BCC Minutes 04/22/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 22, 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
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Hike HcNees, Interim County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to call to order the Tuesday, April 22,
1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting. This morning, for the
invocation, it's our pleasure to have Reverend Les Rengstorff of the
Sunrise Christian Church with us.
Reverend Rengstorff, if I can ask you to give the invocation this
morning, and we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND RENGSTORFF: Let us pray together.
Father, in heaven, we are here today praising your name for the
freedom that we have to worship you and to glorify you for all that
you've done for us and for all that you continue to do for us, both as
individuals and as a country. You've blessed this land in more ways
than we could possibly acknowledge. You've provided great resources,
great riches, such great abundance. You've provided great people and
great leadership. You've brought us from a small, struggling nation
to the greatest in the world, and we acknowledge that it has been your
blessings, your power, your direction and guidance that's caused this
dream to be realized, and we thank you and we praise you for it, for
without you, we are and will be nothing.
We now ask for your continued guidance as we strive to continue
to make this community and this nation pleasing unto you. I
acknowledge you as the creator of this great universe, and we pray
that we will be proper caretakers through your direction.
We -- may we all be what you would have us to be as we plan and
make decisions today, and we glorify you for it, through Jesus
Christ's holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Before we get started this
morning, it's good to see a lot of people here on various issues, but
I'm going to ask for your cooperation today. We have a lengthy
agenda, with many issues and many of you here on different issues.
What I'm going to ask you to do, if you have conversations, to
please take them outside into the hallway so that we can keep the
meeting going and keep the efficiency of the items moving along today.
It is a long agenda, so I'm going to ask for your cooperation and your
patience as we get through what we have today. Good morning, Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
We have a few changes this morning. We have three items to put
under Board of County Commissioners Item 10(A), regarding a permit fee
waiver; Item 10(B), a discussion of the county manager selection; Item
10(C), reconsideration of a land use petition.
We have two withdrawals today; one on the regular agenda under
the county attorney's Item 9(B), recommendation regarding a settlement
with a former employee, that has been withdrawn. That settlement we
believe to have been brought to closure in advance.
The last withdrawal is an item from the consent agenda,
16(B)(ll). It's a bid item, and there has been some protest action
that we want to try to resolve before we go forward with that bid.
Those would be the only staff changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'kie, do you have any
additions or changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, but I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Looking at this agenda, which happens to be
a lengthy one, and noting that the last three meetings were relatively
short meetings, what is the explanation for all of a sudden everything
showing up on this particular agenda? I just -- I just have a
question.
MR. McNEES: I'll answer that one.
We purposely kept a number of items off last week's agenda and --
more than we expected there -- last week's agenda you had the joint
meeting with the planning commission -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
MR. McNEES: -- so staff held a couple items. Turned out there
was very little submitted at all for last week, and that ended up
being a very short agenda, but we intentionally kept last week light
because of your joint meeting that you scheduled, so it's more part
coincidence and part just misjudgment that we -- we didn't really
expect last week to be as light as it was.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because my concern is that, I don't care how
great we all think we might be, there comes a point where we're not as
astute up here as we should be with a lengthy agenda, and I just hope
that in the future we keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not all of us think we're great, but --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: According to media sources, we all do, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of others. 16(B)(4), I'd
like to remove and put on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is the Clam Pass exotic removal?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, no, I'm sorry, but the
answer to that question --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that is water and sewer district
authorization three vehicles from surplus -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which I think is a great idea,
but I have a couple of questions on.
MR. McNEES: That will become 8(B)(2).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I wondered if we can keep our
lunch as close to 12 noon today. We're going to obviously have to
take one if the schedule is as long as it looks, and I wonder if we
can keep that fairly close to 12 noon. I've scheduled to meet with
some people.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll certainly do my best to keep that in a
twelve to one time frame, and, again, being mindful of the agenda
today, we'll want to get back on a timely manner also.
I have two items to pull off the agenda. One is 16(C)(2). It's
a city/county beach parking agreement. I want to have a discussion in
light of recent changes the city's made in operation of at least one
beach parking area, so 16(B)(2) would become -- MR. McNEES: Will become 8(C)(5).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second one is Item 16(H)(3). This is one
of the issues in which the -- the Sheriff's Office is requesting that
the Board sign on a grant approval that has out-year funding of about
$150,000, should the grant be reduced. These are items we've
discussed in the past as wanting to know and be made known, so I'd
like to discuss that and -- so 16(H)(3) will become --
MR. McNEES: Become ll(A), and we'll notify the Sheriff's Office
of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, we're notifying him right now.
He's standing there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that's all the changes I had.
Seeing nothing further, do we have a motion on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Item 4.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion to approve the minutes of April 1 of the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 20-26, 1997, AS PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're on to Item 5(A),
proclamations.
We do have -- I guess it's good that we have so much going on in
our community that we have a whopping six proclamations this morning.
The first one, Commissioner Hac'Kie has pro -- is Professional
Secretaries Week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would like to ask Barbara Pedone, who's
our county manager's executive secretary, to come forward and accept
this on behalf of a lot of working women in this community.
Whereas, secretaries and office professionals represent one of
the largest segments of the labor force; and whereas secretaries and
office professionals have increased their contributions in recent
years by mastering computer software and taking on management duties,
and whereas, a well-trained and fairly compensated secretarial work
force is essential to our economic success, both locally and
nationally.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 20th
through April 26th, 1997 be designated as Professional Secretaries
Week.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 1997, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
(Applause)
MS. PEDONE: Good morning, Commissioners.
Many thanks for your recog -- recognition and your continuous
support for the secretaries of Collier County. Tomorrow, April 23rd,
is secretary's day officially -- officially recognizing office
professionals nationwide.
I wish to also thank you for your -- for the opportunity to
express appreciation to all of our bosses who support and value the
work of the secretary. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Pedone.
And for those of you who haven't made arrangements for your
secretaries tomorrow, you might want to do it today.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 1, 1997, AS DAY OF PRAYER - ADOPTED
Item 5(A)(2), proclamation to be accepted by Hs. Him Anderson,
chair of Christian Emphasis Committee of the YHCA.
Ms. Anderson, I'll ask you to step up here and become more famous
than you already are.
It's my pleasure to read the following proclamation.
Whereas, prayer has aided in all times where support and guidance
were needed; and whereas, it is fitting that we should give thanks for
the freedom and prosperity which our nation, state and county enjoy,
and pray for the continued guidance and comfort which God has
graciously bestowed upon this nation since its inception; and whereas,
the Day of Prayer is a time set aside for Americans to pray to their
heavenly Father and to reaffirm the spiritual principles upon which
our nation was founded; and whereas, Collier County, the State of
Florida and the United States of America can and will benefit from
prayer by its faithful and prayerful residents; and whereas, across
our land on HAy 1st, Americans will unite at specific times in prayer
for our nation to acknowledge our dependence upon God, to give thanks
for the many blessings our country has received from Him, to recognize
our need for personal and corporate renewal of moral values and to
invoke God's blessing upon our leaders.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that HAy 1st, 1997 be
designated as Day of Prayer in Collier County, and heartily recommend
to all our citizens full participation in the services to be held in
observance of this day.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, Timothy Hancock,
Chairman.
Colleagues, I'd like to move approval of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just while she's shaking hands, I'll tell
you that we had a decent turnout from Collier County Government at --
at the prayer breakfast, and it was wonderful. I just encourage
everybody to turn out next year. It couldn't have -- it couldn't be
better, and I thank you for all the -- all the work you did to get it
put together.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
On behalf of the YMCA of Collier County and the Christian
Emphasis Committee, we'd like to thank you very much for taking time
out of your very busy schedule today to recognize May 1st as the
national day of prayer and proclaim Collier County's participation in
a county day of prayer as well.
It's extremely appropriate and I congratulate you on your
foresight of adopting this proclamation today because it was 133 years
ago today that the Congress established that in God we trust would be
on all of our currency, so congratulations on that bit of foresight,
and, additionally, I'd like you to rest assured that in God we the
people of Collier County trust that all of your decisions as you look
forward today and in the days to come will be made in the best
interest of all and for no particular special interest but those of
Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
(Applause)
Thank you, Ms. Anderson.
Item #5A3
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 21, 1997 AS STOP AUTO THEFT
WEEK -ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next proclamation this morning,
Commissioner Norris, Stop Auto Theft Week proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to ask our sheriff to step
forward and face the camera. Hold up the numbers.
Whereas, it is the duty, honor and tradition of the Collier
County Sheriff's Office to preserve and protect the lives, property
and constitutional guarantees of all persons through an unrelenting
commitment to professional excellence; and whereas, the Stop Auto
Theft Rally acts as a means by which Sheriff Don Hunter and the
Collier County Sheriff's Office will help protect the property of all
persons; and whereas, the Stop Auto Theft Rally has been designed to
educate Collier County residents about auto theft deterfence the
weekend of April 26th, 1997.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of April 21st,
1997 be designated as Stop Auto Theft Week.
Done and ordered this 22nd day April, 1997 by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
It really should have been my proclamation, considering my luck
with autos.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Been there, done that, right?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe it's best that I do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we have a motion and a very sympathetic
second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
THE COMHISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
(Applause)
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning, and thank you for the proclamation.
As Commissioner Constantine well knows, automobiles are a very
expensive investment and they appear to be very easy to lose from time
to time, and, unfortunately, Collier County has a record of losing
about a thousand a year. It's one of the things we know we can
prevent if we take precautions and work with the industry to better
the security devices existing on vehicles.
This weekend, Saturday and Sunday, beginning at 10:00 in the
morning, we'll be at the Pace warehouse up on -- or the former Pace
warehouse, I should say, Naples Community Hospital's satellite
building on Pine Ridge Road extension, all day, both days, to better
educate our public in the methods to prevent auto theft and to retain
that very valuable and expensive piece of equipment we all need to be
where we are right now.
We're all -- we're a very mobile society, and we are asking the
public to work with us to better educate themselves on how to prevent
auto theft.
So thank you again, Commissioners, for the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
framed inside his car.
Thank you, Sheriff.
I understand Commissioner Constantine has one
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1997 AS SPECIAL OLYMPICS
LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN DAY - ADOPTED
Item 5(A)(5), proclamation regarding Teen Pregnancy week.
Commissioner Mac'Kie? Whoops.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you skip one on purpose or -- Special
Olympics?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In that case, we'll go to that one.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, either one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Proclamation for -- proclamation for
proclaiming Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run Day.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can get the sheriff to come back
and also Doug Caperton to come on up and Tina.
Okay. By the way, this has inspired me to get back into shape
for Doug, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's caused me to fear Thursday morning.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anybody needs good comedy,
Commissioner Hancock, and I will be running Thursday morning.
Whereas, the annual Florida Law Enforcement Torch Run is a
fund-raising event for Special Olympics; and whereas, the Law
Enforcement Torch Run acts as a means by which the law enforcement
community can help Special Olympics realize their athletic potential;
and whereas, the members of local, state and federal law enforcement
agencies in Collier County are running in the Special Olympics Torch
Run on Thursday, April 24, 1997; and whereas, Collier County is very
fortunate to have dedicated law enforcement agencies who possess a
high degree of commitment to the community in which they serve; and
whereas, Collier County also has many talented and motivated
participants who will be competing in the Special Olympics Indoor
Games in West Palm Beach, Florida the weekend of May 16th, 1997.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Thursday, April 24th,
1997 be designated as Special Olympics Law Enforcement's Torch Run Day
in Collier County in recognition of the law enforcement community's
contribution to our citizens, our government and our community
welfare.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 1997, Board of County
Commissioners, Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in
favor signify saying aye.
The panel members responded)
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That doesn't mean I have to run, does it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We look forward to it, in a sick kind of way.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Collier County Special Olympics. We are very
fortunate to have been involved in Special Olympic's effort for about
14 years. The various law enforcement agencies of the area, Florida
Marine Patrol, Florida Highway Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, Drug
Enforcement Administration, sometimes the FBI, certainly the Sheriff's
Office and the Naples Police Department will all be running on
Thursday morning in an effort to begin the process of moving the
torch, the symbolic torch, from here to the games, which I believe
will be in Palm Beach this year for our Special Olympians.
We've just held a Special Olympic event about two weeks ago.
Time flies. I think it was about two weeks ago. When you reach my
age -- but about two weeks ago, we had our local competition. We'll
be sending some Special Olympians on to the state games in Palm Beach
in May.
And as we said, Thursday morning, bright and early, we'll begin
the run. I look forward to seeing Commissioner Constantine, Chairman
Hancock out there, and I promise that the pace won't be too brisk
because I am running, and we'll move it on up to the Lee County line.
Do you want to add anything to that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have a technical question.
Assuming I actually complete the first leg of the race, how do I
get back?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll see that you get back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 23 - HAY 1, 1997, AS TEEN
PREGNANCY PREVENTION AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, I'm back on schedule. Item 5(A)(5),
proclamation regarding Teen Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Week.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to ask Amy Granato to come
forward and accept this proclamation, and before I read it, just to
say, you know, there are a lot of things controversial associated with
this issue in Collier County, but teen pregnancy prevention has to be
one that all sides agree on, so I'm pleased to read this.
