questions as to where the money went to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I'm certainly open
to discussion on the funding, but I kind of like the idea -- and
particularly with the success of a couple of events we've had as far
as the enjoyment of the public at the park, I like the idea of having
a festival-type thing. We just had a proclamation for the Disney
Channel -- talking about families, talking about kids. And anytime we
can encourage family activity and kind of keep people together and
bring people together -- the Sugden facility is, I think, an ideal
location for it; so I like the idea of the county doing this and
having kind of an all-day, festival-type thing for the 4th. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I have a question. Bob, if
you could go to the expense page in this packet that you presented us,
could you explain the executive director, $1,200 a month.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. That is my position. The Jaycees
over the years have done it as totally a volunteer service, and it has
become a much more immense project. By spending money for me to spend
time on this, we can guarantee the funding. I can meet with people at
any time of the day versus somebody who holds down a full-time job
trying to meet with a potential sponsor or to meet with you or parks
and recreation on off hours. It is a nominal expense. I have been
working on this since November with no remuneration yet. And this is
traditional -- when you have --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you're looking at $1,200 a month
for --
MR. NADEAU: For seven months.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: For seven months?
MR. NADEAU: For seven months. This is traditional with
these types of events. We've just had the Nuveen Masters. We had the
LG Championship, the Marco Sportsfest. They all had somebody who
received some kind of remuneration.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And who's paying this?
MR. NADEAU: It will come out of the corporate funding.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Out of the corporate funding?
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you have corporate sponsors?
MR. NADEAU: We have corporate sponsors lined up. Not
all of them yet. We haven't signed any contract, but we have a lot of
people who are very interested in helping us, new people we have never
had before, and people who have been there for us in the past.
As I stated, the -- Collier County's involvement as far
as funding is specifically for one item. I have read too many
articles in the paper about where monies went and where it should have
gone. I don't want any questions whatsoever as to what your money
would be going for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nadeau, what size crowd? How
many people do you expect to attract to this event and to this park?
MR. NADEAU: Originally, I estimated in the neighborhood
of 15,000-plus. Seeing how the city has decided to go their own
direction, I have revised my numbers downward to 10,000-plus. I think
the park can accommodate that. The last major event there projected
as many as 22,000 people. And after speaking with county staff, they
would never have approved that had they thought that that couldn't be
accommodated.
So being that this would be a first-year event, I would
anticipate that would be a fair number. I can't give you an exact
number, sir, because we've never been able to count the people on the
beach in the past years.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: What is your parking plan? Do you
have a formal parking plan developed?
A. It depends upon the actual status of the park on July
4th. In meeting with staff, we have discussed the possibility of
putting some parking in the northernmost -- northeasternmost quadrant,
also, the availability of the parking just outside of the gate, which
is the Pulling property, and in negotiations with the landowners
across the street. There will be many empty spaces in those shopping
centers because it's the evening of 4th of July.
I have discussed also with the sheriff the needs to get
people back and forth across the road safely. All those logistics
would be handled. Remember, our first concern is always safety.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, could I ask you a
couple of questions?
My understanding is that during the July time period,
this park will be under construction and closed to the public; is that
correct?
MR. OLLIFF: That is -- the current construction
schedule would have us starting with some of the fill construction as
early as the beginning of April, then doing most of the site work
through the early part of the summer. So, yes, it would be under
construction. That's what the current plan is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have we -- can you refresh me a
little bit? Have we given a commitment -- or what is the commitment
that we gave to the surrounding neighbors about disruptive events at
that park, noise and so forth?
MR. OLLIFF: We didn't give any commitments per se.
What we ended up indicating to them was that -- we tried to indicate
to them the types of events that we had originally intended to have
there, which were a little more passive park-type events. And we
indicated to them that any of the events would have to go through
county permitting like any other event. So in this particular case,
they would have to get a special-events permit, perhaps some
right-of-way permits, depending on the parking, and they would have to
meet whatever noise restrictions are normally applied to such events.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I see that on this event
schedule that there is a live country-music band and a live
rock-and-roll band. Would this meet the spirit of what we intend to
do at that park?
MR. OLLIFF: One thing I have learned about this park is
that it is going to be popular. It is so popular that we can't hardly
get it built before you've got the events lined up to get in there and
use it. I do think we would like to be able to have some type of
concert-type events. I do believe that whenever we have those, we
need to keep in mind that there are property owners that abut the park
property, and we will need to make sure that when we are setting up
sound systems for this and any other type of events, that we're making
sure that decibel readings are taken in advance so that we're not
imposing on those surrounding neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, if I may, you
are kind of going down a line that -- and, Tom, you hit on it, that is
really the root of my concern. What Commissioner Constantine said is
perfect. I mean, I've always pictured Sugden Park, once it's
completed, as being -- becoming kind of a core of activity for
communitywide events. It's exactly what we intended when that
property was purchased and the Sugdens gave their gracious gift.
The problem I'm having is, as I look at the construction
schedule, there are so many question marks as to whether or not -- and
those of you that have been out there in the summertime for a
Skimmers' ski show, the area we are talking about is that area that
looks like a lake, because when it rains, where all of these people
are going to be, that's a very low area. It's between the berm and
the lake on the east side. That's where most of this activity would
be occurring. That's a very low area. And the construction schedule,
as I understand it, has fill coming into that area, but fill coming in
during the rainy season.
What I don't want to do is say let's move ahead on an
event when we have a reasonable expectation that that area may be less
than suitable for public traffic at that time. It's just a situation
that -- and you said it perfectly. We have people trying to get into
this park before it's built. We don't have this problem anywhere
else. You know, we don't have people standing there with basketballs
waiting for the concrete to dry.
You know, this is a nice problem to have, but I think we
need to be reasonable in these events in that we would much rather
have a known quantity as a park to be used and to be able to look at
how it can be used in a finished state rather than these big question
marks and actually taking a chance that not only would the county be a
financial participant under your proposal, which is something we
didn't budget for, but may even end up being party to a
less-than-desirable family situation with people not being able to put
their lawn chairs or blankets down because it's a little bit of a soup
out there.
What the Jaycees have done has been fantastic, and I was
excited about the opportunity of using a county facility to continue
that tradition, because I think we are big enough to have two shows,
if that's the need. But I would rather take our time here and not
rush into something for that reason and wait until the park is in the
condition that we know we can have a first-class event there and we
can control it a little bit better. And that's the only way I can
resolve my feeling of uneasiness about this proposal.
MR. OLLIFF: I think the idea is a good idea. I think
the timing is the same concern we had with the Fantasy and Fire
event. In fact, it's probably a little worse. We have a little more
concern in this case because we actually anticipate being under
construction.
Our recommendation -- and, in fact, you need to know
another item, too, that we have an opportunity to -- we have to import
about 50,000 cubic yards of fill onto that site. We have the
opportunity right now through one of the fill-pit operators that's
within about 5 miles of the site to get fill at about $3 a cubic yard,
which is significantly cheaper than we have been able to buy it in any
recent time. And, in fact, the going rate is probably a lot closer to
$5 a cubic yard. So if we can provide that fill now, we think we can
save close to $100,000 on the cost of the fill. So we need to go
ahead and try and avail ourselves of that opportunity and get that
fill on site.
But our recommendation would be that if the board wants
to have the event, we've got two concerns. One is the construction,
and if the board wants to have the event, that we simply postpone the
construction until after the event, because I don't know that I can
tell you that we can restrict the construction to certain areas or
that we can avoid the liability enough and the exposure and pull off a
decent event while we're doing construction.
And the second concern we've got is the parking issue.
I don't believe that the site's going to be able to accommodate any
on-site parking, and for a crowd of ten thousand, you are going to
need somewhere between four and five thousand, likely, parking
spaces. Without a transportation system, they're all going to need to
be within walking distance, and there aren't four to five thousand
parking spaces within walking distance of the park.
In order to get that number of parking spaces for
Fantasy and Fire, the promoters had to go to the government center, to
Lely High School, to even places as far away as the Naples Players
Shopping Center and Scotty's Hardware Store in order to be able to
find that many spaces, and that requires a shuttle system in order to
be able to get people back and forth.
Without a transportation system, we have a concern that
people are going to be crossing U.S. 41 at dusk before the show or
during the day and then after hours once it gets dark. And 4th of
July traffic is probably not the best traffic to be trying to cross
U.S. 41 at any time. So those are our two concerns about this event.
I believe it's a good event. I believe it can work at
the site. Our recommendation would be to either delay construction
until after the event or wait until next year to have the event.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We delayed construction in the
fall to have an event out there. I'm not supportive of delaying the
construction anymore. I think it's time we get this park ready to go
for our citizens, and I'm certainly not supportive of the county
funding fireworks on this particular event. So that's my position.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We do have -- this is a public
petition item, and there's not going to be a motion or action. I
think what we are looking for is consensus on direction to staff. And
it sounds like it needs to go one of two ways: either the park is the
place to have this at that time or it's not.
Are there any further questions of staff?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't realize it would
delay us five months on construction.
MR. NADEAU: Hay I respond?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My vote is not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with what Commissioner
Hancock said about that the community has grown up enough to need two
events -- and that -- the fact that the city would sponsor one and
there would be this event at Sugden Park I think is a perfect idea. I
can't, though -- it's like you said about the concrete drying. I've
never seen anything like this. With -- you know, there's such a
demand for this park; that flies in the face of delaying
construction. We can't delay construction when the need is so
obvious. And that -- that's going to get in the way of my support if
we're going to delay construction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think everybody up here is torn a
little bit, because we'd all like to see this event happen, and we
certainly don't want the message to be that we don't want county
residents to have access to a 4th of July fireworks display or we
don't want the Jaycees' participation in this. But I think the
situation is not -- is not meshing the way I want it to, and I can't
get comfortable with those construction issues. Even if we can do the
most we could do on site to make it as ready as we can, there's still
an element of having, in essence, a mud pit, because we don't know
that we could get it compacted and proper drainage installed.
And the last thing we need is to put money into an
event, our money or your money, that could be less than successful.
We have already done that once at that park; so I would rather us see
that we take every effort to get this park ready and look at this
cleanly next year as a positive event rather than what we have today.
I think it's just simply an issue of timing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Construction, I think, is a big
item. My concern is the 25,000 to be blown up in a matter of 45
minutes. I don't know that I could support that. I could support
other aspects of that, perhaps, from a county standpoint, but I don't
know that I could allocate 25,000 for --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To be burned --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: To be burned in 45 minutes.
MR. NADEAU: Hay I respond?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Nadeau, there, in essence,
is direction of staff here. And if you have something to wrap up, I
think that's fine. I did want to say that I think if there is any way
we can help with special-use permits and so forth in another site, I
think you've got five people here that are committed to try to help
the Jaycees do what's good for the community. It's just this match
didn't work.
MR. NADEAU: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you have a wrap-up comment, that's
fine.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. First off, for Commissioner Berry, we
have spent more than $25,000 to watch a pile of ice melt, too, so
there is a precedent there about spending money on certain functions.
We have tried to come to a compromise position. Please
understand we don't want to delay the construction. Things have
already been delayed. There are the questions as to when it will
start. Will it even start by July 4th? Hurphy's Law has not been
factored into this. It has not even been put out for bid.
The other consideration was -- we've had discussions,
Mr. Olliff and I, about working on 50 percent of the park versus 100
percent, working on the Gulf Coast Skimmers' side, which is the north
side, because that's where at least a third of the fill is going to
wind up going. The Skimmers are going to be moved around numerous
times during this construction, which they will continue to run shows
on a weekly basis, I'm advised, even though it's a construction site.
And also, I'm willing to compromise to make it happen, to combine
everything into a smaller area, to address Commissioner Norris'
concerns about the noise ordinance.
We want to work with the community. We've done good
things for this community for years. That's what we want to do. We
don't want to do any harm to the community.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is not intended to be a black on
the Jaycees. If anything, you are to be admired for putting this
together and bringing it forward. I think we can only go on what is
presented in the public petition today, and it sounds like that is not
the desire of the board. If there is something else you wish to work
on at either another site or discuss with our staff or commissioners
individually, I encourage you to do that. But for what was presented
today, it doesn't sound like the board wants to give direction to
staff to pursue the project.
Again, I wish the Jaycees the best of luck. If there's
another way we can help, great. But I just don't see it happening in
this proposal. But thank you for your time.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
Item #7B
FRANK BALOGH, VICE CHAIR, CHAMBER/EDC COALITION DISASTER RECOVERY
COMHITTEE, REGARDING THE POST-DISASTER RE-ENTRY IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM
- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next public petition is Mr. -- I
believe it's Frank Balogh, Vice Chair, Chamber/EDC Coalition for the
Disaster Recovery Committee. Did I get that pronunciation right?
MR. BALOGH: Balogh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close.
MR. BALOGH: It's hard to follow Mickey Mouse and
somebody that just lost, but -- I'm representing the Post Disaster
Re-Entry Identification Program.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Frank Balogh.
I am the vice-chairman of the Disaster Recovery Committee of the
Chamber/EDC Coalition for Government and Community Affairs. On June
18, 1996, Kim Anderson, the Chair of the Disaster Recovery Committee
at that time, came before you to ask for your support for a Re-Entry
Identification Program designed by the committee. The program was to
provide the residents and business owners in Collier County and Naples
with identification that would speed their access through
post-disaster checkpoints and provide law enforcement and emergency
management officials with access control tools. The program was to be
based on a $1 fee requiring no budget support. You and the city
council approved the plan unanimously.
I'm here today on behalf of the committee to present you
with the program. Both the sheriff's office and the Naples police and
emergency services departments have been able to pay for the material
from confiscated trust fund monies. This program will be free to our
residents. Again, thanks to Don Hunter, our county sheriff, and Kevin
Rambosk, our city police chief.
With appropriate proof of identification, the window
decal and button will be available at the sheriff's substations, the
Naples police office, the Naples beach parking desk, and the satellite
offices of the tax collector. We would like to present you your
decals and buttons. And thank you for your support for the program.
I would also -- I see Don Hart came in right behind me.
I would like to -- while they're coming up, I would like
to thank some of the members of that subcommittee. Jim Lawlet over
there has been working very hard on this, Captain Tom Storrar, Ellie
Krier, Ken Pineau. In the mechanics of this system, there are some
people here that have been working closely with that; so I would like
to yield to them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The bad news is we don't get to
leave. So we ain't coming back this year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is for your family, to send them
away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Morning, Mr. Rambosk.