Whereas, we the citizens of the State of Florida and the
residents of Collier County believe that the children of this state
should be born healthy, grow up in a safe and nurturing environment,
have the full support of their mother and father, experience
educational success, achieve economic independence and reach their
fullest potential in life; and
Whereas, teen pregnancy and parenting increases the likelihood of
low birth weight, developmental delays and disabilities, child abuse
and neglect for the infant; disruption of education, decreased income
potential, economic dependence on Welfare, and subsequent pregnancies
in the teenage years for the mother; and
Whereas, the burden associated with teen pregnancy and parenting
is also borne by the tax payers of Florida through increased costs in
the areas of health care, education, welfare and juvenile crime; and
Whereas, in the last seven years more than 17,000 of Florida's
children from ages 10 through 18 years have given birth to children,
with Collier County having the 18th highest birth rate to teen mothers
in the state; and
Whereas, a summit on the prevention of teen pregnancy, which
included private and public representation from around the state,
identified public awareness as an important strategy for addressing
this problem; and
Whereas, the prevention of teen pregnancy should be a priority in
Collier County and the State of Florida; and
Whereas, the State of Florida should further focus its attention
on the prevention of teen pregnancy by building awareness of the
causes, extent and consequences of the problem; building linkages
between local, state and national resources, and calling its citizens
to action in their communities to address this critical issue, as has
Collier County through the formation of its Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Coalition.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, joining with the legislature
of the State of Florida, that the week of April 23rd through HAy 1st,
1997, be designated as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Week.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 1997, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion, and I'll second the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
COHHISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three to one. Commissioner
Constantine out.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like the record to reflect that I am not
opposed to teenage pregnancy prevention; I'm opposed to the language
in this particular proclamation.
MS. GRANATO: I would like to thank you on behalf of the
Coalition for recognizing that teen pregnancy is a problem in Collier
County, and also thank you to the Coalition that represents many
different agencies in the county to work on this one common goal, so
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5A6
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997, AS COLLIER COUNTY
FOCUS WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item, 5(A)(6), proclamation proclaiming
April 24th, 1997 and the week of that as Collier County FoCuS Week,
and I saw Mr. Jerry Coone.
Do we have -- is Susan Diamond here this morning also?
MR. COONS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. She's a little easier on the eyes,
Jerry, but we'll accept you, too.
It's my pleasure to read the following proclamation.
Whereas, FoCuS is a citizens' organization which is cooperatively
planning and implementing the best possible future for Collier County;
and
Whereas, the people of Collier County, working together, will
create and, with our governments, implement a plan for our future
which preserves our area's unique character, fulfills our
expectations, and respects our values; and
Whereas, urged by citizens who recognize there was no road map to
preserve Collier's future who sought to make that their voices heard,
13 founding organizations from all civic areas and a 70-person
Steering Committee began the work of FoCuS in 1994. Through a process
called visioning, facilitated by Gianni Longo of New York's Urban
Initiatives, they put in motion a plan which allows for active citizen
participation in the shaping of our future; and
Whereas, the continuing FoCuS efforts carry with them thousands
of volunteer hours and will continue to include any and all members of
our community that share the common goal of making Naples and Collier
County an even better place to live; and
Whereas, four FoCuS task forces are currently engaged in
implementing the goals established by the public in 1995 and '96; and
Whereas, on April 24th FoCuS will present and sign its Collier
Compact confirming its commitment to preserve and promote all that is
unique and positive in our community.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners,
Collier County, Florida that the week of April 20th through 27th be
designated as Collier County FoCuS Week.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 1997, Timothy Hancock,
Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is seconded.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Coons, thank you.
(Applause)
MR. COONS: Thank you very much.
As the proclamation states, FoCuS is about a very simple idea of
bringing citizens together with community groups, and, hopefully, with
their governments, to solve community problems by consensus. You said
it so very well, and I'm grateful on behalf of all of the citizen
volunteers from FoCuS. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Coons.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, you do have a speaker registered on
this proclamation. We don't normally do that, and it's your
discretion, obviously, whether you want to hear that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I think it's inappropriate to
accept public speakers on proclamations.
That individual, if they wish to make their comment under public
comment, is certainly free to do so.
Item #5A7
CHECK PRESENTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000 BY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IN
SUPPORT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL PROGRAM
Item 5(A)(7), presentation by the Ford Hotor Company.
And Commissioner Constantine, I believe you've been involved with
this for some time now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. If Matt is here, Matt Sear,
from the Ford Motor Company -- there he is.
We have had a number of dealings on the county level with Ford in
the last year and tried to encourage them to stay and bring more of
your business to the area, but in addition to being a good, clean
industry for Collier County that provides a number of jobs, Ford is
also a good corporate neighbor, and we appreciate that.
It was almost four years ago Ford started supporting the Veterans
Program by providing a 16-passenger van free of charge, and they had
had a test model van, and said, gee, do you know where we can rack up
about 3,000 miles a month on this thing, and we said, boy, we
certainly do.
And so I know on behalf of the veterans of Collier County we
appreciate that, and their van at the time had had about 140,000 miles
on it, so the timing couldn't have been any better.
In addition, last year, I brought to Ford's attention the
Midnight Basketball League that we had started to reach out to at-risk
youths, and we were trying to put that together with no impact on the
taxpayer, and in response, Ford provided a cash donation in support of
the program, and Midnight Basketball now provides constructive
activity for an average of 60 or 70, and actually our high week was, I
think, 105, kids every Friday night, and the program is successful, in
large part, due to the staff of the Golden Gate Community Center and
John Dodd, who's here, and we appreciate his work, certainly due to
the support of the Golden Gate Community, and perhaps most
importantly, due you to the support of Ford Motor Company, so I'd like
to introduce Mr. Matt Sear, and -- and he has a presentation to make
that will help to continue this very successful program. Matt.
MR. SEAR: On behalf -- on behalf of the Ford Motor Company, we'd
like to present -- on behalf of Ford Motor Company, we'd like to
present this -- this check to Chairman Hancock to support the Midnight
Basketball Program.
Ford enjoys this community and we feel we should always be a part
of the communities that we are in, and enjoy supporting the youth and
helping the youth in any way we can.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Sear, before we let you get away, on
behalf of the community, we'd like to thank the Ford Motor Company for
your desire to participate in a positive program, like the county's
Midnight Basketball Program.
Mr. John Dunnick, from Parks and Recreation, if I can ask you to
come up here.
It is my pleasure to take this generous gift from the Ford Motor
Company and present it to Mr. Dunnick with our Parks and Recreation
Program, and ask that you put it to good use immediately, and I'm sure
you have a few words to say about the program.
Mr. Sear, on behalf of this community, thank you very much. And
I'll turn the microphone over to Mr. Dunnick.
(Applause)
MR. DUNNICK: First of all, I'd like to thank Ford Motor Company
for making this possible, but they're not the only ones that make it
possible. The Board of County Commissioners, with all their support,
help make it possible. The Sheriff's Department and Don Hunter, they
definitely make it possible.
What's neat about this program is where the program's come and
where it's going. In the last -- in the last year, I've watched it
grow. A perfect example would be, last weekend we took the kids to
the Orlando Hagic/Hiami Heat basketball game, and when you see a
20-year-old child or young adult go to a game for the first time and
the respect level that he has for it and the appreciation that he has
for the staff and the hard work and what Ford Motor Company has done
to make that possible, we really enjoy and appreciate that.
We've taken a kid -- we've taken kids up to a basketball
tournament, 10 youths, who -- you know, it had never been done before,
to compete in a basketball event, and some of the words I heard, you
know, when they came back was that how much teamwork was important,
how much respect they have for the program itself.
These kids came and they didn't seem respectful at first when the
program began. They'd walk in with their hats on and their pants
down, and it didn't take long for them to realize that this is a
program for them, and they started pulling the pants up and the hats
started coming off, and that's something that we really appreciate.
So once again, we thank Ford Motor Company, the County
Commissioners and the Sheriff's Department for making it possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Dunnick, and --
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the gracious presentation we failed to
mention the check was for $6,000, so thanks again to the Ford Motor
Company for everything you've done for this community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are up to the next item on the agenda,
5(B), service awards. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we have one here today for Robert
Thurston from our Planning Services for 10 years of service.
Robert.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is Mr. Thurston here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's working.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He was planning to be here. We'll save
this for him and give it to him at another opportunity.
Item #SA1
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEHENT, INCLUDING SURETY PROVISIONS,
WITH BOYNE-USA-SOUTH, INC. FOR ROYAL PALM GOLF ESTATES - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are next to Item 8(A)(1) of the
agenda, recommendation to enter into a construction and maintenance
agreement, include -- including surety provisions with Boyne-USA-South
for Royal Palm Golf Estates. Good morning, Mr. Cook.
MR. COOK: Good morning, Commissioners.
Again, for the record, my name is Tom Cook, engineering plan
review manager.
Item 8(A)(1) is a recommendation to enter into a construction and
maintenance agreement, including surety provisions with
Boyne-USA-South, Incorporated for Palm River Golf Estates.
Boyne-USA-South is the current owner of a golf course, two
commercial parcels and 160 of the 250 platted lots of the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Cook.
MR. COOK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think you said Palm River, and what it
should be is Royal Palm.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly would be a surprise to
the people of --
MR. COOK: I stand corrected. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know, I was getting kind of excited.
Palm River is about to get a bunch of money.
MR. COOK: The construction documents and final plat for Royal
Palm -- for Royal Palm Golf Estates was approved by the Board in June
of 1976. The plat was recorded in September of 1976.
In June 1985, the Board considered a request for conditional
preliminary acceptance of the required improvements. The acceptance
was conditioned upon satisfactory completion of the project's utility
facilities and receipt of approved accepted documents by the Utilities
Division.
In addition, a moratorium on building permits was declared until
these deficiencies were corrected. To date, the -- these conditions
imposed in 1985 have not been met.
In June 1991, the Board entered into a Construction and
Maintenance Agreement with the previous owner, Pine Coast Enterprises,
Limited. This Agreement, very similar to the one before you today,
would have permitted the issuance of building permits upon the posting
of $300,000 security and proceeding with the correction of all the
deficiency.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cook, if I may interrupt you.
MR. COOK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've -- you've done an excellent job in the
executive summary of laying everything out as you're -- you're
reciting to us now.
In a nutshell, the county stopped the issuance of building
permits due to the inability to place the adequate infrastructure
there. They are posting an approved security in the amount of 110
percent of the cost to do this work. They would be allowed to begin
pulling building permits, but will not get CO's until the work is
complete.
Is that it in a nutshell?
MR. COOK: That's in a nutshell.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Cook?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
MR. COOK: Thank you.
Item #SB1
UPDATE ON THE INTEGRATIVE CORRECTIONS STRATEGIC DEVELOPHENT PLAN - V
GROUP AWARDED CONTRACT TO PREPARE STUDY AND BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Cook, thank you very much.
Next, we have Item 8(B)(1), update on the integrative corrections
strategic development plan. I'm not sure where that title came from,
but it sounds pretty good. We called it the jail study.
MR. McNEES: Commissioners, this item, you'll recall, just a few
weeks ago you directed us to fast-track a study regarding the need for
jail expansion to bring some order to the numbers related to that
issue.
Mr. Gonzalez, a representative of the Sheriff's Office and the
Budget Office, has done a yeoman's job of ramming through a selection
process and getting interest in that and reviewing proposals, and
Adolfo's here to do to bring to you the results of that, and they've
done a great job of moving forward in a hurry and are ready to take
the next step.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, good morning.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez,
capital projects director.
Before I begin, I want to go over the same steps that you had
directed us to brief you on just a few weeks ago. Those are the four
items identified in your executive summary.
Captain Greg Smith, the jail administrator is here to give you an
update on the level of service standard, what the standard is, who
will enforce the standard on us, and also some information regarding
the work release center, and then I'll give you information on the
consultant selection for the jail update.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Captain
Greg Smith, Collier County Sheriff's Office, jail administrator.
This is in response to the direction by the Commission that we
come back with some educational information on exactly who holds the
hammer regarding the need for jail expansion. That's been provided to
you in my information paper dated April 15th, 1997.
To summarize, basically, there are two worlds; it was before
1996, and the world that exists after 1996, and that speaks to a -- a
extensive revision of Florida statute that actually removed the State
Department of Corrections from the oversight responsibilities for
county jails and placed it back with the local authorities.
The situation still exists that what would have to happen is that
an inmate would file for an injunction in the Circuit Court. If that
Circuit Court finds that that jail has exceeded its design capacity,
then that Circuit Court could order inmates taken from that
jurisdiction and housed in another jurisdiction, with costs being
borne by the original county of jurisdiction.
Other -- other ways that it could be forced in front of the
courts is by an 8th Amendment suit for cruel and unusual punishment.
However, there is some good news here. In fact, if the trends of the
court show that it's a totality of the circumstance to bring relief
under the 8th Amendment, that we just can't -- it's just not
satisfactory to say that 25 people are housed in a housing unit
designed for 20, that there has to be a totality of deterioration of
jail conditions.
Certainly, that doesn't exist in our particular case. Our jail
is well run, despite the fact that it's -- our functional capacity
sometimes is infringed upon.
Design capacity is quite different from functional capacity, and
that's outlined in the brief as well.
Also, what's provided for public information purposes more than
for you as a Commission is a citation of a case that was recently
brought through the llth Circuit, Moore V. Morgan, which shows that
just because a County has defeated a referendum to expand a jail by
levy of a sales tax does not obviate the need nor excuse that
Commission by virtue of qualified immunity defense.
Therefore, it -- it still is beholden upon the Commission to plan
for jail expansion, and certainly that's what we're doing with regard
to the present action to upgrade the strategic plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I interrupt you on that point --
MR. SMITH: Certainly.
MR. HAC'KIE: -- just to ask Mr. Weigel to explain what qualified
immunity -- what is -- what was he just saying to us about that we're
not shielded by qualified immunity if we fail to plan for jail space?
MR. WEIGEL: The -- the sovereign immunity that exists for the --
for local governments is limited by statute, specifically 768.28, and
that, through case law, has broken out to show that there are certain
immunities that are absolute and some are qualified, and if we -- and
a part of the determination that a Court will look at is whether the
determinations that a County makes in its capital improvements are
either fulfilling or not fulfilling the needs of their planning or
operational. If they're planning, you may -- you may have a different
consequence in regard to the ability to be liable than if it's a mere
operational lapse or a problem that exists.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my question is -- is, are we being
told that there's a possibility that we could be individually liable
if we fail to plan?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't believe it's individual. I think it's more
of a -- as a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a whole, the County as a whole?
So failure to plan could mean that the County is subject to suit.
Okay. I just needed to get that straight. Sorry for the
interruption.
MR. SMITH: And -- and basically, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that's --
as I've previously stated, that's provided for public education more
than -- more than it is for the education of the Board. Certainly,
the Board is aware of that, but I've heard members of the general
public, stand up here and say, we defeated that resolution, you can't
expand the jail, you shouldn't expand the jail, and, certainly, this
case that -- that seems to be on point states that there is still a
need to plan for a jail expansion, if so warranted, and that's why it
was included within the informational packet.
Also included in that package is the population trends by fiscal
year from 1993 to 1997, which basically demonstrates a 50 inmate per
day growth over that period of time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 50 Inmate per year.
MR. SMITH: Excuse me, yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whew, not per day.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
50 inmates per year seems to be reflected on our average daily
population.
One correction, Mr. Gonzalez stated that what's been provided is
our level of service standard, and what I've actually given you is the
level of service that's been demonstrated by historical average.
Certainly, a standard would have to be adopted by the Commission.
What I provided to you is just what seems to be the accurate picture
to date.
When you look at functional capacity versus design capacity, it
seems that the Collier County jail system will exceed its design
capacity in the year 2005. It seems that we will exceed our design
capacity in the year 2000, and that's reflected by the historical
averages and the projections that I myself have formulated.
Certainly, the company that we hired to update the strategic plan
will give us a new, fresh look as well.
That's part of that RFP, as I understand it, Mr. Gonzalez.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, you've done, at least in my
opinion, a yeoman's work in putting together an understandable format
and how many -- not just beds are physically being used, but the
limitations of the jail, such as, having a women's section, that if
there are ten beds available in there and you have an increase in male
prisoners, you cannot cross them for security reasons.
You've got operational factors that if you have, as I read it, if
you have 584 beds occupied, the management factor is equivalent to 662
individuals since you're going to have vacancies in sections that --
that can't be used by other types of either other sentenced or
presentenced individuals; is that correct?
MR. SMITH: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm afraid of, Mr. Gonzalez, is,
that we're going to spend some money here and get Mr. Smith's report
back with a prettier cover on it. He's done a real nice job showing
us what the capacity is and what the factors are going into that.
What I'm hoping is that what we are paying for, and I don't see
it listed in the scope of services, is not just how to maximize the
existing jail, what expansion may or may not be necessary, but also
how we're going to pay for it.
I specifically asked for that when we talked about it, as far as
funding options. Yet, when I read the scope of services, I don't see
that. To me, that's critical.
Was that a part of the scope of services for these individuals to
respond -- or these firms to respond to?
MR. GONZALEZ: Not how we were going to pay for it, but what was
it going to cost, or what do we think it's going to cost.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- that's not what I -- I asked
for, but we can -- we can discuss that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I agree with you. I think that if
the cost and whether it's specific as to what the construction cost is
going to be may or may not be part of the question, but what are the
impacts, what are the ways we can minimize that cost out.
Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe you can help me out with this. I look
at question two, we have a number of questions under the consideration
section, one, two, three four questions, and number two says, can
existing operations be altered to reduce the magnitude of or delay the
need for a jail expansion.
I don't look at magnitude simply as structure, do we reduce the
size of the structure. I'm thinking, can we reduce physically, can we
reduce the impact, and can we do the same thing like fulfill our
expansion needs but do it less expensively.
Is that how the -- that it was responded to or am I reading it
the way I wanted to read it?
MR. SMITH: My understanding of it is, Mr. Commissioner, is that
the consultant would be able to -- to develop that and bring that back
to us as part of their package, and in some -- in a brief conversation
that I've had with the consultant prior to today, they seem that --
that they have a willingness to provide that service as well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a little more
specifically, because as I look at the sheet you handed out today with
firm strengths and the -- and the homework -- I had Ed Finn give me
some stuff last night. As I look at this, two of the firms seem to
stand out among the four above the others, and that's HLM and the V
Group.
In those two cases, did they answer that question? I mean, as
part of their proposal, are they suggesting that they can look at how
they can reduce the magnitude fiscally or is their response simply,
what are we doing for structure, and maybe I'm just misinterpreting
the question?
MR. SMITH: It's -- it's been my experience that that is always a
included part of any corrections study that's been performed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. But isn't there a specific
response to RFP?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe Adolfo knows that question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Smith, I don't think you -- did
you review the RFP's?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The response is --
MR. GONZALEZ: If I can just summarize what we've gone through in
the RFP process and the purpose of that project.
As I understood it, you asked us to, based on information we gave
you last time, to get a better handle on what it was going to cost to
build the inmate housing, the jail operations and sheriff's
operations, and based on what mix of a minimum, medium and maximum
security beds, how many beds and by when.
That's essentially what we've asked the consultants that sul --
that submitted proposals to tell us, is what's the mix of security
type, how many beds and by what time.
To a great extent, you, as a Board, have an even larger influence
on the operational question, and that's because, as I recall from the
'93 study, one of the principal recommendations was to reactivate the
Public Safety Committee, formerly called the Correctional Planning
Committee.
That committee, which is, I think, chaired by the Board chairman
and various members of the criminal justice system organization for
Collier County, the Sheriff's Office, the Clerk of Courts, case
processing people, really need to analyze and provide an oversight as
to the operational efficiencies in processing cases, which is a large
component of -- it impacts, to a great extent, how many beds you need.
You may not need as many beds if you can move people through the
system quicker, and that is what the Correctional Planning Committee
was doing before, and I think you actually implemented some of the
recommendations in the previous study weekend program, a different
type of case processing system, a computerized system to -- to
maximize -- or optimize the court processing system. That, again, is
more -- more of your effort in trying to come up with those ideas in
oversight.
What I had envisioned the consultant to do is to tell us, based
on the case processing data, the time it takes to process a person
through the criminal justice system, how that impacts the jail system,
then we know how -- the mixing of security types, then we know how
many beds we need, by what time we need the beds, based on, as Captain
Smith pointed out, his current data as to level of service.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, you -- if I may, Mike.
Mr. Gonzalez, you've -- you know, you've done a good job of
focusing in on the physical aspects of -- of what we asked.
I specifically remember making the statement, and Captain Smith
you said that -- you know, that -- that the jail is run very well, and
I don't doubt you in the slightest, but as -- as an entity that's
responsible for, you know, going to the taxpayer for this, we need to
make sure that the operation of the jail and the physical aspects of
the jail are all the best they can be and the best in -- in reference
to what the taxpayer is getting for their dollar, and that was why I
made the statement in the hearing that I wanted to look at the
operational side, too, that if you didn't think it was being run well,
you'd be making changes right now.
I want a third party to look at that and either confirm your
statement or tell me, here are areas in which cost savings can be
accrued that could help an expansion and so forth. And that was the
purpose of that. It's not any suspect that you're not doing your job,
but I need confirmation that it's being done to the best it can to the
taxpayers' advantage.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree with you. I just think
a fresh set of eyes can -- I mean, we do the same thing fiscally. We
have Coopers & Lybrand, or whoever we have now, we had them for
several years, but come in, and not because we don't trust our people,
but just because it's good practice, and -- and I -- I'm looking at
the prices of the two, and maybe I'm out of line here naming two above
the others, but HLM and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the one in the previous report, that --
that takes them off the table, in my opinion, immediately.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I agree with you.
Both of those are in the $30,000 range, and if we can have an
operational audit as part of that, as well as putting all that all
under the same price, that's a bargain, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: To answer both of your questions in a little bit
different way, it's inherent in our process that, once we've
identified the hardware need, so to speak, given all the -- the
different constraints that you -- that you're talking about here, we
will design and -- and recommend construction in the most cost
effective way possible, and so you've asked, did we ask these
consultants to -- to consider that formally as part of the process. I
think it's inherent in the process that we'll get the most for the --
for the construction dollar that we can.
The other question you asked regarding, did we ask them to tell
us what our funding options are or how are we going to pay for the
jail, no, we don't need a consulting engineer or a -- or a jail
construction consultant to tell us that. That's your staff's
responsibility. There's not a whole lot of magic to what your funding
options are, and it will be our responsibility to bring forward to you
what your choices are when it comes time to actually --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With all due respect, Mr. McNees, no one on
our staff, as far as the BCC, runs a jail. MR. McNEES: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only person that has that expertise is Mr.
Smith, and I have to -- you have to admit when you don't have a
strength in an area, and I think, when looking at the operation of a
jail and how it can be maximized or made more efficient, there may be
entities out there, and, hopefully, I would -- I had hoped that some
of these that -- that had bid, would have that strength, and so that's
where I'm coming from. Not that -- that the financial side of how to
fund improvements --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- should be taken care of, but the
operational aspect at -- folded into the overall cost was --
MR. McNEES: You may have misunderstood my comment, then. I'm
agreeing completely that what you're talking about is necessary.
Those are the questions that take us to the point of, what are our
hardware needs. I agree completely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smith, what's our average
daily population? I assume it fluctuates in season and out of season.
What's a fair average?
MR. SMITH: 584.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what are -- what's full?
MR. SMITH: 754.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was that factor I was talking about.
That's where the 662 comes in, Captain Smith?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
MR. SMITH: That's -- that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sometimes there are areas that you can't move
prisoners or inmates from one to another? MR. SMITH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess what I'd like to see, Mr. McNees,
individually is, I'd like to know of -- you know, I guess I want
someone to look at the operational side of the jail, too, and I don't
see that as an element in the scope of services, so before making a
decision, I would like to have that information.
MR. McNEES: We can delay this for a week and speak to the two --
the two consultants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did everybody get a copy, yeah, I think
so, of a letter from the vice president of the V Group where they talk
about something that they suggested be added to the RFP, and -- and,
actually, the letter says -- by way of explanation of why their bid is
a little higher than -- than -- you know, it's $3,000 or so higher
than the lowest bid, and it says that they have offered to include in
theirs, which got my attention, exactly what I think you're talking
about, and that is, it says, the V Group is prepared to provide this
value-added service by developing a test concept to properly compare
capital costs with operating costs for existing and future
correctional facilities. This added service will provide Collier
County with a solid idea of the type of financial commitment which is
required when deciding to build and operate an expanded Collier County
jail.
And then it goes on and -- and talks about review of staffing,
review of operational cost model, total program
cost.
Now, a lot -- which made me think --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- frankly, I was concerned about that,
too, and that's how I decided my vote's going to be for the -- for the
V Group because they included that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's what caused me to go back and --
and take a look at the previous item we heard, and when we discussed
it, because I remember asking for operational --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- aspects.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, in fairness, though, all the firms were
not asked to bid on those. For all we know, HLH will include it also.
I just -- I want to make sure that the process is fair and that what
we're asking for is -- is --
has the opportunity to be addressed by all bidding firms. I don't disagree with you, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's a critical component, and I
just wonder --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, how long would it take to put it
back out with that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I -- I don't disagree, but one
of the reasons we did the process the way we did it and asked our
staff to gather up four and see what they could offer us was the
timeliness of this, and, I mean, it just seems like if somebody took
the initiative -- it doesn't seem like a -- it seems like a no-brainer
to me. It doesn't seem like a hard thing to figure out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if someone took the initiative and
put that in, that seems like that should logically be part of the
study, anyway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a qualifier, as far as I'm concerned,
in determining who I want to do the study, is that they said, looks to
me like you left out an important concept, we'll throw it in.
So I'm prepared to go forward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood.
Let's go to -- do we have public speakers inside the room?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir, you have two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Captain Smith, thank you.
Could I ask you to stay for the remainder of the item in case we
have any further questions? MR. SMITH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Ty Agoston, followed by Jeff Nunnet.
MR. AGOSTON: Morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself.
There are two questions I have in mind regarding the jail,
whether it's expansion or building.