CHIEF RAMBOSK: Morning. Kevin Rambosk, chief of police
and emergency services. We just wanted to let you know that we are
looking forward to the month of April as being Re-Entry month, and we
are going to make a public presentation looking at the 31st to kick it
off, and our goal is to accomplish the distribution of stickers
throughout the county during that month. So we will provide you
further information on press releases as we get them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And for all the things
today that are going to get press coverage, this is one that should
get a lot, because this is going to make it a lot easier coming back
from the storm season for people to get back to their homes and is
going to assist our law enforcement officers in doing their job, and I
hope it gets its due notice.
MR. BALOGH: Well, I'd just like to thank the Economic
Development Council for taking the leadership role, the Chamber being
involved, as well, helping us get this off the ground. This will
prevent or help us with preventing looting, as you know, and try to
mesh the right people up with the right location as soon as possible
after a storm passes through the area, especially in the big
catastrophic storm categories. And I would like to thank the Board of
County Commissioners for their leadership on this project, as well,
and Captain Tom Storrar for representing the agency very well. I
don't believe he's here today. No. He's participating in some
disaster recovery exercise in Fort Myers.
So we don't look forward to the storm season. But as
Chief Rambosk indicated, April we will begin the process of
distributing these buttons and making certain that residents have the
ability to get back into the area where their residence is located,
hopefully, or was located, in the worse scenario, and helping us to
recover as much of their personal property as possible and protecting
that. Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and thanks again to the
EDC and for all of your work on this. We appreciate it, and we will
be applying these decals today. Thank you very much.
MR. BALOGH: Thank you.
Item #SA1
1996 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPHENT SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE -
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item, 8(A)(1), Community
Development and Environmental Services Division presenting the 1996
annual report of the Development Services Advisory Committee.
Good morning, Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. As you may know, the ordinance establishing the
Development Services Advisory Committee contains a provision that the
committee will present an annual report to you on a yearly basis.
Mr. Tom Peek is the immediate past chair of that committee, and he is
here today to present that report to you; it's very brief. Staff is
also here to answer any questions you may have.
MR. PEEK: Thanks, Vince. Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to give you a report on the activities
of the Development Services Advisory Committee. That report is
contained in your documentation, and you can read the details of the
activities that we have been involved in in the past year.
To accomplish those activities, we had over 50 meetings
of the Development Services Advisory Committee and the subcommittees.
That resulted in excess of 600 man-hours that were put in by that
committee to recommend committee meetings, and if you factor in the
time that it took to prepare for those meetings, something in excess
of a thousand man hours was contributed to accomplish the activities
that the Development Services Advisory Committee were charged with.
We had a great committee that works very hard, and we hope that the
results of those have been beneficial to you in your deliberations
about various activities and ordinances that you have adopted during
the past year.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and to
tell you that your staff at development services, Mr. Cautero, Wayne
Arnold, Bob Mulhere, Tom Cook, and all of the other agency people
there that give support to this committee, have done an outstanding
job, and they are to be commended for their activities during the past
year.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have
of me. Otherwise, I will let you move on with your agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions for Mr. Peek?
Tom, I wish that all of our departments had the
professional level of expertise that DSAC provides our building and
zoning folks over there. I, for one, appreciate it. It's always nice
when you get a report on something to find out what the DSAC
recommendation is. And many times, more times than I can remember,
they have been constructive and helpful; so to all members of the
DSAC, thank you.
MR. PEEK: Thank you.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 97-174 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE CRESTWOOD PUD -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item, 8(A)(2), staff review and
recommendations relative to Ordinance 90-7, Crestwood PUD. Good
morning, Chahram. That's much easier than your last name, you know.
So -- I get the first name right most times.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got the same problem with
Hac'Kie, so don't worry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought it was Matthews.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, see.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: My name is Chahram Badamtchian from
planning services staff. This PUD known as the Crestwood PUD was
approved in 1990, January -- January 23, 1990. It is located within
an activity center on Immokalee Road off 1-75 ramp. Because it
consists of 8.2 acres, the uses approved are a range of commercial
uses similar to C-3 uses and 90 acres -- 90,000 square foot of
non-retail commercial uses, such as warehousing and office or a
160-unit motel or hotel. This PUD contains 2.2 acres of preserved
area.
Staff recommends extension of this PUD for two years.
This PUD predates the architectural standards of the Land Development
Code. However, the applicant has agreed to comply with the
architectural standards of the LDC, and the resolution of that
approval reflects that. Staff recommends two-year extension.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions of staff?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one. Is it necessary for
these older PUDs -- if they have not started development, is it
necessary for them to agree to modern regulations and codes?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They don't have to. It's in the LDC.
They have to comply with it, but we decided to add this to the
resolution so they know --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Whether they sign the resolution
or not or agree to it or not, they do have to comply with today's
codes; right?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So -- All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it really doesn't accomplish
anything when they say, well, we'll --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's just because we did
have them sign a resolution or agree to something. I was just
wondering why, because they seemed to indicate that they don't
necessarily have to comply, and that's not the case.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just wanted them to know up front that
they have to comply.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you
have anything?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. That was my exact question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have talked about and I've heard
discussion of the number of hotel and motel units at interchange areas
that are currently on the books, and it's pretty -- pretty large, as I
remember. And I don't think they're always, maybe, the best gates of
entry to a community, particularly when they get over two or three
stories. Is there something staff are working on -- and let me ask
Mr. Arnold, because this PUD contains that. There are some uses such
as gas stations and others that we may want to limit in certain areas
as to number and quantity just to avoid a certain look or character
that doesn't really contribute to the community. And I think
hotels/motels, when they are done as the Super 8-type chain
development, lend that look that we don't want.
So I'm just asking you -- I think we've talked about
this, didn't we?
MR. ARNOLD: We have. For the record, Wayne Arnold,
planning services director. Staff has been looking -- as part of our
Evaluation Appraisal Report amendments to our comp plan, looking at
our activity centers and the uses and mix of uses that we have there
and trying to treat these as our entryways, gateways to the
community. And in doing so -- and, unfortunately, part of that is --
the sunset review process is occurring now instead of a little bit
later for some of these as we move through this process.
Again, a two-year extension at this point in time may or
may not result in them moving forward on any potential development.
But I would like to think that part of what we might do is not only an
amendment to the comp plan to treat these as gateways, but some Land
Development Code requirements that may establish specific corridors or
entry features that whatever development occurs through those PUDs
would have to comply with those requirements.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Separate from this PUD, I would like
to ask for the Development Services Advisory Committee to review that
concept and make a recommendation whether or not we should proceed
with that, because I think these intersections are important and
should be treated individually.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I agree. You raised that
issue last fall when we had our -- end of the summer when we had the
gas station issue, and we had given staff some direction to look at
that. And we ought to make it more comprehensive than simply fueling
stations. We ought to be looking at all those things. I think you're
absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I just wanted to -- I
couldn't agree more. I didn't think it would be necessary to endorse
that because we have made that clear already.
I would -- wanted to get a chance to point out that we
had a new dad at the podium at the point in time when we did have a
new dad at the podium and to congratulate him.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the family multiplies.
Congratulations.
Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you have one
registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr.
McNees. And that is?
MR. McNEES: Fred Pauly.
MR. PAULY: You get stiff sitting there after a while.
Fred Pauly, Pauly Realty, but I'm the trustee of this PUD. And all I
have to say is that I hope that you will give us a two-year extension
on this. This property was bought 24 years ago, not knowing what
would happen. I have some investors with me on it, but we would like
a two-year extension on the PUD. We're willing to agree with anything
on it.
We -- actually, we are not going to develop it. We have
bought it as an investment, and we intend to sell it. And I know that
when the party that's going to develop it comes in for their building
permits and so forth -- I've talked to Chahram on this -- they will
have to adhere to all of the rules and regulations.
If we have to get an amendment, I would just like to
point out this costs money, and it costs a lot of money. And I don't
think that it's necessary to spend that money at this time. I just
would like to get a two-year extension on this. And that's all I have
to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Pauly.
MR. PAULY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other speakers?
Seeing none, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just along the lines of our
discussion there, maybe we need to give staff some direction
consistent with what we talked about on direction we had given in the
fall about gas stations to kind of explore that with all type uses as
far as our entryways to our community. I don't know if we can have
that back in time for our -- this cycle or not, but probably as
quickly as we can, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we can now officially put it on
the slate as something we would like to see some recommendations from
and whatever resources are available to help in that would -- I
encourage you to utilize. Is there any problem on the board with that
direction?
Item #8A3
APPLICANT TO BRING BACK PUD REZONE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING
LAND USES WITH REGARDS TO NEAPOLITAN PARK PUD
Seeing none, we'll move on to Item 8(A)(3), staff review
and recommendations for Ordinance 90-6, Neapolitan Park PUD. Good
morning, Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This item regards
the sunsetting of the Neapolitan Park PUD, which is a 20-acre,
mixed-use PUD within the activity center at the intersection of Davis
Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The PUD is entirely within the
activity center boundaries.
The uses include C-4 commercial uses, office and motel
and ACLF uses, and multifamily residential uses. All are within the
parameters of the density rating system, 26 units per acre for ACLF
and motel and 16 units per acre for multifamily residential within an
activity center. And staff recommends a two-year extension of the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I distinctly smell a test of the Bert
Harris Private Property Rights Act coming here, because this board has
taken a very different or very individual position on things such as
ACLFs at 26 units an acre and motels at 26 units an acre. The broad
definition of ACLF could allow them to come in and develop darned near
condominiums with laundry service and call them ACLF. Without
sufficient controls on the hotel, motel, or ACLF uses, I am not going
to support an extension of this PUD at 26 units an acre in those
areas. I don't think it's consistent with what we have done in the
past few years.
I think we need to go into or ask the applicant to go
into this and be more specific in those areas of use. And the ones
that give me the most problem are three: hotel/motel at 26 units an
acre, ACLF at 26 units an acre, multifamily at 16 units per acre.
These are all absolute maximums under our Growth Management Plan, and
they're all contained in the same PUD, which means if they max out two
of these, the intensity on this 20 acres is dramatic.
I just -- I just don't think that's -- that's what we
want nor what we want to extend. I understand staff doesn't really
have the discretion to come to us and say we think you ought to reduce
density, but I think that's our job.
MR. REISCHL: It would be a staff decision. It says up
to 26 units per acre, but there would be no requirement to come back
to the board for an approval since it's in the PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Also, this appears to be one of
the types of approvals, prior to this board, that I'm always concerned
with. It seems to be sort of a shotgun approach. They've got all
sorts of uses in here, all different kinds of commercial and ACLF,
multifamily, whatever, you know. It just -- it's a speculative-type
zoning request from the outset, and this board has for several years
now asked for more specificity when PUDs are coming forward. And we
really have declined to approve a number of shotgun-type approvals,
asking for the specifics rather than just a broad approach of, well,
we'll figure out what we're going to put in there at some future date,
but we want all these approvals. Well, you know, that is not going to
help the county do any planning if we don't know what's going to go in
there.
MR. REISCHL: There are specific uses for specific
parcels. The commercial uses are on the south side. Then the office,
the ACLF, and then the residential to the north.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right, but they need to
decide what they're going to put in there, as far as I'm concerned.
And we've done this, like I say, on a number of original-approval PUDs
since this board's been seated for the last four or five years, and I
think I would have a hard time approving the PUD in its current form
myself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question. Is -- but for the PUD,
what would the zoning be on this property, and what would it permit?
MR. REISCHL: If there were -- prior to the PUD was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. If it were straight zoning
right now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In other words, what could it be
under the Growth Management Plan? Could it be --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- commercial? Could it be --
MR. REISCHL: It could be residential up to 16 units per
acre. It could be commercial providing any of the C-1 through C-5
uses because it's in an activity center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we -- if we eliminate this
PUD and have this revert to whatever its standard zoning
classification would be, would it be more or less or the same density?
A. Well, the code says that would be the board's decision,
that if you -- if the -- for example, if you say a six-month extension
until an amendment comes back from the property owner, they don't
bring back an amendment, the board could fezone this to what the LDC
says is an appropriate zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And my question is -- and
maybe this is more of a Wayne question -- is what would you recommend?
Would staff come in with a recommendation? Would this be RMF-16?
Would this be C-27 Would this be -- if this didn't have a PUD overlay
on it, what would its underlying zoning be? Is that impossible to
answer?
MR. REISCHL: Well, it would be whatever was requested
by the owner. But any of those could be approved -- recommended by
staff under the Growth Management Plan. Sixteen units per acre within
an activity center is part of the density rating system.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, Commissioner Mac'Kie is
asking you to go out on a little bit of a limb here. What we're
looking -- what we're looking for is what would be a consistent -- and
we're talking about from a planning perspective -- looking at the
surrounding land uses and the physical relationship of this property,
what would be a zoning or use that is consistent with the general
development in that area? Is that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what --
MR. REISCHL: Okay. In the area the Shops at Santa
Barbara is commercial with, generally, C-4 uses. The New Hope
Ministries Church is to the east. Wildwood Estates is a 57-acre PUD,
12.4 units per acre. There's Falling Waters, The estates,
agricultural, C-3 zoning to the south.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if this were straight county
zoning -- I'm going to keep asking the question. If this were
straight county zoning without a PUD, if this were -- the property
owner does not come in and ask us for anything -- we haven't heard
from the property owner -- would this be ag zoning? Would it be
commercial zoning? What, under the comp plan, would it be?
MR. MULHERE: If the staff was recommending --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Bob Mulhere, current planning
manager. We would recommend agricultural zoning. As Fred -- the
scenario that Fred described where the applicant does not come in for
a fezone, then the board has the opportunity to fezone it to an
appropriate district, we would recommend the agricultural district.
But -- I say that with a caveat because, as Fred explained, there are
C-4 commercial uses, I think, to the west, and to the south it's C-3.