Apparently, a lot of the necessity of enlarging the jail relates
to the fact, how much space you supposed to allocate to them
individually, both for sleeping as well as their recreational use, and
I got to believe that the State -- well, I know for a fact that Fort
Myers has a jail problem similar to ours, and I have to believe that
the issue is pretty widespread, and I don't see why couldn't the
congressional delegation ask to redefine just exactly what to -- this
human or inhuman punishment, or whatever the term that's being used.
I hate to tell you what they do with prisoners in Hungary, and, you
know, that's why I believe -- that's why I say that it has to be a
flexible definition.
The other problem I have is in the executive summary. There's an
extensive section from Judge Brousseau, and, apparently, this is a --
a fait accompli with this work release program, this work release
center, and that this will alleviate some of the crowding in the
jails, and to be honest, I don't quite see, if those people are in
jail, they should be out either on bond, or whatever, because if
they're not a danger to society, they shouldn't be in jail.
The other aspect of that work release program, I think I have
mentioned it one time before, is that Judge Brousseau is talking about
psychiatric health teaching or modi -- behavior modification. All
those are very expensive and very iffy propositions.
I mean, we hear daily of stories where people coming out of jail
kill again or violate children again or what have you, and I don't see
Judge Brousseau's confidence level when he said that these people are
going to get a treatment or a -- seminars or whatever type of an
education that will prevent reoccurrence.
I'm not sure whether the judge has -- I mean, I thought these
guys went to law school rather than having a medical and a psychiatric
degree, and I don't know what it makes -- what makes the judge be an
expert, but those are the points that I really wanted to make, and I
thank you very much.
(Applause)
MR. HcNEES: Jeff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, most people say, well, up north
it was such and such. Only Ty could say, well, in Hungary --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In Hungary.
MR. HcNEES: Jeff Nunnet, followed by Robert Ludden.
MR. NUNNER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Nunnet
with the V Group. For the record, my local address is 3603 Kent
Drive, Naples.
We responded to this RFP and provided all of the services
requested, and considering the hurried nature of this request, I think
staff did an excellent job in getting the RFP out.
It may be because of our local presence that we understand what
the next step to this study may be, and that's why we did include a
value-added section in our proposal.
Our proposal would answer such questions as, what is the existing
per diem, what would -- what would be the new fil -- facility per diem
that could be expected. We would compare these numbers to national
averages. Are there -- we would also ask, are there ways to retrofit
the existing facility and modify existing operating procedures to
improve operating costs.
Finally, I think a question that we're all trying to get down to
is, could there been enough savings in operating costs in the existing
facility to partially fund a portion of the construction of the new
facility. These are the questions that -- that we would include as
part of our proposal under the request for proposal.
No matter who is chosen to do this study, we would urge the Board
to negotiate these services as part of any package because we feel
these questions need to be answered, and time would be of the essence.
Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Your final speaker is Robert Ludden.
MR. LUDDEN: Thank you. My name is Robert Ludden, and I'm with
HLH. We have some building consultants here.
We would like to share the concern for the evaluation of
operational efficiencies in the jail. With over 7,000 beds in the
State of Florida under our belts and currently about 2,000 beds under
design right now, both for the public sector and the private sector,
we have a unique experience that we can bring as a national based firm
to this project in Florida to assist you in evaluating ways in which
the facility can enhance and improve upon operations, as well as
working with Captain Smith to understand the way operations are
currently being done, to see if there's ways that the facility can be
designed to augment his existing staffing positions and find ways to
save money, as the previous speaker mentioned, through the operation
to help fund the construction cost.
We can't separate the two. The design of a facility and the
operation of a facility are totally and completely integrated, and one
cannot be separate from the other, and as part of our proposal, we
anticipated including the kinds of operational analysis and
evaluations which are being discussed right now, and would encourage
the Board to select HLM. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Where are you offices located?
MR. LUDDEN: We are located in Orlando, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I have one question, too.
Am I -- am I to understand, then, that what the V Group is des --
describing as value-added services that already included in your bid?
MR. LUDDEN: Yes. The -- the notion of trying to do a
reassessment, if you would, of previous studies without taking into
consideration operations, we don't see how that could essentially be
performed. They are totally integrated with -- coming up with, as
Adolfo mentioned, the actual costs of the facility operations have to
be taken into account.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. LUDDEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that our last speaker on this item?
MR. McNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there further questions by members
of the Board?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: The only question I have, Mr. Chairman, is,
it seems like here we go again. In this backup material that we have
in here we have the confusion again of the work release center along
with the jail, and I have a concern.
Are we considering both of those facilities?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding is, as opposed to confusion,
is that the study identifies them individually and asks for an
assessment of each.
We have heard from, you know, Judge Brousseau, who I think we all
have a certain amount of respect for and -- and Mr. Putzel, and we've
heard the good idea side.
I went to a third-party evaluation of that -- that facility
simply because, you know, it's a new area, new
ground for us, so in my opinion, it asks that we spell out both, and
can one help us accomplish another objective. If so, great; if not,
then they are separate, individual approaches, but I think we need
someone else to evaluate that and evaluate its impact on the
community, and that's -- my -- my con -- my understanding is it's
spelled out individually that way and --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: With that in mind, I -- I would agree with
-- with what you're saying, but, again, I just -- we cannot say this
often enough to the public, that we really are talking about two
different facilities and two different types of facilities. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're absolutely correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But that gets confused, and I believe it got
confused before, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, agreed.
Is there a recommended action or course of action by the Board?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to move that we appoint the V
Group to do the study. That includes, specifically, the value-added.
Most -- most importantly, their local presence, their -- their
awareness of the particular issues of the local community, I think,
will -- will bear greatly, and bottom line, I want to get as many of
the community's questions answered in this study as possible, and I
think a local presence will go a long way towards accomplishing that.
I'm satisfied that, based on what the -- the other speaker had to
say, HLH, that they also considered this other aspect, so that we
don't need to rebid the process, so I move we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
As I said before, as I looked over the materials and looked over
what we have, it seems to me those two are clearly the best of the
four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to mention $70,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, less than half price.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I agree with you. I think a local
presence is important, and I -- the gentleman has said they included
that -- I didn't realize that as we went in because it wasn't spelled
out. It was spelled out in the V Group's that they would analyze that
operating capital, and I just had a higher comfort level, but
obviously they did take that into consideration as well. Anyway, I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, since you made reference to a document in
the meeting, we need to submit that for the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
Are there any -- is there any discussion on
this -- on this motion in this matter? Seeing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the V Group of Florida is awarded
that, and we look forward to the information coming back as soon as
possible.
What is the time frame on this, Mr. HcNees? I thought it was --
MR. HcNEES: 75 days from the notice to proceed.
MR. GONZALEZ: Commissioner, could I ask you to include in your
motion a recommendation to approve a budget amendment to authorize the
-- the payment of -- of the funds to also include staff time?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take a secondary -- second motion to
that effect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From what fund?
MR. GONZALEZ: From 301 reserves.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's in the amount of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of the bid.
MR. GONZALEZ: Plus $2,300 for staff time and expenses.
There is one other item that we don't have a good number on costs
yet. It's what's -- the document processing charges from the Clerk of
Courts.
I suggested to the consultant that we wait until we have a
kickoff meeting, figure out the extent of documents and then multiply
it out. It's a dollar a page, if we have to actually copy things from
files, or fifteen cents if it's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know you statutorily charge us that, but I
have such a problem paying for a dollar a page to another
constitutional officer. It's not his -- that just -- that burns me.
Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel's got something to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Just for the staff direction from this, the approval
of the award of a contract does include, in fact, the preparation of a
contract for your signature based with all the normal standard
provisions that we put in a contract, with the liabilities,
performances and things of that nature.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Give the consultant one of those little spy
cameras to go in there and take pictures of the documents. It would
probably be cheaper.
MR WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you to HLH and the V Group for your
presence today and your presentation.
Item #882
CONTINUED USE OF THREE VEHICLES BY THE WASTEWATER DEPARTHENT - APPROVED
Next is Item 8(B)(2). This was formerly 16(B)(4).
I believe, Commissioner Constantine, you have
some questions on that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I just pulled this off to
clarify.
Mr. Clemons, it says here, it became -- let me start again.
We were replacing several older high-mileage vehicles with new
ones. As the budget preparation for next year came about, it became
evident that additional vehicles are needed, and in -- we decided to
keep three of the older ones in lieu of purchasing new vehicles now.
So I'm confused because it says two things. Does that mean we're
going to have a total of six now, three new and the three old, or does
this mean we're not going to buy any new ones after all, we'll just
keep the old ones?
MR. CLEHONS: Well, what -- it means we're to ask for three less.
If you approve this, we were going to ask for three less in the coming
budget cycle, and then we were going to move these -- they're in a
high mileage use today on the collection system crews. We're going to
move them into a lower mileage use for maintenance and stuff, that we
could still get another year or two out of them and try to offset the
-- the purchase cost.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only thought is, I would -- I would
hope we would do that even if we didn't need to buy additional
vehicles.
MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir, we would, and as we analyzed our needs
this year, we just -- it -- we thought it made sense to try to keep
these another year or two rather than to ask you for new ones.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Dan Pucher is in agreement?
MR. CLEHONS: Yeah, Fleet Management is in agreement. They're
the ones that recommended we just come to you, because it is actually
adding three vehicles to our fleet, and that we get your approval for
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. CLEMONS: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is seconded.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
Thank you, Mr. Clemons.
Item #8C1
RESOLUTION 97-221 AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,700,000
FROM THE POOLED COHMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCE COHMISSION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LOAN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COHMISSION AND THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE
ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY - ADOPTED
We're up to Item 8(C)(1), a resolution authorizing the borrowing
of not to exceed $1,700,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan
Program.
Good morning, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator.
This item is a companion item to 8(C)(4), and just realizing the
length of the agenda, the -- if the Chair is comfortable with that,
I'd like to be able to combine those two items.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, any addition --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve 8(C)(1).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A question on 8(C)(1). By not to exceed, you
will match the amount borrowed with the -- the final bid a -- bid
amount that -- that is approved; is that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: The actual bid amount on the construction contract
is significantly less than the 1.7, but the 1.7 actually reflects not
only engineering design fees, but we've bid the landscaping separately
on this agreement as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second on
8(C)(1).
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The companion item which is 8(C)(4) -- Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, pardon me.
Tom, is it not, in regard to this item just heard by the Board,
that there is a -- a document that needs to be placed of record, which
is a repayment schedule.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a repayment schedule, Tom?
For the record, he's handing it to us.
MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate if the record would reflect, and
the chairman may wish to affirm, that the motion and action taken
takes into account having received and accepted the repayment schedule
that Mr. Olliff has -- has provided the Board and that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll ask the motion maker to recognize
acceptance of the payment schedule in the incorporation of the motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect that my --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No thanks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- motion intended the repayment
schedule be included as part of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #8C4
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY EXPANSION BID NO.
97-2643 - AWARDED TO WALLACE WILKS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,198,000
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Another item, which is 8(C)(4), is -- is a --
is awarding the contract to the low bidder for the Marco Island
Library expansion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, thank you very much. Excellent
presentation, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. Oh, that they could all be so easy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
Item #8C2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BCC CONSIDER AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION
ON PRIORITIZING A SERIES OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PROPOSED BY
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - APPROVED
We are to 8(C)(2), recommendation that BCC consider and provide
staff with prioritizing of projects in the Parks and Recreation
Department.
This is something that's of interest to me simply because we were
working at one point on a joint effort with the school system that
would, for a lower dollar value, actually significantly increase our
resources.
I understand that has really fallen through due to the current
use schedule of those facilities?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. If you'll look, I think the Parks and
Recreation staff has done a very good job on the attachment of the
cost comparison of the facilities and of showing what the -- the cost
of improvements, the cost of operations, and then what the actual
return for that investment is, and I think there was -- there was no
bigger proponent of the idea than -- than I was of trying to step into
the middle schools and try and do something there, but I think in
terms of return for your investment, I think what we're showing you
that -- that the facts support an investment in a -- in Youth, South
Naples Community Park or a new community park at some other location
is actually significantly higher.
We -- we found out in our negotiations with school principals
that not only are a lot of the athletic leagues in town already using
these facilities during the daylight hours, but that one of their
requirements would be that we staff these facilities during the entire
time that they were under the County auspices or operational control.
That operating cost of actually having staff at each of these
sites is significantly higher than what we would propose at a -- at a
South Naples Park Phase I, which wouldn't have a community center, and
then, therefore, wouldn't be staffed, so your -- your actual available
hours is actually about three times greater through an investment in a
-- a community park location, so what we're trying to do is -- is
actually, prior to preparing and putting the time into a -- a capital
budget request for you, trying to get some direction from the Board as
to which of these projects, which we've discussed each of these
previously on separate occasions, and have a limited number of funds
that really can only support one of the three options.
To quickly sort of dispense, I believe, with the East Naples ball
field option, I think there -- there has been a request and desire for
baseball in the East Naples community. Should the Board go with
either of the other two options, I think we can probably provide
public baseball, especially if the South Naples Park project is one
that's selected. That's in the East Naples community and would
provide or meet that public demand.
With all that said, I think the -- the executive summary is
actually just making a recommendation that the Board support the idea
of putting its community park impact fees into a single larger project
than South Naples Community Park, which, if you've driven by the area,
is already cleared and ready to be developed at this point, and we
think it's -- it's got the greatest return for your capital dollar
investment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, if we take that recommendation,
which is recommendation number one, does that, in fact, tie up our
park impact fees for this year and next fiscal year? In other words,
no other projects would be able to come on-line in that time frame?
MR. OLLIFF: With the exception of some small projects, which you
will see, which are -- are primarily improvements to existing
community parks, that answer's yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern, and -- and it's only from hearing
from the North Naples Little League, is that their -- the growth in
that little league has been tremendous, and I was hoping over the next
two to three years to provide some relief in additional fields there,
not necessarily a whole new park, and that's why the school option, at
first, sounded so good to me because it wasn't a lot of money, but it
-- it gave their league an opportunity.
I don't want to -- to hold up South Naples Community Park. I
think it's very needed. I'm just a little concerned that the 2.7
million, not allowing us to pursue other opportunities for, whether
it's North Naples little league, or -- I'm sure you all have
respectively heard from, you know, kids' athletic organizations for
the need of space.
That's -- that's my only concern with this. It's -- I want to do
South Naples. I want to do a first-class job down there, but is there
a -- can we accomplish a little less there and -- and leave some money
aside in case one of these other opportunities comes up? I don't know
the answer to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have just a comment on that. As -- as I
understand it, and maybe -- maybe I misunderstand it, but -- that
we're talking about the need to improve an existing condition in North
Naples versus the need to create a condition in South Naples, and
bottom line is, we've got to offer a more equal spread here and create
the condition in South Naples before we talk about improving one in
north, and -- and, you know, my kids play in North Naples, so, you
know, I understand that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They don't play in the city?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand the nature of the need, but
-- but I think we got to be -- I think we're past due in the south and
east end of town.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not aware of the inventory and
demand, and that's one meeting I had with Mr. Olliff is, what's the
demand? I mean, don't we have a responsibility of putting the dollars
where the demand is in Parks & Rec, and -- and I don't know, maybe it
is the South Park. Can --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe the demand comes when there is
opportunity, and if there's no opportunity to play, there's not a lot
of demand. Just thinking.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think you've proven that people will
drive their kids across town --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to play little league.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I personally --
MR. OLLIFF: One of the other things, you know, the -- the park
staff has -- has talked and -- and is prepared within probably the
next two months to come to the Board with its revised proposal for a
capital plan, and -- and the difficulty that we have in North Naples
right now is the -- the County, for all practical purposes, has built
out all of the park land that it currently owns in North Naples.
The -- the proposal that is -- that is coming to the Board is to
refocus our park efforts away from the community park system and look
at a larger, either district or regional-type park that was originally
contemplated in the comp plan.
The ideal location for that, because of demand and growth, is in
the North Naples corridor. This proposal here actually ties up your
funding from community park impact fees for only the next fiscal year,
so that would free up impact fee funds in fiscal year '98-'99, and,
hopefully, we can restructure those fees so that we can shift the
emphasis from community parks to -- to a little larger lower
maintenance cost park in the north end of the county and, I think,
meet that demand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- the proposal here is under -- number
one, is to build new ball fields at the South Naples Community Park.
That -- this is not to say that we're going to go in there and build a
whole park, just -- remember, it's just the ball field.
This is the ball field, in particular, that has never been able
to be produced at the -- the East Naples Community Park because of the
wetland problem that's -- that's involved with that property, and we
could go try to put one in there, but, really, you don't know what's
going to happen when you try to permit that. You may never get it
permitted, and if you do, they may want enough mitigation to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Arm and a leg?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Might want an arm and both legs to
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's if they're feeling good that day.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If they're feeling good, but the important
thing is that there are a lot of families out in this area that are
driving other places to use a full-size ball field, and this is one
way to go ahead and get it done, and not only get it done for that
area of the community, but to increase inventory of full-size ball
fields in the county and to also -- obviously, to spread it
geographically, which we never had before because they're -- like I
say, the whole purpose of -- of putting the ball field here is that we
don't -- we're not able to put one in the East Naples Community Park,
so those are the reasons for it.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
Commissioner Constantine first and then you, Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think we need to go ahead and
make the South Naples Community Park a priority. As Commissioner
Mac'Kie said, we need to make sure all parks in the county are on an
even footing, but also you made the point, Commissioner Hancock, that
-- that we have proof here that some people are driving across town,
and I think the point is, if we have a park here and an availability
here, that may actually cause some relief at the existing facility
because they will no longer have to drive across town, so I think we
need to make that a priority and we need to make sure -- I mean, we've
got a wonderful park and program in Golden Gate, and we've got a great
park and program in North Naples. We need to make sure this segment
of the county is treated that way as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just before anyone spends any more time
convincing me I'm wrong, what Mr. Olliff has said, as far as the
regional concept and the fact this only ties up next fiscal year, has
reduced some of my concern over not being able to apply park funds,
and I'm not talking just about North Naples little league. I mean, we
have roller -- in-line hockey rinks in that are in demand everywhere
and -- and there are a lot of other things that are in demand, but --
so you can stop trying to convince me at -- at this point.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was just going to say, if there is an
immediate shortage for a ball field, are they using the baseball field
at Lely High School?
MR. OLLIFF: They are, and I think that is the only -- the
argument that we've always had is that that's the only baseball field
in the entire east/south part of the county that's available, and with
Babe Ruth Leagues and American Legion, with one field, there's just
simply not enough to meet the demand.
MR. McNEES: You have two speakers, Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and hear from the speakers, if
we may.
MR. McNEES: David Carpenter, followed by Donna Fiala.
MR. CARPENTER: Hi. Dave Carpenter, chairman of East Naples
Civic.
We need the south park, and I know we need the ball field
desperately first. That area is -- talk about the demand, the demand
is there. All it needs is a place to do it.
Our only concern with East Naples Civic is that, as we move into
these new projects, like the South County Park and a Regional Park in
North Naples, which is certainly going to need one, that the existing
parks, including the East Naples Park, that -- not be forgotten in
this.
Now, there's has been talk about the ball field at the East
Naples Park. I know in the past there's been discussion about perhaps
-- perhaps doing a land swap with the School Board to obtain adjoining
land to the park that would be suitable for a ball field.
I -- I don't want to see that dropped in the rush to run to the
South Park, and the situation -- for instance, as the skateboard
facility that has been talked about and, in a sense, promised to the
community at the East Naples Park, we'd like to see that come on-line.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you be happy if it's done in July, Dave?
MR. CARPENTER: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CARPENTER: But all we're saying is, let's go ahead with the
South Park because it's needed. In an -- in an area sense, it does
help to serve the same community, but let's not forget about trying a
long line to get the East Naples Park finished and the facilities
finished there. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks.
Next?
MR. HcNEES: Ms. Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A woman new to East Naples issues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. FIALA: Good morning. My name is Donna Fiala. I sound a
little froggy this morning. Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm representing the parks committee from East Naples Civic, as
well as just an advocate for the community of East Naples, and -- and
I have to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie when she said, maybe if you
give them more to use, they'll use it, and we've had that.
When our park was first built, they didn't have any landscaping
in it and they didn't have any playground equipment in it and they
didn't have many of the other amenities, including lighting. We're
getting those things now. We have a playground. The lights are
finally going into our park. We have a roller hockey rink. We have
one little road that goes in, and that's because, of course, we don't
have a ball field. 92 square miles in East Naples, and we do not have
public regulation ball field. In order to get onto Lely, it has to be
unlocked, so we don't have anything out here.
I understand that, when they applied for the park in the East
Naples Community Center years back, the money was appropriated at that
time. The permitting came through, but somehow was overlooked, and
now the money, I understand, has still been sitting there, won't be
taking from any of these funds that we're talking about now.
I understand also the School Board was very agreeable. They said
they would never be using that land. They were very agreeable to
swapping it with the County. The County felt good about that, as
well.
I do not see why, on flat land, no mitigation, no wetlands,
nothing, because it's the School Board land, I do not see why we can't
put that park in. According to Mr. Olliff, it would be able to be put
in at half the price. Now, I -- I think it's a great idea to start
the South Park, because, with no ball fields in East Naples at all, we
could certainly use that, but, again, you said that there wouldn't be
any other part of the park built. That means there would be no
restrooms for anybody to use while they're using the ball field. I --
I don't understand, you know, how you could just build a ball field
amongst the retention ponds but have no other part of the park.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think you just meant no civic center or
some -- you know, no big construction, but, surely, I see him shaking
his head, we're going to let people go to the bathroom.
MS. FIALA: Well, good. Anyway, my plea to you is, please let us
finish the East Naples Community Park, and thank you very much for
trying to put your efforts towards the Naples South Park. We
certainly do want that as well. I believe the funds are there for
both of them.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- is that the end of the public
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we need to make a decision because
there's -- I've -- I've lost some clarity on this.
South Naples Community Park, I see two ball fields, a soccer
field, a basketball court, a tot lot covered pavilion and a field
control center. That's all in Phase I. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm hearing people ask for finishing East
Naples Park, yet that's not on our list here.
Commissioner Norris, what -- I mean, if we're going to allocate
funds to South Naples in this manner, we're not going to have funds
available to do anything else at East Naples, so with Sugden Park in
there and South Naples, I have -- MS. FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I have to say a lot of attention is being
paid to that corridor, and should be. I just want to make sure it's
going to the right place.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think it is, and -- and Sugden
Park's a regional park, and that's different -- it's a -- the -- was
Ms. Fiala correct about the funds being held for the ball field at
East Naples Community? That's not correct?
MR. OLLIFF: No, and the -- the property that they were both
talking about is -- is property that is shown in the Sable Bay DRI as
being part of a School Board dedication, which is adjacent to East
Naples Community Park, and while I think the School Board doesn't
intend to build a school at that location, it would be willing to sit
down and talk to the County about it. I don't think the developers
are in a position to actually make property dedications at this point
yet, so that's not an option.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's up in the air a bit. Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but we're going to continue to
pursue that? I mean, there's --
MR. OLLIFF: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- there's no reason we would be talking
to the developer and to the School Board about, if that's a
possibility, to go ahead and move that along?
MR. OLLIFF: Oh, absolutely, because the remainder of the
property that we have in the East Naples Community Park is a great
deal of jurisdictional wetland, which our estimates are mitigation is
going to be an additional $100,000 on top of any facility you want to
build there, so it just makes it awfully cost prohibitive to try and
do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, just, again, don't -- don't spend a lot
of time convincing me of anything. If anyone's ready for a motion,
step up to the plate, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm ready to make a motion to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So to speak --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion here to approve South Naples
Community Park, Phase I, as listed in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. That's the motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, the motion came from my left.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, I mumbled.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner Mac'Kie with a second.
I'm sorry, you've been left out of the loop, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'll get to vote, though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
Mr. Olliff, thank you for the manner in which you brought this
forward. It fosters a kind of discussion we need.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that, too, and just as you're
leaving, I want to encourage you to give a call to the Colliers and
see if they aren't willing to move up that dedication, maybe even
separate from the development of that property, and I'd be happy to
help with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Probably would do anything if they get a
marina.
Okay. It's 10:30. For purposes of giving the court reporter a
break, let's go ahead and take five minutes.
(A brief recess held.)
Item #8C3
BCC TO DETERMINE IF THE COUNTY DESIRES TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND AIRPORT PULLING ROAD
NORTH, AND USE THE PROCEEDS TO RELOCATE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES FACILITY OR CONSTRUCT A NEW FACILITY AT THE EXISTING
LOCATION - DONATED PROPERTY ACCEPTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE
CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR NEW FACILITY
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
We finished on Item 8(C)(2). We're now to Item 8(C)(3), a
recommendation the BCC determine if the County desires to sell the
property at Orange Blossom and Airport Road North.
This is regarding -- there are several facets to this. It's the
-- the future expansion needs for Domestic Animal Services in
conjunction with -- we have a recent offer for land on Davis
Boulevard.
So, Mr. Olliff, if you care to kind of give us the players on
this and --
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I can, and I'd also like to ask the Board,
because the Neighborhood Commercial discussion may or may not impact
the Board's decision on this of whether or not the -- the Chair would
consider continuing this item until that -- that discussion that you
have with Neighborhood Commercial or we can have the discussion now.
It's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can just tell you my feelings on it. I
think the -- the ultimate value of this property is determined by the
market, and the balance of the discussion today will either allow that
to be evaluated at a potential commercial rate or not, so whether it
occurs before that discussion or after, we're probably talking a
difference of five or six hundred thousand in evaluation, so -- but we
won't know that, even after we have the discussion with Neighborhood
Commercial, whether it should be evaluated for commercial purposes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd prefer to keep the Neighborhood
discussion with the land use items.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I have no problem separating the
issues.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's two. I feel the same way.
Commissioner Berry and Commissioner Hac'kie?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed with the
staff report as presented regarding the -- the potential use and value
of that land and all the other factors that we have to consider.
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I think the Board's intimately familiar with
the -- the issue at hand. We've talked about it on several occasions.
I -- I think the staff report here indicates that we have two
fairly significant appraisals that are -- that differ significantly.