Adjacent on the other side is New Hope Ministries. So most likely
someone choosing to fezone that property to a straight zoning district
would be coming in for some quasi-commercial, maybe multifamily --
some density.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me kind of give you my shot at
compatibility. You got C-4 on one side and a church on the other. So
for commercial uses equal to or less intensive than C-4 is a
compatibility argument. For residential --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: RMF-12.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are at an intersection. I'm
looking at 10 to 12 units an acre as, again, being able to make a
compatibility argument for that. The ironic thing is both of these
are far less than what is in the PUD right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's what I thought the
answer was, is that this looked like a piece of property that would be
RMF-12 or C-3. That's what I thought, and I thought that was an easy
question. I'm sorry that it turned out not to be. I apologize for
that. But that's where I was going, is that this looked to be more
intense than it would be presently rezoned.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think staff was taking the next
step, which is if the property owner does not participate in that
process, why should we grant anything above and beyond the base, which
would be an ag-type zoning? So I think this is the first one that
we've seen under Sunshine that I feel the need to open back up and
tell the property owner come back in with something that is consistent
with the surrounding land uses instead of this maximum possible
development pattern for a small piece. Remember, this is 20 acres.
These are -- the pieces that cause us the most difficulty are -- these
little pieces they try to then maximize edge to edge are the ones that
end up aesthetically and operationally being detrimental.
So I think if there is a direction to give staff on
this, it should be to ask the applicant to bring it back in for a PUD
fezone, bring in the residential and commercial uses and design more
in line with the surrounding land uses, and let them determine what
that should be. And if they don't, then we'll determine it for them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is a motion necessary for that?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I would say it is.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you.
Item #8A4
RESOLUTION 97-175 GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO THE VINCENTIS
RESIDENCE PUD - ADOPTED
Item 8(A)(4), staff review and recommendations,
Ordinance 91-88, the Vincentian Residence PUD. Good morning,
Mr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff. This Vincentian PUD is located on East
Trail containing 30.7 acres. It was approved in 1991. A 10-acre
tract within this PUD approved 30 residential units for elderly for a
density of 2 units per acre; a school and church and related
facilities on another 10-acre parcel; and another 10-acre parcel is to
be used for children's home, residence for unwed mothers, families
enrichment center, special education center, etc. Operating of this
PUD doesn't provide any criteria for development for size or any
development standards. Staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners require the property owners to amend the PUD within six
months.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of staff?
Any speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions or a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, motion carried unanimously.
Item #8A5
RESOLUTION 97-176 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE WATERFORD
ESTATES PUD - ADOPTED
Next, 8(A)(5), staff review and recommendation relative
to Ordinance 91-31, the Waterford Estates PUD. Mr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This PUD was approved in 1991. It
contains 19.4 acres, and it was approved for 63 units single family
attached or detached residential units, for a density of 3.25 acres.
This PUD complies with all the requirements of the Land Development
Code. Staff recommends a two-year extension of this PUD. The access
to the site would be from Santa Barbara Extension when this road is
extended.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That was my question: How do they
access the property?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is an odd-shaped parcel, and at
only three and a quarter acres, typically when they're narrow like
this, you see much higher densities being requested because you have
location criteria. I don't know that that odd shape is going to get
better than three and a quarter units per acre; so I think staff's
recommendation makes sense on this one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll move staff's recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and second. Any
speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8A6
RESOLUTION 97-177 ESTABLISHING LOCAL REQUIREHENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR
AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED
Seeing none, Item 8(A)(6) is next, request the BCC
approve a resolution establishing local requirements and procedures
for amending the Collier County Land Development Code. Mr. Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you. The current Resolution 93-134
doesn't specify necessarily when the board has to hear the Land
Development Code, but it does specify that the Planning Commission
hear them in specific months. For the January cycle, that's March.
And over the last three cycles, the volume of information has been
hefty, to say the least, with the architectural standards and upcoming
with the Marco Island Overlay. And the amount of interest groups that
want to have some feedback into that process has increased, and it's
been difficult to get this information on occasion to the Planning
Commission within that month, that specific month.
Additionally, for example, we have the EAR amendments
coming to the Planning Commission the second week -- their second
meeting in March, this -- a week from Thursday. So that's going to
occupy the Planning Commission pretty much all day. And so what we're
proposing here is a little bit more flexibility as to when we bring
these to the Planning Commission, recognizing that there should still
be some time certain, and I think the objective there was to make sure
that some amendment didn't languish, that it be carried forward in a
timely fashion, which we assure you we will do.
What we've suggested is that the amendments be brought
to the Planning Commission at least prior to the commencement of the
next cycle, which would be either June 1st or January 1st.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, for your -- I
don't know how familiar you are with this, but the Land Development
Code was set up that it could be amended twice a year on a six-month
cycle. And that document, being the zoning document, really is kind
of the nuts and bolts of what actually physically gets put on the
land. And that -- it was just consolidated recently, so there have
been a fairly significant number of changes to it.
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Hulhere, what you are
saying is that rigid schedule isn't working because of the volume of
information, is that --
MR. HULHERE: That's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what I'm understanding?
MR. HULHERE: That and the fact that, for example, if
there are environmental amendments we bring to EPTAB and the EAB,
which only meets once a month, and then we also bring it to the
Development Services Advisory Committee, and then there are other
specific interest groups out there who also wish to have some time to
review it, and we want to get their feedback. As I said, we certainly
intend to bring those forward in as timely a fashion as we can, but to
have just a little bit greater flexibility. And in the case at hand,
there would be no way that the Planning Commission could review both
the development code amendments and the EAR amendments, and in fact,
they've set their -- they would like to set their two hearings in the
month of April, and the board has already set their hearings in Hay
and June; so, obviously, we have to have it completed to meet your
time frame.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the crux of your
recommendation is from what to what?
MR. MULHERE: Is to approve the proposed resolution
setting new time frames for LDC amendments, which would be that we
would bring those to the Planning Commission prior to June 1st for the
January cycle and January 1st for the June cycle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: It just provides a little bit more
flexibility in the time frame. The Development Services Advisory
Committee did review this proposal and, in fact, supported it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions for staff?
Any speakers?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mulhere.
Item #8A7
RESOLUTION 97-178 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE ASTRON PLAZA PUD
- ADOPTED
Item 8(A)(7), staff review and recommendations relative
to Ordinance 90-69 known as the Astron Plaza PUD. Good morning, Mr.
Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray
Bellows, principal planner with current planning staff, presenting a
resolution for sunsetting of the Astron Plaza PUD. The subject PUD is
7.63 acres and is approved for 115,000 square feet of business and
professional office space, banking, financial institutions, a day
care, and a restaurant. Subject site is located within an interstate
activity center and is, therefore, deemed consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. Based on staff review of the approved businesses and
uses, there are -- consistent access has been approved by
transportation. Therefore, staff is recommending a two-year
extension.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a use in here for medical
clinics originating out of Cleveland?
MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding they have now moved
across the street to The Vineyards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. I just wanted to
make sure we had public coverage there.
Any questions for staff on this?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I do have a
question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And this is -- and I have noticed
it several times. How does day care get into one of these? It just
-- that just somehow -- I don't quite understand that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have an idea about that, that
the idea is for on-site, corporate day care for the medical offices
and otherwise, and at the time this was coming in, they were dying for
day-care centers all over the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was a rash of them.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Don't misunderstand. I'm not
against day-care centers. I don't want that to show up tomorrow
morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Too late.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But is this -- Pam, are you
referring to within the institutions themselves, that they are allowed
to set up within a -- is that what you are referring to?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except the PUD's not that specific.
MR. HULHERE: It could be either -- I'm sorry. For the
record, Bob Hulhere, current planning manager. It could be either,
you know, an accessory to a business or a freestanding, and also it
could be adult day care.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I see.
MR. HULHERE: And I guess the philosophy has been in the
past that within a residential district, day care beyond a certain
number of children is a conditional use because of traffic
generation. Within the commercial districts, it's a permitted use.
Until you get to the higher intensity, for example, the industrial
district in which -- then there are parameters and guidelines set
forth where it needs to be located away from some potentially
hazardous uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on the other side, I had a
day-care operator chew my ear off about how the county doesn't allow
enough land to be zoned for day care. So -- but every time I see one
of these, there's day care in there so --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess -- I don't know. It just
isn't something that I -- when I look at this, I just never think of a
day-care center being at an interchange. That just -- I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They can swim in the canal and, I
mean, it's really -- play kick ball on the interstate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If that's acceptable, I guess
that's all right, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think that it's a problematic
use. In fact, I think sometimes putting day care in residential
communities causes more problems than anywhere else; so --
unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any speakers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers on this, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move staff's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8A8
RESOLUTION 97-179 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE WESTVIEW PLAZA
PUD - ADOPTED
Seeing none, Item 8(A)(8), staff review and
recommendation, Ordinance 83-45, Westview Plaza. Mr. Badamtchian,
welcome back.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you. Chahram Badamtchian from
planning services staff. This PUD was approved in 1983, which is
known as the Westview Plaza PUD. It contains 20.37 acres. This PUD,
with the exception of technology manufacturer uses such as optical,
dental, and hearing aid manufacturing, allows mostly C-4 zoning
district uses with the exception of restaurants, lounges, liquor
stores, and automotive dealerships, which are not permitted.
The applicant has -- the owner of the property has
already extended the road, the sidewalk. The waterline is there. The
fire hydrants are there. Twelve of the lots have been sold, and we
have a site development plan for one lot under review. Staff
recommends two-year extension of this PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that would indicate
significant work toward development.
Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: One registered. I think he only wants to
speak if there's a question or problem. Mr. Pickworth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me ask first, are there any
questions of staff on this item? Seeing none --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Badamtchian.
Item #8A9
APPEAL OF CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 61113-079; OWNER OF RECORD:
MATTHEW TAVTIGIAN AND ROWENA TAVTIGIAN - DENIED
Item 8(A)(9), appeal of invoice and statement of account
for Code Enforcement Case 6113-079, owner of record Matthew -- I'll
just leave that last name alone. MR. TAVTIGIAN: Tavtigian.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Morning, Ms. Sullivan.
MS. SULLIVAN: Good morning. I believe that the
gentleman is appealing this lien on the basis of notice, and if you'll
look at the executive summary, you will see that on November 18th the
notice of violation was mailed certified. The notice was returned.
Then on November 27th, notice of violation mailed certified. And then
it was returned on December 20th after three attempts at delivery.
Our ordinance says -- 91-47 says that notices mailed to
the violator's address by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, shall be deemed personal service. So it's staff's position
that we have followed all of the notice provisions and that this
appeal should be denied.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of staff on this
matter? Good morning.
MR. TAVTIGIAN: Members, I'm Matt Tavtigian. For
whatever reason, which I cannot explain, my post office never
delivered this item of mail. I've received all manner of mail from
Collier County sent by regular mail. And for some reason that no one
knows -- it appears all the procedures were followed correctly. My
first indication that this was a problem was in February when I
received the bill.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you received the bill at the exact
same address that everything else was sent?
MR. TAVTIGIAN: And I've received other mail sent by
normal mail. It doesn't appear to be a problem here in Collier
County. Why my post office didn't deliver my certified mail in Fort
Lauderdale, I cannot say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, when you cross the county
line, things start to happen, and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me just be clear.
You're saying that you know that you owe the money, and you know that
this is your property, but you didn't receive a notice in the mail?
MR. TAVTIGIAN: I did not receive a notice that there
was an environmental discrepancy with this property. The only notice
I ever received that there was a problem was in February when I got
the bill by regular mail, not by certified mail, my point being that I
never received notification of this, that I ought to go and clean up
these offending species on my property.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, Ms. Sullivan's
assessment of the situation is that we mailed correctly, and that's
what the ordinance requires. It does not require that the return
receipt be returned to the county; is that correct? Is that your
assessment as well?
MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I have that too. I have
the return --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just talking to Mr. Weigel,
please. Let him answer that.
MS. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's correct. And if I
understand correctly, the address to which the correspondence was sent
was a post office box; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Sullivan, is that a post office
box?
MS. SULLIVAN: It looks like to -- there's a black mark
over it -- fourteen -- something Road, Fort Lauderdale.
MR. TAVTIGIAN: That's my correct address, 1420. That's
not a P.O. Box.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Well, that makes it even
clearer, because, again, although we can't describe or know why it
wasn't delivered, because it was not a Post Office Box, there
shouldn't have been a problem in delivery of certified mail at a
residence address.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, there are two
things here. First of all, whether this enforcement action occurred
or not, Mr. Tavtigian, it is your responsibility to remove the
exotics.
MR. TAVTIGIAN: I understand that. I don't have any
question with that at all. My only beef is the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me finish, if I may. Are you
saying that the $225 charge for removing them is extravagant or more
than you would have to pay to do it?
MR. TAVTIGIAN: No. That would -- I'm sure that's a --
that was bid out. I talked to Ms. Johnson, and they bid that out, and
that was the lowest bid. I have no argument with that. Only the $100
fine, slash, administration fee is my argument.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me offer something to the board.
When we know that the mail has been returned and we found out later it
was addressed correctly, I have a problem with the -- you know,
charging the person another $100 because the post office didn't do
their job.
If he had received those notices and either ignored
them, or if they had not been returned as they were, then that leaves
a question mark there, and we've gone down that road. This is an
administrative fee that is an internal cost. It is a cost of time and
materials, understood, but the only bill the county has to pay here is
the $225.
So because they were returned by the post office, that's
the only question I have. And maybe we should bill the post office.
But that makes it very difficult to add that administrative cost for
me, personally. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But we haven't established, I
don't believe, that the post office did not deliver it properly, only
that it wasn't accepted when received.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was it returned refused?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's an important clarification. I
assumed it was returned by the post office either undeliverable or --
in other words, the error was on their part. Was it refused or not
signed for?
MS. SULLIVAN: It was never signed for. It just says
return receipt requested on it. No, no. That's it. That's all it
says on here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that means --
MS. SULLIVAN: Return to sender unclaimed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Unclaimed. See, what happens is
the post office sends it over there. If there's no one there to
accept it at that time, they leave you a little green notice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And if you don't go down and get
it, then after a certain amount of time, they send it back over here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's not necessarily a postal
error? Okay.