The one appraisal came in at $975,000, while the other in-house
appraisal was $576,000. To be honest, I think the truth lies
somewhere in the middle there under the current land development code.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Olliff (sic), not to prolong
things, but I'm sorry, the $975,000 was based on 14 dwelling units per
acre?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We can throw that one out the window.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it may actually be higher if it's a
commercial -- a commercial kind of use -- MR OLLIFF: It may.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that could be -- I mean, it's a useful
little bit of information.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we need to be conservative on that
estimate and think in the terms of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 14 Dwelling units an acre is a little bit
ridiculous for compatibility purposes, so I think you're right -- MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's somewhere between five and nine.
I'm sorry, you may proceed.
MR. OLLIFF: A construction estimate was developed by the capital
projects office to construct a new Animal Control facility at roughly
1.6 million dollars, and depending on whether or not the County were
to actually purchase additional property, we estimate the cost of new
property to be between 20 and $25,000 an acre, which would add an
additional 200 to $250,000 to the cost of a total project, making it
somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dollars to relocate the
Animal Control facility to a location further east.
In the interim, from the last time this was discussed, we had an
offer of 10 acres of property on Davis Boulevard, and to familiarize
you with the -- with the location of the property, I actually have a
little map that I'll hand out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it the same as the one that's in our packet
or is it --
MR. OLLIFF: It's a little better. It's clearer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: What we tried to do, so that the Board could have a
-- a reasonable discussion about this particular parcel -- the parcel
is the one that is -- is directly to the right of the shaded portion.
It is both of those parcels. Each of those, roughly five acres in
size, so it is a 10-acre parcel directly on Davis Boulevard.
Behind that subject project is the drive-in theater, and the CF
property that you see in the lower, right-hand corner is the golf
driving range. To try and just familiarize you with --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you do that one more time? I'm
having a little trouble reading this.
MR. OLLIFF: Where the -- the shaded property directly in the
middle of your map is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
What's in that shaded property?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's New Hope.
MR. OLLIFF: That is New Hope Church.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: And then the two -- the two parcels that are being
proposed as a donation to the County are those directly to the right
of that, surrounded by the drive-in and the golf driving range.
What is outlined in the dark line is the activity center that
currently exists at that intersection, so in the future, this property
would at least be abutted on one side by commercial, and it is
currently already to the southwest. The parcel is already C3 zoned,
so to -- to both the west and the southwest are commercial, at least
potential commercial properties.
We've -- we've had the property looked at from our Natural
Resources Department because there are some wetlands in the area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on in your description,
are there any -- what, if any, residential properties or where are the
nearest residential properties?
MR. OLLIFF: Nearest residential properties would be across the
street in the PUD's that are across Davis Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far across the street is that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Closer than Emerald Lakes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my point.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know. I -- we don't have the measurements
to the next closest residential home.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That right-of-way has got to be at
least 120 feet --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it's big.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in that area.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the nearest -- nearest residential
dwelling in that PUD is set back off the road quite a distance as
well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two or 300 feet minimum.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably at least that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- the critical point here in -- in
considering that Davis Boulevard location, if you ask me, is, can we
-- are we able to construct a facility that's essentially noise proof?
The -- the old facility we have, obviously, is not.
What do we hear from, no pun intended, what do we hear from the
Humane Society's new building on the airport property? Are there any
noise complaints associated with that? Can -- can that noise be heard
outside of the PUD?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean, over the airplanes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Over the airplanes, yeah.
HR.CONSTANTINE: Only from Jim Lennane.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you having trouble hearing the
airplanes over the dogs or --
MR. OLLIFF: We're not aware of any complaints.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You -- you started to -- before we degraded on
that point --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you started to get to what I think is -- is
the important decision here.
Our first decision is for the operation and compatible operation
of Domestic Animal Services. We've got -- we have two choices. We
know we're going to have to expand the facility, and I've -- I've
encouraged my colleagues before to spend a half day over there with
them to understand the crowding conditions that exist, and as our
population grows, those crowded conditions will get worse.
We're putting --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I identified that in less than a half a
day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's pretty easy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can -- we're putting a lot of animals down
that -- that would be allowed to be retained for adoption purposes for
an extended period of time with an expanded facility, and I think that
is one of our goals over there.
If we build a new facility on the site and make it more
neighborhood compatible with the adjacent community, the cost of that
project anticipated is what, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: The project on the current location is estimated
roughly to $900,000. I'm trying to find that figure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that -- I recall that from
reading the executive summary.
If we were to move to a new site and build a brand new facility,
did you say the cost is 1.6 million? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why the difference?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not including land.
MR. OLLIFF: Not including land.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why a $700,000 difference? Is it just
in -- in site preparation?
MR. OLLIFF: Not only site preparation, but the estimate
developed, if it were to remain on its current location, assumes that
we would retain the existing cat and large dog kennel that was built
in 1988, so that building would not have to be razed and rebuilt. The
other structures would have to be rebuilt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. How much did we pay for the medical
examiner's facility?
MR. OLLIFF: 1.8.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So humans or dogs, it's about the same price.
That just seems -- that seems out of line. A medical examiner's
facility for 1.8. million --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our best friend.
MR. OLLIFF: What -- what drives the cost -- and I asked the same
kinds of questions because the cost per square foot seemed high to me.
The -- the explanation I was given actually satisfied me, in that
Animal Control facilities require a great deal of additional
plumbing-type work, underground plumbing throughout that have to, in
most cases, go to a central septic system, and there are just a lot of
specialized costs when you're dealing with stainless steel cage
construction in most of these facilities, so that drives the cost.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think you've all heard the complaints.
If we were to remain on that site, which I -- I think initially
I've always been an advocate of for purposes of adoption, being closer
to the population center, you increase the drive-by and can increase
adoption.
Leaving the kennel as is after a $900,000 renovation, to me,
doesn't make a lot of sense. If we're going to put a lot of money
into renovating that site, we need to fix some of the problems with
that, more or less, open kennel that has created -- I know that --
that we were there first, per se, but there's a neighborhood behind
it, and we need to -- to mitigate those noises as -- as best we can,
so the idea of leaving the kennel in place and building an additional
facility on that site is not attractive to me. If we're going to
built a new facility, let's make it state of the art across the board
so that we don't have to come back and revisit more complaints in the
future.
Does that put the cost of those two sites right next to each
other, then?
MR. OLLIFF: I -- I would certainly think so. I think that the
way we had originally contemplated reconstruction was not with a
completely enclosed air-conditioned kennel space, which was what would
be required if you're going to have total noise control, like I think
the Board's envisioning.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A kennel, then, by itself would cost
$700,0007
MR. OLLIFF: No. This is the kennel, the administration building
and the new barn facility in the back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The point you're getting to is that, if it's
$900,000 to leave that kennel in place and build the additional
facilities but it's 1.6 million to build a new facility, I'm led to
believe, as I think Commissioner Constantine is, that we're talking
about $700,000 from that -- just that kenneling requirement that the
existing building would serve. I'm having a tough time reconciling
the two.
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it would certainly bring the cost
closer together. You know, it may --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but one dollar would be closer
together. My point is, how -- how much closer together?
You've said, state of the art, building everything on a different
site, would be 1.6 million, plus the land? MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've said doing everything
except the kennel on this site would be $900,000. That's a $700,000
differential, so if we went ahead and did the kennel, too, how much of
that $700,000 would we spend? Is a kennel $100,0007 Is a kennel
$700,0007 How much is it?
MR. OLLIFF: Do you have the square footage of the existing
kennel?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Morelock, come on up. I think some of
your input might be helpful.
MR. OLLIFF: The square footage of the existing cat room and
large dog kennel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And your name for the record.
MS. MORELOCK: Jodi Morelock. I'm director for Domestic Animal
Services.
I believe the existing kennel that was built in '88 is
approximately 4,036 square feet, or something like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Approximately 4,0367
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give or take a foot.
MR. OLLIFF: So it's probably about -- I believe our costs came
in right at $100 a square foot.
MS. MORELOCK: Right. I've been to several different --
MR. OLLIFF: $400,000.
MS. MORELOCK: I've been to several different training seminars
and conferences with this in mind of having to build a new center
coming up eventually, and, basically, what the architects and what the
other people who have been in this position and -- and found that they
needed to build a new shelter, they say that you need to plan at least
$100 a square foot to account for your plumbing, your cages, per
kennel area.
MR. OLLIFF: But we haven't looked at that, and I -- I'm not
going to stand here and tell you we couldn't retrofit that 1988
building and -- and try and do some soundproofing and air conditioning
and some of the upgrades that you would want to have on that existing
building and do it less than $400,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm just amazed by that. I
mean, my wife and I are looking to building a new house, and I tell
you what, there's no way we're going to spend a hundred bucks a square
foot to do it. It would be a palace. I'm just amazed that we kennel
our dogs in a hundred bucks a square foot, and I -- and I love dogs
and cats, and God bless them, I want to take good care of them, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My grandmother --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred bucks -- a hundred bucks a
square foot is -- you know, what are we putting in, areas '- MS. MORELOCK: It's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's protecting the neighbors, too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of shaving equipment?
MS. MORELOCK: Well, you have security involved, and you have --
and the biggest part of it is, it's like Mr. Olliff said, it's the
plumbing. If you look in the cost of building a home, a great -- a
large amount of the cost comes with the plumbing, and there is a lot
of plumbing that goes into account.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So Commissioner -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Hac'Kie, you said what?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my point was that a lot of the
costs, in addition -- we don't have to be protected from you when you
build yourself a house, but we do want to protect the neighbors from
the dogs inside that kennel, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you seen his music collection?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, good point. We might ought to
soundproof it, too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're just suggesting that --
taking care of the neighborhood, regardless of when it arrived, is an
appropriate expense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not going to talk to you about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking. I just -- I just want to
clarify if that's what you said.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was your question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is -- you've just said you want to
protect the neighbors from an offensive thing the County is doing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this case, noise.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. As opposed to maybe smell?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. What I was saying was, by way of
explanation of why it's so expensive to build a kennel as opposed to
building a house, that a big -- that another factor in addition to
plumbing in the cost analysis is also those parts of the structure
that are for soundproofing and otherwise to protect.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's a correct consideration?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was explaining that as a part of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to this interrupt this jousting
match --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just trying to clarify.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and come back to something other --
assuming we are building the same kennel with the same space at $100 a
square feet, that's 400 thousand, so we're now at 1.3 million on the
existing site, ballpark, versus 1.6 on a new site.
Now I'm closer in the site prep numbers. When I start looking
and taking a site that you have to bring fill on and do certain things
-- now I'm a little closer on -- on those numbers, so that -- that
makes -- I'm not sure a million and a half for -- for an Animal
Control facility makes a lot of sense to me yet, but I'm sure I -- I
could learn.
What I would like to ask Ms. Morelock is, which site is more
advantageous to the operation of Domestic Animal Services?
MS. MORELOCK: As far as the logistics for doing our job?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
MR. MORELOCK: Probably the Davis Boulevard site.
At -- currently, my officers -- it takes two hours to two and a
half hours to respond to a complaint in Marco Island. The majority of
our complaints are to the south of Davis Boulevard and to the west of
nine -- or of Airport Road. The majority to the west -- to the -- I'm
sorry, to the east --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: East.
MS. MORELOCK: -- of Airport Road, and the bigger majority even
now to the east of 951 in the Estates area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. MORELOCK: So as far as working as a department, probably
the Davis Boulevard site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. MORELOCK: And for adoptions, actually, I feel that it's a --
it's a high visible. It's on a four-lane highway, and I think
probably as -- as far as adoptions, it would be a good location also.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Without really getting too
far into the potential uses of the -- of the Orange Blossom site,
we're talking about a spread of 300,000 and our director telling us
that it -- the Davis Boulevard site for them, operation would be
better. If we're talking about putting less miles on vehicles and
less officer time and better coverage, that's got a value associated
with it.
Mr. Olliff, this is going to sound funny. I know you never look
a gift horse in the mouth, but who are the people that are donating
this land and why? I mean, I love the idea, but this is an awful
gracious donation.
MR. OLLIFF: She's -- she's asked to remain off the record at
this point, but it is a long time local resident who, frankly, had
looked at this property years ago and simply has a love for pets and
animals, I believe.
She had wanted to take this property and build a pet cemetery on
this property several years ago, until she found out how onerous the
-- the regulations were for any type of a cemetery.
She currently has actually got an offer on the property, from my
understanding, from someone who wants to purchase the property because
it is on the market, but her desire is -- is to see it being used to
benefit animals in some way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I know the person you're talking
about. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The property to the east and south
currently is zoned agricultural; is that right? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's it anticipated to be out of
future land use element? Obviously, that's not being farmed and not
going to be farmed.
MR. OLLIFF: It's currently a drive-in movie theater, and I -- I
think you have to assume, under the current comp plan, that's it's
going to be residentially developed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that -- that -- Commissioner
Hac'Kie has made the point that noise is a consideration at the
existing site, and I've just got to thank -- I agree with you. As the
community grows and there are changes, we need to address the
concerns.
Is there something funny going on there?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think I said that. No, that isn't
what I said, but -- but go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I must have misread the
Naples Daily News and misunderstood you this morning.