MR. TAVTIGIAN: These little yellow slips that we're
speaking of, I never received. I received no notification of any kind
that I had any type of mail to go pick up. It is not a question of
refusal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Tavtigian, it's not -- we're not
the truth police. You know, we have to -- we take certain steps, and
we spend certain funds to make sure that this has every chance of
getting there as possible. And the fact that there have been no other
delivery problems, particularly with the bill, leads me to believe
that after three attempts, there had to be one of those notices that
got through, and I'm sorry if they didn't --
MR. TAVTIGIAN: The post office --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, I'm sorry if it didn't. But if
every time someone came in and said, "I never got the notice," well,
then we'd be eating $100 on every single one of these. We went
through extensive lengths to do this. The fact that it's not a
P.O. Box -- I just -- it's not -- I hate to sit here and say we don't
believe you, but it's just highly improbable that none of those got
through. And with that, I can't see waiving the $100 charge, because
it would set a precedent that anyone who says I didn't get it, well
then we just won't charge them the additional fee that it costs the
taxpayer to do this. And that's a precedent I'm not willing to set
here today.
Are there any other questions of staff?
Ms. Sullivan, is there anything else?
MS. SULLIVAN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have -- this is an
appeal. Mr. Weigel, is the board's action here a motion to either
approve or deny?
MR. WEIGEL: It is, or you can take no action.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will entertain a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny the appeal.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion
on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #BE1
ADVISORY BOARDS DESIGNATED FOR ANNUAL REVIEW PER ORDINANCE NO. 92-44 -
APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE POCKET OF POVERTY COHMITTEE
Item 8(E)(1) under county manager, recommendation to
approve advisory boards designated for annual review. Interestingly
enough, I understand there is some discussion of advisory boards in
the paper this morning.
MR. HcNEES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a routine review
of advisory boards. We have one representative from one of the
advisory boards that has registered to speak this morning and wants to
say a few words, I believe, about his board whenever you are ready to
hear that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- before going to that,
let me ask are there any questions, Mr. McNees, regarding the advisory
boards before us today, which there are seven? Seeing none, that speaker is, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Matt Hudson representing the Golden
Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Representing as their designee?
Okay. Mr. Hudson.
MR. HUDSON: Good morning. I represent the Golden Gate
Estates Land Trust Committee. I'm their chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HUDSON: Sorry. I work for a yearly review, so I
have a little summary sheet of our activities over the course of the
last year. We were provided with some information as well. I'm just
here today to answer any questions you may have on some of the
activities that our board has done this year. If I can pass you these
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can hand them to Mr. Weigel to
your left there. That would be fine.
MR. HUDSON: Take seven. They're small.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions of Mr. Hudson
regarding that committee?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you had any attendance
problems, Mr. Hudson?
MR. HUDSON: Well, attendance problems from a committee
standpoint, no. We don't have what one would call a great public
following, which is, I think, indicative of a lot of advisory boards.
They are kind of unnoticed sometimes. We have some very faithful
residents that are at every meeting we have, and we certainly seek
more input. We have our meetings at the Golden Gate Estates branch of
the library; so they are fully accessible to anyone who wants to be
there. And it's during evening hours; so you know, the residents that
are working in that particular area can get there, and it's more
conducive to more attendance, but we don't really have a great
following, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I know on your inventory you
have acres reserved. Can you tell me what particular areas those are
reserved for?
MR. HUDSON: We land bank certain parcels of the trust
for future use for schools, for the sheriff. We sent notice to the
various agencies within the county government asking them to look at
the parcels we have to see if they were interested in banking them for
any future use. Having this land and having it used for, hopefully,
public use in the future, we wanted to give the best opportunity to,
you know, our county agencies to have first crack at it rather than
selling it to generate funds for the trust. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUDSON: So if we could put a library there or a
sheriff's department there, we would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to be clear. In
answer to Commissioner Norris' question, as far as the membership, you
haven't had any problem with attendance at all?
MR. HUDSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions?
Seeing none, thank you.
I do want to use this opportunity to bring up something
and ask for the board's participation on. I've discussed with the
chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Davis, a joint workshop
between the BCC and the Planning Commission for the purpose of really
-- we talk a lot about, you know, the two boards, their roles, and
how we can work together on issues and so forth. I'd like to have a
sit-down workshop and really just to share information on what is the
Planning Commission looking for and what is this board looking for
from them. And it probably won't take a whole heck of a lot of time
to do that, but I'd like to see maybe a fifth Tuesday morning workshop
of no more than 90 minutes or so to kind of accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we did it -- we've
had a number of meetings on our off public hearing weeks that we're
done at 10:30 or 11:00. What if we just did it at the end of the
agenda on a regular Tuesday?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I guess I will ask Mr. Davis. I
knew you -- I believe you discussed this with the Planning
Commission. Have you done that yet, or were you waiting for my cue on
that?
MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis, for the record. Yes, Mr.
Chairman, we have. You and I have discussed kind of tentatively that
fifth Tuesday in April.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. DAVIS: But with some advanced warning, we're very
flexible. And I might just add that in that discussion, everybody was
enthusiastic about the joint workshop where we could openly discuss a
lot of these issues that are before us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One thing I wanted to talk about was
how we as a board look at issues of compatibility and, you know, just
to kind of broaden that. And if the Planning Commission begins to
take up that individually as their -- something they look at, it makes
things easier for everybody. It's nice for someone to come through
the Planning Commission and get a hint of areas of importance that
this board may address so they're not blindsided. And so I think
that's one way of working together. You know, they're still their own
individuals and act individually as a group; so I guess -- is that
fifth Tuesday not desirable? You would rather do it on an afternoon
of a short agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and Mr. McNees can
probably anticipate the shortest agendas a couple of weeks in
advance. We know -- or traditionally have had a pretty good idea.
But I would just rather make that one Tuesday as productive as
possible rather than having -- like today we'll have a two-hour
meeting, and on an odd Tuesday have another 90-minute meeting. It
seems more productive to do it all at once.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure, it does, and I agree with
you. And as a matter of fact, this is going to be a short meeting.
We'll be through here soon. Could you call your committee --
MR. DAVIS: I'm good, Mr. Norris, but not that good.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not quite that good?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we ask Mr. McNees. Would
three weeks' notice --
MR. HcNEES: I am that good so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is about three weeks' notice
sufficient, Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: I would certainly think so. We -- in fact,
if we have some communication, we have our next meeting on Thursday,
and that would be a good time to maybe talk with them about it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, would you ask -- I
believe you have a designee that attends the Planning Commission, or
do you attend it yourself?
MR. HcNEES: No, I don't attend. We have staff that
does. We'll maybe shoot for two weeks from today, if that suits
you-all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, if that's sufficient time,
because it's only a week and a half from this Thursday, and I would
hate -- I would like to give the full Planning Commission the greatest
opportunity for attendance. So I would rather push that out and get
full attendance than do it more quickly and possibly cut some people
off.
MR. HcNEES: I will go to their meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because you know Fred's going to
complain about having to drive from Immokalee. You know that's going
to happen.
MR. DAVIS: He's not going to be there this Thursday; so
it will be a fairly short meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you to my colleagues for
that. I think that's important. And, Mr. Davis, were you here on
this item additionally or just to --
MR. DAVIS: Just to be here if you had any questions. I
was happy to see that you didn't. We look forward to the opportunity
of sitting down with you-all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Back to the agenda item -- I think we -- I appreciate
Commissioner Norris' question, because I think as we review these,
regular attendance and activity of the committees is probably a
priority. And obviously, the Planning Commission is active, and we've
heard the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee is.
Commissioner Norris, the Lely Golf Estates
Beautification and Marco Island Beautification, you are probably best
familiar with those. I would assume those are both --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Those are very viable
organizations and vital.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I know EAB is. I guess
the only one I am not as familiar with, and maybe one of you are, is
the Pocket of Poverty.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have that one circled because I --
It's an advisory committee, and yet I think this is only the second
time I've seen its name in writing in three years. So I would like to
know a little more about what that committee does. Do we have a staff
member here who --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Are they talking about that they
want to dissolve? I thought that's what I read with them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the first thing that bothers me
is there doesn't appear that there is anyone in this room that --
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, what your report says is that
this committee was disbanded several years ago. So that's the
report. They are disbanded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the idea of actually --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're just accepting --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that it today? Is this the last
we are going to see of this committee is today's report, then? I
don't want to see this thing keep coming up.
MR. HcNEES: Barring some statutory or other grant sort
of requirement that we have it, I don't think there is any such a
thing. But assume you'll hear from it not unless --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand we might have a
speaker. What I was going to suggest is that we accept and move
forward with the other six and then set that one aside. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: And you do have one additional
representative, Mr. Pearson, from the Lely Golf Estates Beautification
Board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Morning, Mr. Pearson.
MR. PEARSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I have a
passout here for all of the members.
I'm George Pearson, Chairman of the Lely Beautification
Committee. I've had the job for five years. It's not because of my
expertise; it's because nobody else will take it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to get you a
five-year pin.
MR. PEARSON: Yes. Six, it's going on six now. What
I'd like to do is go over the questions that were asked on the
ordinance of 92-44, and I will read the questions, and then I will
give the answers I got which you've got a copy of.
For example, number one, whether the board is serving
the purpose for which it is created. The board is serving the purpose
for which it was created: to beautify and maintain the medians in our
HSTU unit.
Number two, whether the board is adequately serving
current community needs. We know the board is adequately serving
community needs.
Three, a list of board major accomplishments for the
preceding twelve-month period, whether there is any other board
agencies, either private or public, which is serving or would be
better served, the purpose for which the board was created.
Let me stop just one second. We originally thought that
the HSTU system was not so great. But I'll tell you what; we changed
our mind in five years, and we recommend it from here on in. It's the
way to go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
MR. PEARSON: When we first started, we inherited a
disaster, but we put it on a five-year goal, and we are accomplishing
it because of your consideration, and in four years.
We did -- first and -- we did first St. Andrews
Boulevard, Valley Stream Circle, and one-half of Pebble Beach this
year, completing our five-year project in four years. We were short
some money, and we've asked the commission for a loan of $50,000,
which you granted, and we certainly appreciate that. We plan to pay
it back within the next several years, taking it out of our tax
money. We saved money by doing so because the costs spread out over
the next two years would have been almost double.
Number four -- number five. I did four and five
together -- or three and four, excuse me. Whether the ordinance
creating the board should be amended to allow the board to more
adequately serve the purpose for which it was created. Yes. We could
amend the ordinance to facilitate a more expeditious procedure to go
from planning, bidding, and construction. I know it's difficult, and
I know it's a -- it's time-consuming, but it's frustrating,
unbelievably frustrating, both for the committee and the great team
that we have working for us.
We've got a -- the Collier County group that works for
us, Val Prince; Steve Aviano; and Harry Huber; and our architect, Mike
McGhee, have been gems, positive gems. Credit where credit is due,
sir. The present bureaucracy pipeline from department to department
is not time efficient and could be streamlined.
Number six, whether the board's membership requirements
should be modified. No modifications necessary.
The costs, both direct and indirect, maintaining -- to
maintain the board. Our members are all volunteers. The only direct
cross -- direct cost is a secretarial service which costs about $2,000
a year.
That covers my report as far as review is concerned. I
would like to address the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Pearson?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that we stay on the
issue at hand, which is the advisory committee issues. I do have a
copy of your letter, and if you would like to come back at any time
under public petition and make that request, Mr. McNees would be glad
to help you do that. But we just need to stay on the agenda item that
we're considering today.
MR. PEARSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much, and thank you to
your committee for all your work.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question of Mr.
Pearson. You've had a -- and I think this is already a fact, but you
haven't had any trouble with attendance of your members at your
regular meetings?
MR. PEARSON: Repeat that, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your regular meetings of the
committee, you've had good attendance from your members? MR. PEARSON: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again, Mr. Pearson.
MR. PEARSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a motion on staff
recommendation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we go
ahead and accept the reports from all and renew the six and we
discontinue the Pocket of Poverty Review Committee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, we will take a five-minute break and return
at 40 after or 20 till, whichever comes first.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8E2
CONTRACT WITH HENDERSON, YOUNG & CO. IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $95,000
FOR A CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE FEASIBILITY STUDY, AN UPDATE
OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY, AND A CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY - APPROVED. REPORT ON JAIL CAPACITY,
NEED AND EXPANSION TO BE DISCUSSED NEXT WEEK.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to reconvene the March 18th
BCC meeting. I will ask all the other meetings to come to a stop.
Thank you.
Item 8(E)(2), board authorization to waive the
competitive proposal process and authorize staff to negotiate with
Henderson, Young & Company. This is for a correctional facilities
impact fee study. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, budget director. A combined staff effort consisting of
representatives from the budget office, the sheriff's office,
purchasing, and the county attorney's office have been working
subsequent to the board direction of February 4th where the board
provided staff with policy direction to pursue implementation of a law
enforcement impact fee.
What we've done is developed a staff of work to be
performed by Henderson, Young & Company in developing both a
correctional facilities impact fee study and a law enforcement impact
fee study. It's broken down into three segments. The initial
component would be the preparation of a correctional facilities
feasibility study. That would identify the portion of correctional
facilities which would be eligible for -- to be funded by impact
fees. In addition, it would also provide the consultant with a look
at the quality and quantity of data available to determine reasonable
nexus of benefit for the correctional component. And it would also
provide you-all with direction in terms of a rough idea of the annual
revenue to be generated and what the approximate fee would have to
be.
And at that point, depending on feasibility, you could
-- if it were determined to be not feasible or an exorbitant fee or a
fee not even worth pursuing at that point, you would cut your losses
and be finished. A consultant at that point would provide an interim
report, and that would lead us right into phase 2, which would be the
proceeding to a full-blown, legally defensible correctional facilities
impact fee rate study.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, as I understand it,
there are three separate cost components to this proposal? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- Okay. But yet there are two
fees looking at being generated, a correctional fee impact -- a
correctional study impact fee and a law enforcement impact fee; is
that correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is also correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And maybe someone else has some
insight on this, but when we receive the sheriff's budget or look at
the sheriff's budget, we really don't separate out corrections and law
enforcement in the areas of funding. We fund the total amount,
whether it be capital or whether it be operational. We really, in the
past, haven't looked at them separately.
My concern is there are capital costs to doing business
in law enforcement, and whether it's the jail or whether it's vehicles
or whether it's body armor, it's all a cost that goes to the same
place from this board, and I'm not sure two separate fees makes a lot
of sense, because it does two things. It doesn't allow us to
determine priority needs. In other words, the jail may be more
important than new cars this year. And I just -- by separating those,
I think we're limiting the funds in not being able to apply them to
the priority areas; so that causes me a little bit of concern. So why
would we want two separate impact fees is my question?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think there is a direct relationship
between the cost of correctional facilities required and the nexus in
relationship to the fee charged for that component as well as there is
a separate and distinct component for the law enforcement side of the
equation.
In addition, in conversations with the consultant, they
explain that just because you're reviewing arrest records in law
enforcement -- but an arrest would not automatically result, perhaps,
in the need for an additional jail bed; so there are distinctions
between --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask Mr. Weigel, because I'm
looking for the legal distinction, because if I'm applying -- under
this scenario we're not going to go out to bid for a consulting job
and tell you you need four impact fees instead of two. I've just
generated some work for myself. So I need to know whether there is a
legal nexus for these two separate impact fees. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think there may be and can be a
legal nexus for two impact fees. However, the implementation does not
have to be with two fees. It could be consolidated into one fee. But
I -- what the consultant would be doing, as Mike indicated, is first
determining the efficacy of either fee, because the data review will
show that the administration capital improvements requirements might
be far minimal in comparison to the absol -- more absolute needs that
might tend to show for the correctional facilities.
And as long as there's a nexus to the property, there's
no question that it can be developed into an ordinance or ordinances.
I would expect that the board will have the opportunity to determine
whether it wants to incorporate both into one ordinance, or it might
have the -- it will have the opportunity to determine that an
implementation of a fee that's not on the correctional side, but on
the law enforcement side, may be -- there may be so little to be
assessed against individual parcels because that's such a small
component, you can determine whether you want to keep that or not in
the big picture ordinance that you do. But I don't see that we have
to have two ordinances. I think it could come back as one ordinance
with the pieces comprising it that you wish to do. Mike, did you --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But by virtue of how they're
constructed, would that then limit the ability for the board to assign
expenditures from one to the other? In other words, if they're
constructed in such a way that it says this is law enforcement, this
is corrections, and we collect it in lump sum, aren't we then
restricted in the expenditure of those funds?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, but you always would be, even if they
were separate. Of course, they'd be designated for the specific item
that they were collected for. And I think that you will have a
percentage or a profile so that if both components are assessed
against a singular property, you will know exactly how to break that
out and apply it to the capital requirements that exist. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Maybe I can suggest a way to approach
this. Let me use an example. Let's suppose you decided you wanted
the road and the water impact fee to be one and the same. The
consultant might come back and say, no, we can't make a legal or
logical argument for combining those two; you can't do that. We would
then be obligated to continue to have two fees and spend those funds
only for those two issues.
The consultant we can ask, are these independent enough
fees? Is the logical connection between the fee and the expenditure
enough that they be separate, or could they be combined? They may
tell you that's not a problem, you can combine, you can have one
impact fee. For purposes of a fee, these two items could be blended.
They may tell you they can't make a good enough legal argument for
assessing something based on arrests or based on law enforcement
activity and then spending that money, if needed, on the jail
expansion. They may tell you that that's not legally defensible. So
we can ask them, and if it's your preference to have one fee, ask them
first to tell you is that possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my point. If we don't make
the arrests, we don't have the need to incarcerate. So I think the
two can be tied, but that's going to be -- it depends on how thin that
bridge is so --
MR. McNEES: That's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I would like to see that included
in Phase 1. You know, we've talked about how we've kind of burnt
daylight on this issue in the past, and I think we need to get
something started. And no one up here particularly loves spending
money on consultants, but we have to admit when there are areas that
we don't have the in-house expertise and need the assistance. I think
this is one of them.
Are there other comments by board members on this item?
This is something that we -- in essence, authorized the first phase of
this but not the balance until we receive that first phase report; is
that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would begin with the feasibility
study on the corrections side, but they could immediately begin
working on the update to the law enforcement component.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Part of that -- and this is
something that bridges into a separate issue, but updating that impact
fee rate study -- obviously, that study, there was something wrong
with it in the sense that it never materialized into anything, yet we
continue to increase capital costs in the area of law enforcement as
you would expect. So did this company do the 1992 study? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is part of what they're going
to do assuming a cost to the construction of a new jail?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The law enforcement component now will
be addressing the cost of vehicles and equipment, etc.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But on the corrections side, in order
to determine an impact fee, they have to in some way assume a cost to
be incurred and amortize that. Will there be a cost of the jail
plugged into this financial formula?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. There has to be.
MR. McNEES: Yes, I believe so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who is that cost coming from, and who
prepared it at whose direction? That's something I -- when we talk
about the cost of the jail -- one of the complaints about the ballot
question was, you know, show me the plans to the jail or where did it
come from. And I don't honestly know; so I want to know --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't understand how you can have
a cost when you don't have a blueprint of what the thing's going to
be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we using balipark figures, or did
we pay someone to actually design and determine costs? Mr. Gonzalez.
MS. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects
director. The information was taken from a study that was done back
in 1989, 1990 as to the number of beds that were required within a
short range of time, a medium range of time, and a long range of
time. As I explained to the Productivity Committee, that information
is rather stale now. We're not sure if we still need what is
currently planned in the books, 256 beds, so many square feet of
inmate housing, so many square feet of jail support functions. We do
have a cost number, an estimate, a square-foot estimate based on
national and state construction history. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GONZALEZ: But it's an order of magnitude cost based
on 256 beds. The real question is, do we really need 256 beds? If
it's less, if it's more, that order of magnitude may change
substantially.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, that's one thing that
the Productivity Committee brought forward and felt that the jail
study needed to be updated. And that's the reason I would think that
that would need to be completed before we get to this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, with all due -- I think that
both -- I think the two things can be concurrent. You can use a plug
number to determine the impact fee, and then at the time when you have
a construction cost, you can revise the impact fee to meet the
specific need. This is done -- you know, when we did -- we do it all
of the time with, say, sewer impact fees. We have a projected cost of
system expansion, and if that cost either goes up or down, impact fees
then will be changed to reflect that.
So you can use a plug number to determine the impact
fee, as I understand it. However, what you're talking about -- this
board has not had an independent review of jail needs that is current
and tells us the most economic or cost-effective way of providing for
the necessary jail space when it becomes necessary. We don't have
that information. As much as the sheriff's office has done a good job
of trying to give us what they believe is their estimate, quite
frankly, that's an expertise that is, again, in that consultant realm,
as much as we hate to use those terms.
So I think we need to -- if we're going to go down this
path, we need to look at running some sort of concurrent study on the
jail's capacity, its abilities, and how that ducktails with our Growth
Management Plan. That's not in this, but I would think we would want
to address that in the very near future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like to suggest that
we put that on as an agenda item over the next week or two and have
some sort of full discussion on that, because I think you're right.
We need to initiate something that gets into the specifics.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, again, my concern is the longer
we wait on these things, the less ability we have to utilize impact
fees as a partial- or full-funding source. So we need to get on a
fast track to getting these things answered.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, the simple answer to your
question is the impact fee study is going to use the best available
information. And that may be the type of national average or
construction information that Mr. Gonzalez is talking about. It will
probably be factoring in whatever previous study has been done,
updated, for whatever kind of inflation factors there are. It may be
whatever study's ongoing regarding the jail. They're going to use
whatever -- the best information they can get.
It may not be exact, but, as you say -- and same thing
with the sewer plant; it's much easier. We build a sewer plant about
every two or three years or we expand one. We have a lot better
handle on what that costs to serve that growth unit. So I guess
that's one of the reasons they tell you they need $90,000 to do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need someone who builds jails to
help us figure out what kind of jail needs to be built.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The discussion seems to be headed
towards impact fees relating to this one particular jail expansion
that we're talking about, and really, the impact fees are farther
reaching than that. It's not just one specific capital item that
we're talking about, but capital needs all through the future. So to
have the consultant begin right now with his feasibility study and, as
you say, concurrently start developing some better information for the
jail is fine recognizing, though, that they're not completely directly
related, only indirectly, and that the consultant may end with up a
development of a factor per equivalent residential unit which could be
easily multiplied out by or divided into whatever number we have as
our capital needs in the five-year plan or something to that effect.
But the point is, I think that we should get started with both
investigations as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have before us today one element
of that, and I've heard Commissioner Constantine ask that maybe on
next week's agenda we add this discussion item and get staff direction
on how to -- how to do the same thing. Are we prepared to do that
today, or do you want to do that part of it next week?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- not being part of the
agenda today, I think we ought to, particularly for the public's
conception, have a stand-alone agenda item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So the issue of really
determining jail expansion and costs and capital expansion costs
within the sheriff's office is something relating to corrections, and
otherwise it's something we want to discuss next week on how to
fast-track that and go about it properly. Is that a fair direction?
Okay. Back to the issue at hand. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I completely agree with you
that we need to get going as quickly as we can on this. However, I do
worry a little bit spending the kind of money that's proposed here.
Total cost is almost $100,000 to get quote estimates, and I'm not sure
it's as simple as simply multiplying out, and maybe Mr. Gonzalez can
help me, but I'm not sure it's as simple as multiplying out the cost
per jail cell.
I've got to assume, depending on whether you need 100 or
200 or 300, it isn't just twice or three times the cost. And I would
feel much more comfortable -- I understand the urgency of the
situation, but I also would feel more comfortable that we're getting
accurate numbers back if we had a study we're talking about, and we'll
discuss in detail next week, done first. As you say, we do it with
other things, but we update our utility system every couple of years,
and I just -- I see that a little differently.
MS. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. You're right. That plug
number is very volatile in the sense that it's also based on a mix of
minimum, medium, and maximum security beds. Right now the estimate in
your CIE plan is $38,000 per bed, some additional costs for the other
components of it. But that, again, is based on that '89 study for a
five-year range that we're already beyond that range. If the mix of
minimum and maximum changes -- I've seen that number on the national
averages go from fifteen thousand dollars a bed to sixty-plus
thousand. It also depends on reconstruction versus new; so it's very
volatile in the sense of what number to use to plug in.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So while there's an urgency
there, I just think that the most important thing is that we have
accurate numbers to deal with. And it seems to me we ought to do the
first steps necessary to make sure we have accurate numbers before we
try to plug any numbers in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it sounds like we have two
things on the table, one which was on our agenda and one which has
been brought up in discussion today. And which one do we need to do
first?
I guess I have to -- based on what Mr. Gonzalez just
said, I have to agree with you, Commissioner Constantine. You know,
knowing what the expansion needs are has got to be critical before
authorizing someone to expend the funds to determine what impact fee
would correlate to that. I thought it was as simple as a formula. In
other words, this person is going to determine the eligible costs, and
when you then plug those eligible costs into the formula, you arrive
at an impact fee. That's what I understood this to be. And the
expenditures that we are looking at for $100,000 is not just a guess,
but is -- and I underlined it -- legally defensible correctional
facilities impact fee rate study.
That's what runs the cost up is legally defensible. You
need to make sure that the building industry or someone is not going
to pop up and sue you and be successful in doing that when you create
these kinds of additional charges. So I'm not sure it's the cart
before the horse, but I'm just looking for some help on that.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I came in and, frankly,
still, I think, am holding to the opinion that we don't need -- it
goes back to Commissioner Norris's statement. We're not focusing on
an impact fee for this jail expansion. First, we need to know what is
the legally defensible maximum impact fee we can assess. And then we
decide what we're going to assess based on our needs. I don't think
it's a cart-and-a-horse issue. I think they can run parallel, and
we're so far behind already that we ought to just go ahead with it. I
want to be careful, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't the maximum legally
defensible amount based on what your need is?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think so. I think the
maximum defensible amount is based on what is the impact of a new
residence to law enforcement generally and to capital improvements
related to law enforcement. And I think we can know that number, and
we've got to be broader minded about it instead of just looking at
this one jail expansion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other side is possibly
information that you're talking about and that I brought up is maybe
that could be achieved before the actual implementation of the impact
fee. In other words, we go through this; we determine whether or not
an impact fee is plausible. And if so and we want to arrive at the
hard cost, we authorize the additional study to find out what the
expansion costs are going to be, and those two things end up arriving
concurrently.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, here's what Commissioner
Hac'Kie is saying, is that the impact fee rate study will show us what
the maximum defensible is. When we look at our needs, in effect, this
jail that we're discussing, we may say, well, we don't need X right
now. We need 50 percent of X to make it work. And that's adjustable
on a current basis. Certainly annually you can look at what your
needs are going to be over the next five-year period or so forth, and
you can adjust within that maximum range. But to try to say that
we're tying the impact fee rate to this particular jail, I don't think
that's exactly what we're doing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On what, then, is that
maximum fee based?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's for the consultant to tell
us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has to be based on
something. Is it based on state law? Is it based on the population
impacts when they come in? What --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, again, a consultant could
answer this a whole lot better than me, and that's why we need them,
but the general idea is when one person -- the reason that impact fees
are based on residential units and not the size or value of the home
is that one new person to Collier County has X value of effect on
roads, X value of effect on, you know, schools, on libraries, and on
law enforcement related capital expenditures.
I think we don't -- I think, you know, we can find the
answer to that question and then go forward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I just go back --
I understand your point, but I go back -- we know the approximate cost
per mile what it costs to do a road or what it costs to put in a sewer
system. And so when we say per house or per person has X impact, we
do have a number we can plug in there. And we don't have that with a
jail.
I understand you're not tying it to just one project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't think we have any
number to plug in there right now that we can count on. And that's my
worry. If we're going to spend a hundred thousand bucks, we ought to
at least have some accurate formula to plug in there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm glad that you mentioned
our road impact fee, because that exactly proves my point or my
argument --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank goodness for that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that we do not charge the
maximum road impact fee. We charge somewhat less than the maximum
road impact fee, and the simple reason is because we have determined
that the cost of the roads does not justify us charging the maximum
impact fee, and that's exactly what I'm saying.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad you mentioned that,
because that proves my point exactly, and that is the way we determine
that is we know what the cost of the road is. And I understand your
point. I'm just -- I'm worried if we don't have any idea what a jail
may cost, we may know that it takes ten new people to have an impact
on our jail system; but if you don't have a dollar figure to plug in
there, you can't come up with a bottom-line, legally defensible impact
fee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. And then I'm
going to try and bring this to a closure. We have two public speakers
on the matter. Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, aren't we trying to,
one of the things here, just to determine, again, what the legally
defensible amount is? That's one issue. Set that aside. Then down
the road when we find out what our needs are going to be, whether it's
the jail or whether it's something else, capital expense, we can then
plug those figures into this impact, the amount that is available over
here. So I understand from this discussion -- that's what I have
gleaned from this discussion; so I think they can certainly run
simultaneously, and I don't think you're going to be in -- I don't
think we're going to be in any kind of problem.