But the point is that we don't want to simply move one problem --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can happen.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from one area to another, and while
there are not necessarily homes there now, there weren't homes at the
existing site when we started there, and we do want to address the
problem if it exists now, but I don't want to find us having the same
problem seven years from now or eight years from now with new homes on
Davis, and so I -- I don't want to have an unfair situation for
anybody, either where it is or at a new site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I offer a -- a mitigating piece of
information there? The -- the site on Orange Blossom, and quite
frankly, I walked into this not really being swayed that this site was
a better site, I'm -- I'm starting to see something a little different
now for myself, but the site on Orange Blossom is per linear. It's
not very deep. It's a long piece of property, and the ability to pull
any improvements away from the residential area to the rear is far
diminished over this site. This site fronts a four-lane arterial
roadway. For visibility purposes, you would want to put the facility
as close to the roadway as possible.
You also have a church in which, I imagine, the -- the conflict
in operation there would be minimal, if at all.
So the ability to move this -- this is all upland, according to
the -- the report we got. The ability to move the facility to the
north and a little bit to the west to keep it away from potentially
residential areas and maybe do a planting plan now that would
eventually grow into something is more here than it is at the existing
site, so that's just -- that's just a -- a mitigative consideration
that we may want to look at.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me throw one more question
into the mix.
Mr. HcNees, how big is our shortfall for capital expenses for the
next couple of years? We just had a review on that a month or so ago.
MR. HcNEES: Well, depending on what happens with the jail
expansion need, it's in the double figures, millions, 10, 11, 12
million dollars.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think we have to -- whether it's
$300,000 or whatever the cost is, and I agree with you, there may be a
way to lower some of our costs in either one of these scenarios, but
as it's been outlined to us this morning, there's a $300,000
differential. I think that's a serious consideration when we're
looking at a 10 million dollar or more shortfall. We need to start
chipping away at that, not adding to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, first of all, I'm -- I'm troubled by
the -- the conversation here that -- that assumes there's going to be
a noise problem. I -- I don't think we need to do any remodeling if
we're not going to cure the noise problem, so -- is that correct, are
we going to cure the noise problem in either location?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think, given the fact that either location
is going to have residential neighbor problems eventually or today, I
think the idea for any revamping of the facility is to take care of
that, and we want to be a neighbor that's -- that's going to be able
to coexist there for some -- some amount of time, and I don't think --
I don't want to see the Board make an investment of about one and a
half to two million dollars and not have some of those -- those
problems resolved.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be my point. I don't see
that -- any reason to spend that kind of money if we're not going to
cure the noise problem.
Second thing is, if -- if we accept the offer on the Davis
Boulevard property, then we've got whatever amount the north property
is sold for, which comes off of the cost of building the facility, so
it -- it has to be less costly to build at the Davis Boulevard
facility than it does to build at the north facility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it certainly may even it out
anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of course, that's assuming we sell the
property, which we haven't decided yet, but I know there are different
levels of input on that, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At -- and at this point, I'm -- I'm
anxious to make a motion. I'm just trying to think of how to do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me -- I'm sure we have some speakers
on this.
Mr. HcNees?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I bet we do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I could ask that we go to the public
speakers, and then we'll follow up with any questions we have of staff
before making a motion. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Your first speaker would be Sam Fisch, followed by
R. Jacob.
MR. FISCH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Sam Fisch, one of
the owners of one of the homes in Emerald Lakes most severely affected
by the dogs barking at the Animal Control Center.
It's been satisfying for me to listen to this conversation
because you've addressed all the problems that I was going to talk
about, and you've really eliminated my need to present my prepared
remarks.
The only thing I would say is, whatever your decision, to build
new or to build old, do it right and avoid these easily resolved
problems so you don't have to revisit this issue time and again.
You could -- you can use the old facility, but you're going to
have to -- to avoid the noise or to abate the noise problem; you're
going to have to enclose those buildings.
Host dog pounds throughout the country are heated and cooled.
Enclosing them isn't an unusual situation.
And that's about all I've got to say. It's been a pleasure to
sit here and listen to the conversation. You fellows are on -- and
ladies are on track.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Fisch.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Jacob, followed by Sally Barker.
MR. JACOB: Good morning. I'm Art Jacob, and I'm with the Second
District Association. We're concerned with the possible sale of the
Animal Control site.
I'm not going to get into all the details about animal control
and where it should be. Sally will take care of some of that.
We think the County should hold this and other land and inventory
and study alternate uses that will benefit the county residents.
You know, we keep hearing about property rights. Well, the
people of Collier County have the right to see that the land they own
is used for the most good.
Previous commissions, for instance, have vacated in one way or
another several beach accesses at Vanderbilt Beach. They went for
hotel towers; they went for high-rises, and these giveaways have now
come back to haunt us, and those of you who have been following the
Vanderbilt Beach problem, we don't have any parking, we don't have any
beach accesses, but we got a beach. We gave away some land.
A few years ago, the County wanted to sell 15 acres on Vanderbilt
Beach Road in Pelican Bay, and the Second District Association argued
that point, and the sale was not made.
Today, there is a terrific county park that includes tennis
courts, softball fields, a tot lot and handball courts. The park is
well utilized and is an asset to the North Naples Community. We
cannot afford to sell Animal Control land for future commercial
development.
As part of this sell-off, and here we go, you will be considering
today the addition of something called neighborhood commercial sub --
business sub-districts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Art, I'm going to have to interrupt you there.
MR. JACOB: I know you are.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to separate those two. Speak on one,
and when that issue is -- is appropriate.
MR. JACOB: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. JACOB: I appreciate that, but the issues are very, very
close together, and we certainly are going to say something about
that.
I'm just going to end by saying, we urge you to hold off from
selling this valuable piece of property. Let's not make another
Vanderbilt Beach mistake and let's study alternate uses which will be
an asset to North Naples. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Sally Barker, followed by Patty Bailey.
MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners.
Excuse the voice; I'm in the process of losing it. Some people
might consider that a blessing.
As -- as Art said, we're not here to argue one way or the other
about moving Animal Control. Your judgment will be best regarding
that matter.
What we are concerned about, of course, is selling the Animal
Control land, and that concerns us a great deal because of the
burgeoning growth along the Airport Road corridor. That land, that
9.24 acres, is an area that is ideally cited, suited for a number of
public purposes. It could be a branch library. It could be, oh, I
don't know, another facility for the tax collector. He could move out
of Green Tree. It could even be a small park, although I realize you
don't like small parks like that anymore, and it could almost even be
a satellite facility for a new Animal Control facility somewhere
serving North Naples, which is proposed to have -- or projected to
have a build-out population of 95,000 people, and those 95,000 people
are going to have an awful lot of animals with them.
The summary prepared by Mr. Olliff indicates that if the property
were rezoned multi-family and sold, it would fetch, as you said,
$975,000.
Now, it's very hard to argue against big money like that.
That's very tempting to take the money, sell the land and go build the
facility somewhere else, but I would like to posit to you the idea
that this -- this facility is very critical, yes, but it's a public
service offered by the County, like water, like sewer, like roads, and
the need for new facilities is being driven by growth, and since it is
being driven by growth, perhaps it should be financed by a
growth-related impact fee. We need to keep what land we have in our
county inventory and find other ways to fund the needs of future
growth.
And since I cannot talk about the proposed neighborhood
commercial business district, which I will talk about later, voice
permitting, I would just like to say one last thing, in that urban
in-fill is a very valid concept, but urban in-fill should not be
interpreted to mean that we need to pave over every buildable square
inch of land in the county and put commercial on every corner. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Patty Bailey is your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is our final speaker?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. BAILEY: Thank you.
First of all, I would like to say thank you and congratulations
to the couple that is willing to give 10 acres.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, ma'am, we need your name for the
record, please.
MS. BAILEY: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Patty Bailey Appleseed. And,
you know, since childhood, I've prayed to be a voice of -- for the
people and the trees, and certainly God had me read the newspaper the
last couple of days so that I would be here.
I'm not attached to any special interest group, and though a
member of -- and volunteer for the United Arts Council and Unity
Church, my opinion is not necessarily representative of these
organizations.
To further demonstrate my commitment, the truth in my words, in
the last several years, I've donated a larger portion of tens of
thousands of dollars worth of major art instillations on mostly a
nature theme to Collier County schools and libraries, though it's not
been acknowledged, to the point of becoming homeless now and living in
my -- my van while waiting for Shadowlawn Elementary School to do
their fund raiser to pay me for their fall instillation.
I've been often in the last few months living in a tent while I
lost my driver's license for a while and my camper wasn't running --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ma'am, I --
MS. BAILEY: -- and now I'm in my camper.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, ma'am. I'm up here on the Board.
Excuse me, excuse me.
MS. BAILEY: I'm sorry. This has to do with the property on
Davis Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I'm going to ask you to confine
your comments to that topic.
MS. BAILEY: Okay. That's why I'm talking about this. It's got
to do with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to confine your
comments to that topic, please. MS. BAILEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. BAILEY: While I've been staying in the tent or camper,
sometimes on property in the woods on Davis Boulevard, I also have my
cat at Unity Church, which is just down the street from the property
suggested.
I just want to point out that the woods in that area has a lot of
-- has otters, foxes, eagles, owls, that since there has been so much
construction in the area, we found at Unity Church that we have many
more of these animals crowding into the lakes and woods that we are --
a wildlife sanctuary there, and I suggest that -- that it would be a
very nice area for a domesticated animal shelter, as long as we keep
in mind that the wild animals find shelter in all those woods along
that road and we have a lot of construction going on, so it would be
good to leave as much of the woods intact as possible for those
animals, and that was my concern in coming here today, and thank you
to the couple who donated the land. I think it's very nice.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. BAILEY: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: That would be all of your speakers.
Mr. Chairman, in response to a couple of speakers, I'd like to
add one issue to the discussion, perhaps just for your information.
As you know, we're in the midst of space planning for long-term
needs here at the government center, and I have asked that, as a part
of that consideration, we look at the concept of, for lack of a better
word, I'll call it distributed government centers as opposed --
instead of building a 10-million-dollar building on this site to serve
all the needs of the county, we might consider a 15-million-dollar
building here and a couple of million dollar satellite facilities at
other locations in the county.
I throw that in because, if you are actually considering vacating
the Animal Control site, that would be one that would come to mind as
a good site to consider for some sort of distributed government center
or satellite facility, so I'm not saying that we're telling you you
need to go in that direction, but it's something we might want to keep
our options open as we go down the road and at least it's something
worth considering, as opposed to bringing everybody to this complex to
do their business.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea what type use you
would be using there or just --
MR. McNEES: Well, we want to make that part of the space
planning consideration and what could we put at another site and how
much traffic -- frankly, it's a traffic issue, for one, and how much
traffic can we avoid by taking people to satellite locations instead
of forcing everybody down Airport or 41.
We're just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have any specifics in mind
right now?
MR. McNEES: We're just asking those questions at this point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. For me, I certainly understand
and appreciate the hope that that land not be developed in some
intense use, particularly for the people who live in the area, but it
goes back to the earlier question. If we keep that and do not use
that and just hold that in inventory, don't sell it, don't do
anything, then we're spending at least $300,000 more, I suspect it's
more than that, but at least $300,000 more than we would otherwise for
a facility, and we're ignoring the fact we have at least a
10-million-dollar shortfall in capital projects right now, and that's
something we're going to -- all of us face up to in the next 60 days
as we get into budgeting season and make our plans, not only for next
year, but for the five years, and I just think if that is, and it
clearly is, a concern for all of us, we need to be looking at ways to
make that capital shortfall smaller, not add to it, and $300,000 is a
lot of money, and it -- and it may be more than that, and so I fear if
we hang on to the property up there, we add to that shortfall, and I
mean, the answer in my mind is -- is to make sure we take care of the
animal situation, but do it so in the most -- most cost effective
manner possible, regardless of which site we choose.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I'm -- I disagree with where you've ended
up, although your points are valid. The one thing that I think we're
missing is what Ms. Morelock told us this morning, which was really
key to my consideration, which is, which site, in earnest, operates
better. We do have operational costs every year, and Ms. Parker
brought up the point of impact fees, and the truth is, a lot of our
capital improvements are impact fee based. As much as we can legally
fund with impact fees, we do, but the one thing that is consistently
ad valorem is operational costs, and if we can reduce the operational
costs on an annual basis, then we are providing a positive benefit to
the -- to the taxpayer.
The second thing is that, rather than getting caught on $300,000,
the thing to remember is that when we have 10 acres at Orange Blossom
and Airport, it's not an all or nothing proposal. We don't have to
decide today whether we're going to sell it, sell part of it, sell
none of it, create a government center, but it leaves an option open
to us.
We have an individual who has offered 10 acres of land that --
for a purpose that is both suitable, that can be appropriate, if
designed appropriately on this site. I think we can bring the cost of
1.6 million dollars down. This is a -- generally, your preliminary
initial estimates are much higher than what you can get to, and we can
phase construction for development such as this, where we will phase
out of one site into another over time.