But I had one question. Is this the same company that
has basically worked on impact fees in the past?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question of staff then. Is
the cost of law enforcement or the jail or whatever the future needs
of law enforcement might be -- is that part of determining what is
legally defensible?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: My understanding is yes, it's based on
needs. Part of it -- I think on the top of Page 4 under the
corrections side, costs and revenues, determine capital cost per unit,
that's between the sheriff, consultant, and probably OCPH staff --
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, let me take a stab at it.
Essentially, you're all correct. The question is, would it be better
to have a completely finished jail expansion study that told us
exactly what we needed and when so that that expansion was designed so
we had finite costs? Would it be better if we had built two or three
jails in the last ten years and we understood that process and we knew
exactly what the costs were? Sure, it would be better. But that's
not where we are. We are in a different situation where a lot of this
is uncertain.
If it were your desire for us to wait and do the impact
fee study later when some of the other issues are a little better
fixed, we could do that. It's a judgment call whether you think we
need to proceed with the jail impact fee based on the best available
information, and as I said earlier, so that we can get it started so
that we can begin sooner to collect the money, which is what this is
all about, rather than get farther behind the eight-ball and not have
the money, or do you think it's better to wait until everything is
more finite? And then that's really the judgment call that we're
asking you to make this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, and then
I want to go to the public speakers, and let's try and wrap this up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. With respect to the public
speakers, I'm going to go ahead and put a motion on the floor to
approve the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: Your first speaker is Whit Ward followed by
Gil Erlichman.
MR. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Whit
Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association, and I
want to speak directly to the proposal to waive the competitive
proposal process when selecting a consultant for -- to study the law
enforcement impact fee. It is important that when we have a
consultant that is going to develop a fee that is going to be fair,
that is going to be legitimate, that will meet the rational nexus
test, and most of all, will withstand a court challenge. We would
like to work with your consultants during this process.
We would also strongly recommend that you consider more
than one consultant, that you not waive the competitive proposal
process. This particular consultant, Henderson, Young developed our
school impact fees. They went from here to Volusia County, developed
school impact fees there. That school impact fee has recently -- was
challenged and has recently been struck down in the courts. With --
we have asked Dr. Jim Nicholaus (phonetic), University of Florida, to
do a study on our school impact fees.
The other -- every other county that has adopted a
Henderson, Young school impact fee is challenging that school impact
fee or having it studied. Just for that reason alone, rather than to
have us to get into that kind of thing, especially if we're going to
hear some more information next week, there are a lot of consultants
out there. There are a lot of consultants that are very experienced
in law enforcement impact fees and in jail impact fees. Let's take a
look at more than one consultant.
This is a big issue. We're talking about spending a lot
of money. We're going to start with $95,000. It's going to run into
maybe a lot more than that by the time we finish. And if we had one
-- if we selected the very best consultant -- and if that's
Henderson, Young, fine. But we at least ought to look at some other
consultants before we start this process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ward, if the basis of your
request of looking for other consultants is -- and you mentioned it;
so I have to assume it's an element -- is the challenge to Henderson,
Young's work with school boards throughout the state, how come we
haven't received a challenge on BCC-imposed impact fees if Henderson,
Young is making these kind of errors?
MR. WARD: Because -- excuse me. Well, because we
elected not to go to court initially. Secondly, we are -- Dr. Jim
Nicholaus, University of Florida, is currently studying our school
impact fees. He's under contract to Collier Building Industry
Association. When we get an opinion from him, we will be back to you
and ask you to reconsider the school impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well -- and I think that's a good
point. We're talking about school impact fees. As we all know, the
ability of school boards and Board of County Commissioners to levy
fines, fees, and taxes is different. And what I'm hearing is there
are challenges on the school board's ability to levy the amount
levied, not just in the formulation of the amount. And I think that's
the difference here, is our ability to levy those impact fees doesn't
come into question as much as the school board's. And I think the
crux of those suits deal with the school board's ability to impose
that level of fee, not the calculation.
MR. WARD: No. No. The formula was struck down.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was it? Okay.
MR. WARD: There is a formula developed -- and you're
right in that the school board cannot levy impact fees. Only the
commission can levy impact fees, and that's what happened in this
case, as is always the case. County Commission levied an impact fee
at the request of the school board. But that's not what was struck
down. What was struck down was the formula, the Henderson, Young
developed formula that is the basis for the amount of our school
impact fees.
There has been a formula that has been approved by the
court. That's the Banberry formula. And so, again, maybe Henderson,
Young would use the Banberry formula. My request to you, though,
would be that in light of this -- probably if it were any other
consultant, we would also recommend that in any issue of this
importance, we just look at more than one consultant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WARD: We think that's good business.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker?
MR. HcNEES: And, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East
Naples. I'm a voter -- a registered voter and taxpayer, and I'm
speaking for TAG. I think it was two weeks ago that a letter was read
here by Doug HcGilvra, member of TAG, and a copy was given to you
Commissioners about TAG's position on the law enforcement impact fee.
We support that. And subsequently now I see that the board is
considering hiring a consultant. And I see that you're considering
waiving the proposal process for a consultant for the impact fee, law
enforcement impact fee. And the speaker prior to me recommending that
you consider a bidding process is -- to me is correct. But the
speaker also said that he would like to be on the committee or with
the consultant to consider the rate of the impact fee, law enforcement
impact fee, etc.
Well, to me, the previous speaker represents the
construction industry in Collier County, and naturally, the
construction industry, I think, would want the lowest impact fee
possible. So, therefore, I strongly object personally to the speaker
or the Collier County construction industry being on a committee or
being with the consultant setting the rates for an impact fee for law
enforcement.
I like the -- I like Mr. Constantine's and Mr. Hancock's
stand on considering having this proposition put out for bids. I can
see no reason why a particular consultant -- in this case, one that's
going to charge about $95,000 -- be chosen without bids going out.
I support the position of having this put out for bids. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gil, just quickly, I've got
to assume, like the building industry, TAG usually wants the lowest
taxes or fees possible too.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Yeah. Well, what I'm saying is that TAG
is considering the taxpayers as such. And we're talking about the
lowest taxes possible for the taxpayer.
In the situation with the construction and builders in
Collier County, they are -- they want the lowest impact fee possible
so that they will have no problem selling their property and maybe
making some more money. And I have no objection about an industry
making money. But to me that's one of the faults of having lobbyists
in Congress and lobbyists at the state level and lobbyists down here
in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
Board members, we need to move this item to a decision.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know oftentimes we all --
by the time we get to this point, we're kind of pretty well settled
and all voiced our opinions so it's on the record, but I would ask to
consider a couple of things very carefully. And that is traditionally
we do go to bid unless it's an emergency item. And while we want to
move ahead as quickly as possible on our law enforcement and jail
situation, in the big picture, as we look at years and years to come,
60 days or 90 days isn't a lot of time. It's 60 days or it's 90 days,
but in the big picture, it is not a lot of time.
Secondly, we have been told by our staff we do need the
numbers and the dollars. That is part of the formula in figuring out
what is legally defensible. And we don't have those numbers yet. And
our staff has also told us those numbers are very volatile. It could
be anywhere from $19,000 to $60,000 per unit. That's a big spread.
And ultimately -- Commissioner Mac'Kie said this several
times. Ultimately, we want to be legally defensible. And I fear that
if we plug in some numbers that aren't accurate, two things are going
to happen: one, that the group we've paid $100,000 to, we're going to
have to pay more to go back and plug in the accurate numbers down the
road; but, two, either if we don't do that or if we're a little sloppy
in the process, that that building industry that Gil just mentioned or
others will challenge us, and in an effort to rush this 60 days up
front, it will cost us months and months or a year or better in court
on the back end because of a challenge.
And my goal here is simply to -- I think the same as all
of you, and that is, let's make it as legally defensible as possible,
but we need accurate numbers to make that happen. And my suggestion
would be rather than go ahead and award this now, advertise an RFP,
which will, by the time it's closed out and awarded, be probably be 60
days.
In that 60 days, in that time process, let's go ahead,
and we'll talk about -- we mentioned for next week's agenda, we'll
talk about having someone who can actually do the study and plug some
realistic numbers in there, someone who has done work with jails. And
so perhaps by the time we have that bid, we'll actually have realistic
numbers to plug in as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I respect your motives. I think
you're trying to -- you know, you're absolutely trying to do the right
thing. I just -- from a practical standpoint, I remember early on
sitting here and asking Mr. Dorrill what an RFP costs in general, a
hundred grand. I don't want to add a hundred grand to this ticket.
Has anybody other than Henderson, Young ever been awarded this
contract when we've sent -- isn't that who has done every single
impact fee study we've had at Collier County so far?
MR. McNEES: Not all of our utility fees. They have not
all been done by Henderson, Young.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Nine out of ten? Okay.
So there have been a couple of others, but a great
majority have been awarded to this company. Instead of -- we're two
years behind at least. Let's go ahead, award this -- skip an extra
hundred grand of expense, which is what the RFP process will cost us
in addition to the 60 to 90 days it will cost us, find out what's a
legally defensible impact fee, and go forward. We're too far behind
already; so I hope somebody will second my motion and it stays on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a motion on the floor to
approve staff recommendation.
I liken this to when Guy Carlton's office was being
expanded, there was a construction -- Varian Construction that just
did a gangbuster job out there. But yet if we had a little -- you
know, a little expansion like that again, we have to go through this
whole RFP process when experience has proven to us that that company
did a great job. And the additional cost that the taxpayers have to
bear to get probably that same company back in to do the same job
sometimes isn't always warranted.
It's not that anyone here is saying we don't want
competition, but in the impact fee studies we've done in the past, is
what has been proposed here consistent with the costs and the
feasibility aspect of what we have asked for in the past?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Your last law enforcement impact fee,
the initial contract was twenty-five thousand, and you end up paying
eighty-two ninety-five in additional costs due to the additional work
in researching the law enforcement arrest records. So you paid
thirty-three -- almost $33,300, and that was in 1990, 1991 arena.
you've got six years of inflation on top of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So in '90-91, we paid $83,000 for
something similar to this?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, 33,000.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: $33,000. But, again, that was just for
the law enforcement component. You also waived the competitive
selection process at that point in time. Henderson, Young at this
point is familiar with the records and all the data requirements in
the sheriff's office and essentially has a --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That should result in a lower cost;
right?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. HcNees. What do
you -- what would you estimate the cost of going to an RFP on this,
both in time and dollars?
MR. HcNEES: I think in time, 60 days is a fair -- a
fair estimate, 60 to 90 days to actually have a recommendation to
you. I would think it would be significantly less than a hundred
thousand. In a case like this, I would think it would be more than --
less than $10,000 to do -- to process an RFP of this magnitude. We
already have the scope of services pretty much defined; so cost-wise
it's not, I don't think, a huge factor, but time-wise, as Commissioner
Constantine said, probably 60 to 90 days.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, the timetable for
completion that's outlined would roughly coincide with your budget
hearings in September where you'd have answers to many of these
pressing questions in terms of setting your final ad valorem rate for
FY'98 as well as to whether or not an impact fee is viable and at
what level and what revenue we might reasonably anticipate that might
otherwise be in the sheriff's budget which is funded by general fund
ad valorem taxes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We might have just gotten to the one
limiting factor, which is the budget cycle. We want to go into this
budget with as much information -- not just this information, but the
information you talked about. We're going to need to know what the
expanding -- what the need for jail expansion is before that budget,
because if a need's out there, we want to know what our funding
vehicles are, and that was the direction we gave.
Mr. Smykowski, if we go to RFP, are we going to meet
that budget time-line requirement?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. You're on a pretty tight timetable
right now for meeting the September guidelines. Two to three months
would push you outside of that window.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And while the RFP is an
important issue to me, really, but making sure we have accurate
numbers is the most important, and I'm just -- that's my biggest worry
is -- and we've heard how --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest this. We have a
motion on the floor to proceed with what's in front of us, and I think
the most compelling argument really was just made for me, which is we
don't want to unduly tax ad valorem-wise the residents of this
county. We want to know what all of our funding options are to stay
away from increases and hopefully look at a decrease in ad valorem
rate this year.
So that is compelling enough for me to move ahead with
this. But I have to tie to that the suggestion you've made, which is
next week I want to hear something about how we can maybe do a
streamlined process by which two or three companies that do the type
of estimation work we're talking about could make an oral presentation
to this board, and we can make a fairly quick decision on getting
those numbers in place before our budget discussions also. If that's
sufficient direction for you, I would like to see us go ahead on this
today, then, also.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, Mr. Chairman, I can speak
with the consultant when we're finished here, and hopefully by the
time we get to communications then, I might be able to have an answer
for you on the feasibility of consolidating the two fees and/or the
issue about what exact data they would utilize in their study in terms
of would they need a completed study of the nature that's being
contemplated for their work.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you have a motion to
second it, I intend to vote against it. However, I want to make sure
I reflect that I agree with the second half of your direction there
completely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is
there further discussion on the motion?
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, one more item. I would ask
that you make your approval today not to exceed $95,000. I have given
direction to staff already that we would kind of like to beat them
down a little bit as we negotiate this contract. I agree that that's
a little high, and that we may --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Will the motion maker -- that we
agree not to exceed and instruct to beat down where necessary?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. McNEES: Excuse my blunt language, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, the correctional facilities
phase two would not begin until an interim report would have been
provided to you-all on the feasibility, etc., so they would not gain
direction to proceed on that element until you-all reviewed their
interim feasibility study report.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. We have a motion
and second. Call the question. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I'm opposed.
Just was so happy it was over.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That carries 4-1. And does the board
consider direction sufficient to staff regarding bringing the item
back next week for a streamlined but possibly slightly more broad
process? I just -- I don't know who does that kind of work, and we
don't have any experience with it; so I'd like to at least see some
faces and know where these firms are coming from before making that
decision.
MR. HcNEES: And I'm assuming that the specific work
you're talking about is clear identification of the status of our jail
capacity and need and all of the surrounding issues. Is that what
we're talking about?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. The surrounding issues such as
when would expansion be necessary, what types of expansion are
available, and what are those costs. I think the public is waiting
for that information desperately also.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A budget amendment will be required to
fund the interim studies.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-180 REAPPOINTING HAY LEE HONTGOHERY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. On to Item 8 -- or I'm sorry,
10(A).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there is one
opening and one applicant. I make a motion we approve that applicant.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-181 REAPPOINTING GILHORE SCHOLES TO THE MARCO ISLAND
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Seeing none, Item 10(B).
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will move
committee recommendation to reappoint Gil Scholes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10C
TERMS FOR RICHARD BOTTHOF AND JOHN AGNELLI EXTENDED UNTIL THE VACANT
POSITIONS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED
Seeing none, Item 10(C) --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on this one we
have -- my only concern -- both Mr. Agnelli and Mr. Botthof are good
folks who have done a good job, but this is much like our health
department one. The names were just turned over to us. I don't know
if this was ever advertised or if it was open, and I think just as a
courtesy to the public, we ought to probably go through that process
and -- like we have with the others, just to be consistent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as I understand it, it's not
legally required, but like we did with the public health unit, we just
wanted to know who had applied and what the process was, not
necessarily a question about the applicants. Is that the similar --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. And these gentlemen may
very well be the best applicants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So would you then wish to table this
for one week pending that information? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we have a motion to table.
Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're looking for what information? I'm
sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See if this was advertised or
if there were other applicants, just like we did with the health
committee. And I suspect these will be the best folks for the job
anyway, but we don't have any information on the process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth is in the room.
Might he be able to provide us that information?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to say, would you want to
ask that question of Mr. Pickworth regarding advertisement and names?
And there may not be a need to table.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Mr. Pickworth, were
these openings advertised publicly anywhere?
MR. PICKWORTH: No, sir, they were not, and the reason
is this authority, unlike the advisory board, is a statutory
creature. The statute simply provides that members will be appointed
by the board. In fact, all of the policies on advertising these
things were all developed by the county long after these authorities
were created. They predate most of those policies; so traditionally
that has not been done, and I'm not going to stand here and tell you
you can't require that to be done. But as I say, these authorities
were created in the late '70s, long before you had any policies on the
advertising.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quite frankly, Mr. Agnelli
and Mr. Botthof would probably be at or near the top of my list
anyway. However, if we're going to be consistent, we just required
three months ago, four months ago the health department to do their
advertisements, even though we hadn't always traditionally done it
that way. And it just seems to me that we ought to go through the
process and advertise these so if there is someone out there who's
interested and isn't aware that it exists, at least they have an
opportunity to apply.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the sake of consistency, then, a
one-week table won't suffice to get that done. What you're asking
for, in essence, is an advertisement of these positions, a resume
period to be accepted, and then this brought back to the board for
review?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a problem in that
you will not be able to obtain quorum if there is a 30- or a 45-day
delay in these appointments?
MR. PICKWORTH: If I had at least one person appointed,
maybe someone to fill Mr. Berry's term or something like that, I think
that would help me a lot. I wouldn't have a problem. And we have a
company here in Naples that is asking us to assist them in financing a
major manufacturing expansion. And, yeah, we do have a little bit of
concern on that just in case we have to get an application in to the
state fairly quickly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An extension to the current
members pending whoever the new appointments are?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's craft that in the form of a
motion. I think that's an acceptable idea.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: One is my husband.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I'll make a motion
that we extend the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Terms?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. -- terms for
Mr. Agnelli and Mr. Botthof pending the appointment of the openings,
and they'll advertise for all three of those, Mr. Berry resigning, and
do that in as short a period as we can. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion
on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, Mr. Pickworth, thank you for being here today.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 97-182 APPOINTING BILLIE CHENEY TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Item 10(D), appointment of members to Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we have one
opening and one applicant only. I'll make a motion we approve that
applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have a question here. We've had
run into this with the Black Affairs Advisory Board on one occasion
and now in this board where we have a member that sits on that board
that is either threatening to be part of or party of a lawsuit against
the county. That bothers me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a person who has
threatened -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, it's not -- to my knowledge, it's
not Ms. Cheney, but I wanted to ask, because this has come up, that
what is our authority to remove individuals who, in my opinion, are
acting inappropriately by using an advisory board to gain information
for their personal or professional gain? That's just -- It rubs me
the wrong way.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the board has absolute authority.
All advisory board members serve at the pleasure of the board. You do
not have to have cause for removal or any investigation prior to an
action to remove.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I reinstate my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. It has nothing to
do with Ms. Cheney. I want to clarify that immediately. But --
okay. Thank you. I appreciate that input.
We have a motion to appoint Ms. Cheney.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, we're on Item 10(E) --
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be
appropriate to point out at this moment that of the three advisory
boards that you are directly accountable for, 100 percent of the
citizens who actually were interested and applied for those boards
were appointed, and I think given some of the circumstances today,
it's appropriate to mention that everybody who wanted to be on a board
that asked was put on one today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All you had to do was put your name
in apparently. My, how easy that seems.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one
other note here as long as we're talking about that. There's been
some discussion that -- I don't know if it's over advertisement or
what, but I would like to have read into the record that on Friday,
March 14th, in the Naples Daily News, there was an advertisement for
four different advisory boards asking for --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eighteen column inches or
something.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- asking for people to apply. And
I just want that on the record that this has, indeed, been done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we appreciate the Daily News
working with Ms. Filson in getting those in. I've seen them in groups
and in prominent locations, and again, all you have to do is apply
sometimes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's important to point
out that they're also advertised in The Gazette and the Marco Island
Eagle --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- any number of other --
MR. McNEES: And on Channel 54.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And I think it's important to
acknowledge that we cannot appoint people who don't apply.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
apply.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
appointed.
Amazing.
We cannot appoint people who don't
Amazing.
You've got to apply to be
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Amazing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I told you earlier, every time those
things come out in the paper at the meeting of the Second District
Association -- and I know it occurs at East Naples and at Golden Gate
also, is they say, okay, who wants to apply for this position? It's
available. So you've got to be -- you've got to show a willingness.
Item #10E
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE NOMINATED TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLLIER
COUNTY TO THE ESTERO BAY AGENCY ON BAY MANAGEMENT
Item 10(E), nomination of representatives from Collier
County to the Estero Bay Agency on Bay Management. The reason I put
this on here is that we have, in essence, been given a position on
this. And they're asking a commissioner to sit on it, and better to
sit on these things and know what's going on sometimes than to watch
from the outside. I'm asking for someone on this board to step up and
fill that slot so that we have a vote here.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll nominate Commissioner
Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He declines. I'm speaking on his
behalf.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I serve on the CREW Trust Board
which is basically the same general area. And I'd be happy to --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll nominate Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. No discussion.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie. We appreciate that.
Item #10F
SHORT LIST OF CANDIDATES TO BE DETERMINED ON APRIL 1, 1997; AND APRIL
23 AND 24 TENTATIVELY SET FOR INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES; TAPED
INTERVIEWS TO BE TELEVISED ON CHANNEL 54
Item 10(F), final report regarding the county manager's
screening committee. Ms. Edwards, still good morning.
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. Jennifer Edwards, human
resources director. We delivered to you this morning the short list
of county manager candidates that was selected by the screening
committee last night. And what we would like to do today is work with
you to develop a schedule for your interviews. And please remember
that we have two internal candidates; so we have a total of nine right
now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is about the highest number I
wanted to have in the final round. So that's going to be -- that's
good. I assume after the board takes action today, the screening
committee's work will be done; is that correct?
MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. We -- we will be planning
a reception, and we will, of course, invite that screening committee
to the reception and would like for them to be recognized at that
time, because they have done an outstanding job.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They need to be duly recognized for
the effort they put in. In light of some public comments by
individuals to the office, I think they've done yeoman's work, a
fantastic work.
MS. EDWARDS: Absolutely. We appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we intend to personally
interview each of these, or are we going to look at the videotapes and
narrow that down any ourselves? Do we -- what is our plan at this
point?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what Ms. Edwards is requesting
here today. The board has asked for a few things. The board asked
for, one, individual one-on-one interviews with each candidate, I
believe, was one of the requests. There will be a public session in
which this board -- they have to be scheduled for this board -- will
interview them in public for everyone that will be televised, and it
will be set at a specific time, and there are suggestions in Ms.
Edwards' memo as to those dates and times.
Beyond that the only other thing that I had is I have
discussed preliminarily with Mr. Fuchs at Continental, and he
suggested Channel 54 would be a great time to run the taped interviews
of the finalists. In addition, I would like our internal candidates
to be presented in that to the residents of this community.
Continental doesn't go county-wide, but it's the closest media source
__
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually -- well, 54 runs in
the Golden Gate Estate --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is 54 on the CVI? Okay. Good. So I
would like, you know, a consensus from the board to go ahead and work
with them on running those tapes on specific times.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is, are we
planning on bringing -- we already have two of them here, but all nine
candidates, or are we going -- is the board going to review these and
say, gee, there are two of these people that we don't necessarily
think we need to bring in?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's get a recommendation from Ms.
Edwards first on that.
MS. EDWARDS: Our recommendation is that we give you the
videos of the seven externals and that you review those and then you
come back with your recommendation for your short list from those, and
then you will include your two internals with those short-listed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd like to do -- I've been told
by those who have reviewed the videos it's going to be very difficult
to find a natural break in these -- at least in these seven -- seven
individuals. But I think we need to decide on a final grouping
number. We have two internal candidates that will be a part of that
process. How many external candidates of the seven that have been
provided do we think is a fair and reasonable number for a final short
list?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I got all of the
applications and resumes and have, you know, looked through a lot of
that, not all of them, but certainly of the top seven, and I think
that it would be hard for anybody on the board to have an opinion
until everybody has had a chance to look at all seven of those files
and all seven of those videos. Then let's come back and say, do we
want to meet with all seven, or can we cut it to six or five or
something less.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I agree. I mean, I
don't think we need say, okay, it's going to be three, and then if we
see a fourth one, go, oops, oh, well. So I agree. I think we should
all look, but we may not want to have a total of nine finalists.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To meet your time line you set out,
Ms. Edwards, at what meeting of this board would we have to determine
a final short list? I don't recall that from memory. Is it next week
or '-
MS. EDWARDS: Our memo recommends the 1st of April.
However, this memo also recommends that you do your interviews on the
15th and the 16th and the 17th. And my understanding, there is a
conflict with that. And so we're asking today that you move that out
to the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of April?
MS. EDWARDS: Of April. So we could move your April 1st
time frame for your short list up to the 8th. That's one week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think I need three weeks any
more than I need two. Do we want to schedule that -- that short list
discussion for the 1st or for the 8th?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd schedule it for next
week. I mean, if we look at the videos and look at the resumes, then
there's no reason why we couldn't talk about it next week. And if we
moved it up a week to April 8th instead of -- I don't care. But I
don't know that it takes us three weeks to look at seven videos.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's keep it at April 1st.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just asked Sue to get my
calendar for me, because I think that that's the week I'm out of town.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That -- April 8th is when you're
going to be gone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I'm going to be gone that
week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to have the two weeks,
just looking at the rest of my week, that the schedule I have this
week is pretty tight. So I would like to give myself two weeks on
this. So why don't we -- is it okay to leave it at April 1st with
everyone on the board?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Plan on coming in with some ready
discussion items -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can see the comments
already, picking our finalists on April Fool's Day. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So what else is new?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So on April 1st -- so we are
in line with your projected schedule. Are there any other items of
the schedule Ms. Edwards put forward that anyone has a problem with?
I hope you-all have had a chance to review it. Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: Do you agree, then, that we move to the
dates of 22nd, 23rd, and 24th for having the candidates here for
interviews?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- I'll tell you what. Since
we've got a little bit of time, why don't we finalize that next week?
MS. EDWARDS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everyone check those dates for your
individual schedules, both work and personal, and make sure they are
effective. I don't want any member of this board not being fully
available on those days. So, again, the days are the 22nd, 23rd, and
24th of April?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Filson, would you please
verify with each Commissioner and their schedules and do it verbally
so they -- you know, so we all have a chance to check with the people
that actually run our lives, our spouses or significant others or
children, how many recitals are on that week.
MS. EDWARDS: Since in your questionnaire you did
indicate that you would like for the candidates to meet with the
division heads, we are proposing the 22nd is the date that the
candidates would meet with the division heads. So that would mean
that we would require your time on the 23rd and the 24th only.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So just the 23rd and 24th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The morning of the 24th I have a
conflict.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, depending on how many
people we choose, do we actually need two full days to -- I mean, if
we end up with five or seven applicants, are we going to spend more
than an hour with each one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. In the schedule shown by Ms.
Edwards, they are allotted an hour and a half for an interview, and
you know, in an hour and a half, you know, we could throw a game of
scrabble in there for me, because I -- you know, I'm not going to need
an hour and a half.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I say we put them all in a big
cage and have a royal rumble.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I see we have the internal
candidate review here, and I live the furthest from the Government
Center, and I've got the earliest time frame.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those can all be juggled.
MS. EDWARDS: We also recommend that we change the dates
for the internals. We want to move those closer to the actual
interviews with the externals also, maybe even the same day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That was my other
suggestion, was that everyone needs to be -- I don't want to be
interviewing Mr. Ochs and Mr. McNees a week ahead of time. I want
everything to be fresh and in a similar time frame; so I would like
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Commissioner Mac'Kie is
not going to be available the 24th, why don't we just -- If it gets to
be a problem, fine, but we ought to try to do them all in one day. I
think it's more convenient to the candidates, certainly more
convenient to the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, 23rd, primary; 24th, overflow.
So, Commissioner Mac'Kie, make it quick.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We'll give Commissioner
Mac'Kie priority on the 23rd for times --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- since the rest of us are available
on the 24th.
Is there anything else we need to discuss to keep things
on track as you have identified, Ms. Edwards?
MS. EDWARDS: No, sir. You've answered all of my
questions today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. To you and to the committee --
we will have a chance to thank them individually later -- you've done
a fantastic job, and the taxpayers are about two hundred to three
hundred thousand dollars to the benefit for all of the work that's
gone on here. Thank you, again. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll see this item -- next week
we'll verify -- do we need to verify, or are we just going to -- Okay,
the 23rd is it. You don't need to bring this back next week. The
23rd and 24th, keep them open. Ms. Filson, please coordinate that
with all of the commissioners' schedules.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #14A
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL AND SOUTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT -
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE DISCUSSED ODOR PROBLEMS AT PLANT AN QUESTIONED
STANDARDS OF SAME
We are moving right along. Item 14, Board of County
Commissioners' communication is next. And the one I have particularly
is Commissioner Hac'Kie, Collier County Landfill and South County
Water Treatment Plant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to -- I was,
frankly, surprised, but very pleased to see a letter from the Landfill
Operations Community Council that we all got copies of talking about
the problem with the odor out -- that has been associated with the
landfill. I had given all of you a copy of a study dated December 2,
1996, by Charles Stokes that quantified what I think we all know
already, and that is that we have an odor problem with the water
treatment plant. And as I recalled, Mr. HcNees -- MR. HcNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We had -- had the scrubbers for
that plant in the budget for both of the years that I have been on the
county commission, and so far they're not bought, and that would have
a great deal to do with improving the odor out there. So I wanted to
just recognize the letter that we got -- Sheri Barnett, I see, is here
-- and ask what the standing is of the odor control methods for the
water plant.
MR. HcNEES: I'm told that the construction contract for
the scrubbers, best case, will be let by the end of the fiscal year,
worst case, by the end of the calendar year. That's all in the design
phase.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why, if it's been budgeted for
two years, does it take that long?
MR. HcNEES: Well, there's been a number of issues with
that particular project. We had a company who came in and did an
on-site feasibility study where we thought that we actually paid
nothing for, that they were going to do the study in exchange, to some
degree, for us purchasing what was some new technology. And that
looked like a great opportunity for us, and it just didn't work out.
The whole project fell through, which delayed all this considerably.
So there has been a number of design issues and a number of technical
issues where this has admittedly probably dragged out longer than it
really needed to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I apologize for
interrupting. I skipped over the public comment element right after
No. 11 before going to BCC communications.
Do we have any registered speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: You have one. Gil Erlichman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we just finish the
discussion on her item before we do that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you mind, Gil, if we
finished this and then come to that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. I just wanted to
make sure we didn't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to thank
Commissioner Hac'Kie for staying on top of it, because there are two
distinct smells out there. Both of them are bad, and if we can get
rid of one of them, the sooner the better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what we're hearing is that the
best news is that at the end of October, the contract will be let. Is
that what you are saying?
MR. McNEES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the construction time is how
long?
MR. McNEES: That I don't have an answer for you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Might you, Adolfo?
MS. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects
director. Hopefully, by January of '98 we will have completed that
project.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: January of '98, we will have --
okay, that smell will be gone?
MS. GONZALEZ: Yes. It is the same technology that we
are using at the north water plant. And our recollection, staff's
recollection, we are -- don't know of any complaints regarding odor
around the north water plant, and that's why we were looking for an
improvement in technology, and we went back to that.
MR. McNEES: We're talking about the south water plant,
to make that --MS. GONZALEZ: Yes. What we are going to do at the
south water plant is similar to what we've done -- used in the north
water plant.
MR. McNEES: Commissioner, just by means of managing
expectations here, a lot of the odor complaints that we get related to
the south water plant are actually either sprinkling from the golf
course or, you know, some things -- people who have well water who use
it for sprinkling get that same sulfur smell; so you may continue to
get an occasional odor complaint, but they won't be because of the
water plant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- because this is just
something I have wondered about for a while is, how did it happen that
the south treatment plant had such a delay in getting its odor control
system in place and the north treatment plant never had that problem?
I mean, how many years of delay was there in the north treatment plant
getting its scrubbers in place?
MS. GONZALEZ: None, ma'am. In the north water plant,
it was part of the original design. The south water plant, it's an
older plant, older technology. Odor probably wasn't an issue as big
as it is now, and it's something that we just decided to retrofit into
the plant.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just very disappointing that
it's taken as long as it has, but hopefully, you know, January of
'98.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Adolfo, is there a way to
make that happen sooner?
MS. GONZALEZ: Yes, there is. It will take that long,
because there are two components to the project. One is actually
building the components to -- odor scrubbers to remove the odor. The
other one is what to do with that feed water or the odor scrubber
water that comes out of that process. That has to be sent to the
south wastewater plant. The long lead time is to build the sewer
components to send the scrub water to the wastewater plant. In the
interim we could send that water back into the feed ponds -- the
backwash ponds that are at the south plant temporarily for as much as
half a year or so until we finish the sewer lines.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a great idea. Let's do
that.
MS. GONZALEZ: We can do that.
MR. McNEES: Or perhaps let's ensure the technical
feasibility of that to the plant operators. I mean, we can certainly
look at that. I would hate to make that decision sitting here this
morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But can we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's try to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get a report by next week
on whether or not that's possible?
MS. GONZALEZ: We already have some interim information
from our consultant that says it is technically feasible, but we need
to work on the operational protocol for doing something like that.
We'll try to certainly have that available --
MR. McNEES: As they say, the devil is always in the
details, but we'll try to get you a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's try to get some of that
devil next week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, before we go on to
BCC communications, I need to go back to public comment. My apologies
for taking that out of order.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Barnett, did you want to speak
regarding --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She was actually registered on
this one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, since you put her on
BCC communications, there are no speakers allowed in that; so she'll
need to fill out a slip or submit it for this. Okay.
PUBLIC COMMENT - GIL ERLICHMAN RE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING
TAX INCREASES - DISCUSSED
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples, speaking for
myself, registered voter and taxpayer. I'm very thankful to the board
for this public comments part of the agenda, because it gives me a
chance to speak on any topic that I want. And this morning I feel
that this topic that I'm going to address is extremely important to
the voters of Collier County and the voters of Florida. On Page 9-D
of The Naples Daily News, today's edition -- that's the local news
section -- it says "Tax Proposals Won't Go to Voters," Associated
Press. A proposal to put all state and local tax increases to voters
died in a House Committee Monday when two Republicans voted against
the measure. The bill by Representative Tom Finney, Republican, would
have put a constitutional amendment on the November 1998 ballot asking
voters whether they want a say-so over all proposed tax increases.
Supporters pointed out voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional
amendment last November requiring that any constitutionally imposed
taxes be approved by a two-thirds majority. Quote, I think it was a
fairly clear expression of their intent, end quote, said
Representative John Thresher, Republican, Orange Park, and a co-chair
of the House Rules, Resolutions, and Ethics Committee. Lobbyists for
city and county governments, however, said the measure would unduly
tie their hands.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. Mr. Erlichman,
does this have anything to do with local government, because --
MR. ERLICHHAN: No, sir.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then why are you before the
Board of Commissioners?
MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, this is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't a public forum
just to talk about anything. That's what letters to the editor are
for.
MR. ERLICHHAN: It said it's a general topic, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: General topic having to do
with this Board of Commissioners.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. Then I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Gil, let me --
MR. ERLICHHAN: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's kind of something that I
stressed to Mr. Perkins earlier on, is that under public comment we
ask that you address the board on matters that this board is dealing
with --
MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm sorry. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Otherwise, it becomes public access
MR. ERLICHHAN: I thought general topics meant that I
could speak about anything that had to do with, you know, the voters
and so forth in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- it's -- it's --
MR. ERLICHHAN: I don't want to debate that with you,
but that's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just to let you know why, if we allow
that, the next thing, someone wants to come up and talk about whether
they agree or disagree with a ban on abortion. That's not something
MR. ERLICHHAN: I see. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's kind of a can of worms.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. I -- Okay. But thank you. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for understanding.
Back to BCC communi -- I didn't skip anything else, did
I, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir, I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Only one. Commissioner
Norris? No.
Commissioner Berry?
Commissioner Constantine?
Item #14B
COUNTY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICTS - DISCUSSED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One quick item. I wonder if
we could have staff just check and make sure. You remember the
Naplescape presentation on how we were assured that the various
beautification districts would have a voice in that? I have a letter
here from both the Golden Gate Beautification District and the Marco
Island Beautification Advisory Committee, both of which say they don't
feel like they've had anything to do with this anywhere along the
line; they haven't had any input on it. And those are probably the
two biggest beautification districts, and they're frustrated. They go
into some detail. This one was addressed to you; the other one is
addressed to me. But I'm sure you both have copies -- I'll make sure
everybody has copies. But if we are going to go through with this
beautification thing county-wide, those who have been doing it for
years surely need to be consulted, and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's confusing me is I thought we
gave -- after that item at another meeting gave additional direction
that members of those committees receive copies of those plans. I
remember doing that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And one of those letters
actually says they received a copy of the plan, but it was, like, here
it is, and it's done, "just in case you're interested" type thing.
And so they need to be a part of that process. And if we could just
follow up with Mr. Botner and his crew and make sure that they go out
and are actually getting input, not simply sharing details.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I agree with that. Anything
else?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all.
Item #14C
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS IN COLLIER COUNTY - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the February issue of Gulf Coast
Business, we received credit for the architectural standards that our
staff produced and this board adopted, and I want to read two things
from this that are very brief that I think are kind of telling. A
comment from Lee County. "We've been successful in having things
developed that haven't been eyesores." I will let that one stand
where it is.
But the one that I think is a credit to our staff and to
this board for its understanding and aggressiveness is this one.
"Somewhere there must be an award waiting for getting it done in such
a short time." When's the last time that was said about government?
But, anyway, I want to that point out we're getting a lot of attention
for those standards. They're not perfect. We're going to have to
revise them in the near future, but you guys pat yourself on the back,
because the rest of the state is following us in this. So, Mr. McNees, anything?
MR. McNEES: I would just point out, at the risk of
overdosing you on good news, that the most recent Florida fact sheet
or Naples fact sheet, actually, gave you credit for having the fewest
number of employees per thousand population of any county in the State
of Florida, a number that continues to go down each year. And you are
being recognized for that as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now everyone is complaining about
downsizing except when it's government.
MR. McNEES: Other than that I have nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. Commissioner Constantine
spearheaded a resolution the board adopted that was responding to a
House Bill 207, an incredible service for elected officials, and I
received a very nice letter from Representative Livingston indicating
that the bill has died in committee and, rest assured, for at least
another year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good enough. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
BUDGET AMENDMENT USING FUND 111 RESERVES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,577.12,
TO PAY IMPACT FEES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FOR REIMBURSEMENT
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NAPLES HERITAGE CLUBHOUSE - WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND AS SURETY
OR Book Pages
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR MYSTIC GREENS II - WITH STIPULATIONS
AND CASH BOND AS SURETY
OR Book Pages
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NAPLES HERITAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
AND RESTROOM - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND AS SURETY
OR Book Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 97-168 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SOUTHAMPTON UNIT
ONE"
Item #16B1
AUTHORIZATION TO OBLIGATE FUNDS, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $269,900.00, FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULANTS,
INC., TO PERFORM THE SECOND YEAR OF POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT
Item #1682
CHANGE ORDER FOR PERFORMLANCE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES UNDER THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,
INC., FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT
Item #1683
RENEWAL OF HEHBERSHIP FOR 1997 IN FLORIDA SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATION'S "BEACH WATCH" PROGRAM FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPONSORS OF
BEACH AND INLET PROJECTS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,000.00
Item #1684
REJECT BID #97-2634 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BULLDOZER FOR THE STORMWATER
NLA/~AGEHENT DEPARTMENT AND DIRECT STAFF TO RE-BID
Item #1685
CONVEYANCE OF WATER FACILITIES TO FLORIDA CITIES WATER COHPANY AND
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS TERMINATING INTERIM WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, THE TECH FOUNDATION AND THE
DAVID LAWRENCE FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH, INC.
Item #1686
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2642, FOR CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE
DREDGING, TO MASTERS GROUP, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,411.00
Item #16C1
WORK ORDER VC-77 TO RENOVATE THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER
AUDITORIUM TO W. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$108,000.00
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER VB-18 TO HAKE IMPROVEMENTS AT IHMOKALEE RECREATION
CENTER/AQUATIC CENTER TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $121,989.00
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 97-169 RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-19, THEREBY RESCINDING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING ZONE ALONG A PORTION OF THE COUNTY
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ON COUNTY ROAD 29 IN THE VICINITY OF OUTDOOR
RESORTS, CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND RESOLUTION
97-170 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIMITED NO PARKING ZONE ON AN
ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SAFETY
Item #16D1
RENEW APPROVAL OF APPRAISERS AND APPRAISAL FIRMS FOR APPRAISAL AND
VALUATION SERVICES WHICH THE COUNTY HAY REQUIRE FROM TIME TO TIME,
PURSUANT TO RFP-95-2338 AS NAMED ON THE STANDARD APPRAISAL LIST OF
APPRAISERS AND THE EMINENT DOMAIN LIST OF APPRAISERS FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16D2
BID #97-2641 FOR EXTERIOR PRESSURE CLEANING - AWARDED TO PRECISION
CLEANING INCORPORATED
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 97-171 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS
THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 97-172 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS
THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 97-173 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS
THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT
ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET
Item #16D7
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY'S SURPLUS AUCTION OF
FEBRUARY 22, 1997
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRIASER'S OFFICE
1995 Real Property
No. Dated
268, 270 03/04 - 03/11/97
1995 Tangible Personal Property
No. Dated
79 03/07/97
1996 Real Property
No. Dated
108 02/18/97
114 - 117 02/28 - 03/04/97
122 03/11/97
1996 Tangible Personal Property
No. Dated
60 - 63 03/03 - 03/07/97
Item #1662
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR THE SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated below:
Item #1611
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO COHMENCE A CIVIL ACTION
AGAINST ELBA CORPORATION AND FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA,
FORMALLY SUTHEAST BANK P.A., TO DRAW ON THE ESCROWED FUNDS FOR THE
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AT EMBASSY WOODS PHASE I AND EMBASSY WOODS PHASE
II
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:58 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, 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: Deborah A. Stewart, CSR, RPR