I would hate to -- to squander the opportunity to accept land
that operationally could be -- provide better services to our
residents, and -- but I'm not of the fact of saying that we're going
to sell that Orange Blossom site, but I think we do have to look at
that realistically. It's not necessarily appropriate for some uses,
it may be for others, so I am leaning toward, surprising myself with
it, leaning toward accepting the -- the donation of land here and
working on the process of -- of relocating the Animal Control facility
to the Davis Boulevard property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion just exactly to
that effect; that we accept the donation, that we ask staff to begin
to look, you know, toward a phasing of construction or movement of the
Animal Control center there, that we wait and see what we're going to
do with the existing piece of land. There's a lot of possibilities,
including the one that Mr. McNees just described, that I think have a
lot of merit, and we'll wait and see what happens with Neighborhood
Commercial.
We've got a lot of wait-and-see items before we decide whether or
not that piece of land ought to be declared surplus, so at this point,
my motion is just to accept the donation gratefully and begin the
process of moving Animal Control to Davis. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A question for staff.
Earlier, we talked about $900,000 to do the work on the existing
site, and Commissioner Hancock raised the question of, what if we
rebuilt the kennel facility that was built in 1988, and we said maybe
another $400,000.
How would the new facility, new kennel facility, differ from the
existing one there? Would it just be a little larger, or how would it
differ from the one that was built in 19887
MR. OLLIFF: Several ways. I think the existing kennel right now
has no way for us to provide heat for the animals, and when the -- the
temperatures do get below freezing or at freezing, it's a concern that
we have.
Secondly, I think they are inadequately designed for the plumbing
needs that are there. We actually have to have the plumbing system,
for lack of a better word, Roto-Rootered about every two weeks in
order to keep the system continuing to function.
It is an open-air system, so there's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad we got that in before lunch.
MR. OLLIFF: There's -- it's an open air system, so that there is
no noise control at all on the building, and I think those are
primarily the three major improvements we try and make on any new
facility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see where you're going. I think the cost
can come more in line with that 1.3 million, even if we do go to a new
site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- and secondarily, the money
comes, Mr. McNees, from what source?
MR. McNEES: Well, it will be your general fund capital at that
time, most likely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ad valorem tax.
MR. McNEES: Yes, sir, ad valorem sales tax, all the things that
come from the general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless we want to create an animal impact
fee of some kind. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We check for dogs at the county line or --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You mean everybody that brings Fifi and
Fluffy into the county is going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, pay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think that will work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline, Berry supports animal
moratorium.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, they can tack anything else on to us,
so who knows, you know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We do have a motion and a second on the
floor.
Is there further discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support the motion.
The reason is, I just don't think it's good practice to leave it
completely up in the air as to what we're going to do with the
property up there. It -- it does have some impact on the decision
here.
I -- I think we need a new facility. I think it's great somebody
wants to give us property to do that. We'll certainly be glad to
accept that and save the expense, but I still have too many questions
related, so it's not a lack of support for the shelter, for our
facilities; it's just I -- I'm not -- I don't have all my questions
answered.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- if I might, please.
If we accept this property, would this -- or could this be
conditionally that we could look into the cost on a new facility, and
if -- in other words, if we can't get everything in order that is
acceptable to this Board, that at that time it would go back to the
property owner?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding is, if we don't use it for a
Animal Control facility, then it does -- it would revert to the
property owner, because their donation is specific. Is that correct, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: We've not talked specifics, but my understanding is
she would probably want the sale contingent upon it being used as an
Animal Control facility, and I -- I think certainly if we were going
to change our mind and not want to do an Animal Control facility that
she would want that property back.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But if the costs come in and they're
prohibitive, at the same time, you know, I don't think -- I think the
message, Jodi, I'm sure you understand where we are and you'll be
involved in the design of whatever is to take place, understanding
that, you know, we're not looking for the Taj, okay? MS. MORELOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We want something that is functional,
something that will be compatible with the surrounding areas if,
indeed, at some point in time there are houses that will be built
around there, taking into conditions the air conditioning and heating
concerns that you apparently have now.
I think, with all those things in mind and -- and keeping the
dollar in mind as well, I -- it seems to me that certainly with some
engineering and cost-effective measures thrown in there, certainly we
can come up with something that is going to be a little less than what
we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner '-
MS. MORELOCK: Actually, you know, if it would help for me to get
information from other areas to show you -- actually, what we're
proposing is very inexpensive relating -- Pinellas County has a five
million -- five-million-dollar facility and it is all inside, because
they are adjacent to a residential area.
Alachua County, they built their shelter in '87 or '88, and they
spent 1.5 million dollars on the shelter, and that was basically the
plans that I brought back with me and that we used as far as basing
what we were going on as far as square foot and that type of thing,
but I can get those from other areas so maybe you will understand, you
know, where the cost comes in with the shelters.
It's not cheap, but we are going to have to do something with the
shelter that we have. It's not equipped for what we're doing. It was
originally built as a boarding kennel.
I have an employee who was attacked by a dog that was in
quarantine because our quarantine area is insufficient to secure the
animals. While you're working in the kennel, you actually have to
move the animal from -- either move it from one cage to another or in
the kennel with the animal whenever we're out of space and you have to
work in the -- in the cage with it.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think we have the responsibility to, you
know, certainly address this issue, and it is of concern, and maybe
this is a time -- it's never appropriate dollarwise; it never will be
appropriate dollarwise, but it's something we need to address, so I
think any information that you can provide to the Board certainly
would be helpful and, you know, continue to look at -- at cost-saving
measures and things that we can do and let's just think smart.
MR. OLLIFF: Not only that, I -- I think there are some
opportunities to do some phase construction, and we'll bring that to
you as -- as an option as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
I'm -- I'm supportive of going forward with this point with the
direction of the motion, but I'm going to be looking through
assurances that we can control the noise because I do expect to see
some residential development out there at some point in the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I -- can I ask the motion maker
just to clarify one thing, and that is, that we'll do our due
diligence on a property and that we'll actually close on the property
before the County expends any money on design or engineering?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I assume that that's part of the normal
process, certainly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The motion maker sets my inclusion.
Second?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. I'm going to call the
question.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four to one.
Ms. Morelock, thank you, and to the property owners, thank you
for your generosity.
Item #8C5
INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO PROVIDE FREE BEACH
PARKING FOR ALL COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS AND BY WHICH THE RECIPROCAL IS
TRUE FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES RESIDENTS - TABLED UNTIL 5/6/97
We are to Item 8(C)(5). This was 16(C)(2). I believe it was my
request off of the agenda. This is the city/county beach parking.
We have worked very, very well with the City in the years past in
establishing an amount that -- that both government entities are happy
with.
My understanding has always been that, although we issue city
stickers and county stickers that look a little bit different, they're
interchangeable in the sense, when you pull into a parking space,
whether it's in the city or in the county, it says, I live here and I
don't have to pay. I've already paid, actually, is what it says.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The city recently took action at Lowdermilk
Park during season to limit 83 spaces, if what I read in the paper is
correct, and I will qualify that, first and foremost, that 83 spaces
are to be set aside solely for city residents during the -- the winter
season, and I believe they also had holiday weekends included, such
as, Memorial Day and maybe the 4th of July, but those are 83 spaces
that, before that action by the City Council, were a part of our
agreement.
That would be something like us taking one-third of the spaces at
Barefoot Beach Park and saying, city residents have to pay if you park
in these. I would think if we did that the city would be upset.
I would like to table this matter and allow our staff to have
discussions with city staff to make sure we understand what their
intent was. If their intent was to set aside 83 spots solely for
stickers, whether they be city or county, then that meets the intent
of our agreement. If they have changed 83 metered spaces -- I just
want to make sure we're not getting fewer spaces for more money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to table the item
for two weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is seconded.
Is there --
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, you may only need one week. You'll be
getting a copy of a letter today that I received from Dr. Woodruff
down at the city explaining the action they took, and they did, in
fact, allocate a certain number of spaces closest to the beach to city
residents only. They have a tiered system now; city residents, county
residents and then metered, so, yes, that's essentially what they did,
and you'll get a copy of that letter today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that. I just -- I
have a tiered financing system, too, that if -- you know, there needs
to be commensurate reduction in the amount the County pays if those
spaces are pulled away from -- from use. I think that's reasonable,
so table for --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll disagree with that. I -- I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's contingent on how this discussion
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Either we're going to do this program
together or we're not going to do it together. UNKNOWN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here, here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And if -- there really should only be one
sticker.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
UNKNOWN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here, here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's have this discussion once we've
talked to the City, though, and perhaps they'll be willing to work
with us, but, if not, I think your idea's a valid one and we need to
have further discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie has already indicated
that she may have had some discussions with City Council members on
this, and I'll discuss it with Mayor Barnett in the meantime, but
table it for one week, Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, that's fine.
MR. WEIGEL: Your -- your next meeting is in two weeks, so we'll
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, we'll table it for three weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Table it for one meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry, was there a second on the
motion, Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
Item #9A
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VACATION OF EASEHENTS IN THE WOODLAND DRI/PUD
WITH REGARDS TO PETITION AV-96-037
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are on to Item 9(A), report to the
Board on the vacation of easements in the Woodland DRI/PUD. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
It's clearly explained, I think, in the executive summary. You
may recall there was a Board action taken --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm having trouble hearing you, David.
Is it just me or could you --
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. I'll turn around.
There was Board action March llth in regard to the vacation of
easements, and there was a question regarding two easements as to
whether there was -- was to be, if the vacation were in its complete
form approved, a legal access to two parcels.
Within the time frame that the Board provided, we found
working with the petitioner's council that they could not provide us
with the assurances of legal access, so the published vacation that
occurred pursuant to the previous Board action omitted those
vacations, and this is merely a recordkeeping device for the public,
for the Board, and for the property owners to recognize that their
properties, these two parcels, did not have vacation of potential
legal access there.
If there is to be any vacation of these -- affecting these
properties by the developer petitioner, it will come back as a
separate vacation for separate consideration at some point in the
future. This is not an action item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the record, and my understanding is, and I
think, Commissioner Constantine, you and I discussed this in that
meeting, which was -- again, the County is not putting itself in a
position of assuring anyone that their -- that access is provided.
That falls to the property owner, so we're not putting ourselves in a
liable position?
MR. WEIGEL: No, we are not. We are taking no action with regard
to these properties. They are not being affected by any Board action,
either previous or today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
Item 9(B) was withdrawn.
Item #10A
TANI HURLEY REQUESTING A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEE FOR A WALK-A-THON TO BE
HELD AT VINEYARDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - APPROVED
We are to Item 10, Board of County Commissioners. We have three
add-ons. A, the Walk and Roll-a-Thon permit waiver. Commissioner Berry, I believe you added this.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: This was brought to my attention, the
timeliness, because it's going to happen, I believe, that first
weekend in May, and I thought it was appropriate to get this forward
since we do not have a meeting next week, that this needed to be
addressed prior to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we ever performed a permit fee waiver for
this event?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not aware of this event. Ms. Hurley's
here and she can explain this whole affair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Hurley, if you'd state your name
for the record, please.
MS. HURLEY: My name is Tani Hurley, and I'm here on behalf of
the Vineyards Elementary School PTA and Crossroads Market merchants,
and you have not granted a waiver before because this is our first
year. We are holding a health and fitness fair at Crossroads Market
at Vineyards. There is a schedule of events in the brochure that I
have given you.
To kickoff the event, Vineyards Elementary School is doing a walk
and Roll-a-Thon, Walk-a-Thon, for approximately an hour prior to the
start of the health fair. The funds that are being raised will go to
start a fitness center at Vineyards Elementary and a fitness program,
which ultimately will also be open to the public.
We don't propose to close off the road, Vineyards Boulevard. At
the segment that is marked in red is two lanes on either side of the
boulevard. We plan to have our youngest walkers on the sidewalk and
then our roller-bladers and bikers -- bikers in the southbound lane of
Vineyards. The route that we proposed can be safely -- traffic can be
diverted without interrupting the flow into the neighborhoods, and I
was told that the first step of permitting was to seek the request for
waiver from the Board for a non-profit organization.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the waiver.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just how much is the permit?
MS. HURLEY: $125.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that will come out of general
funds?
MR. McNEES: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we consider making this a policy
across the board instead of continuing, that if you have enough sense
to come in and ask-- it just doesn't seem fair to me. I'm going to
support this. I always support them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your policy suggestion would be for
not -- not-for-profit groups or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That if we're going to waive them on a
case-by-case basis, we ought to waive all for -- all not-for-profits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I disagree. I think there may potentially be
some events that are not necessarily beneficial to the community that
may fall under a not-for-profit organization, and the County needs to
know whether or not we are associating ourselves with that event in
any way, shape or form, so I think these -- these are important the
way they're done currently, so -- we have a motion and a second for a
waiver.
Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
MS. HURLEY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries.
Thank you.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTY MANAGER SELECTION - CURRENT SELECTION
PROCESS TO CONTINUE
We are to Item 10(B). This was an add-on by Commissioner Mac'Kie
regarding county manager selection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I can say about this is it doesn't
take -- it must be a slow news day because what I actually -- all --
all I wanted to propose today, and I hope that -- that you guys, you
know, read the memo more than the -- the news article, is very simple.
It's that last week when we talked about when we would make the
decision, that would have been the best time for me to say what I'm
saying today, but I don't think it's too late, and that is that
instead of making our final vote on the day that we interview the only
outside candidate, that we not take that vote, we not take a final
vote day after tomorrow, that, instead, at the inter -- at the end of
that interview, whether or not -- if we're all in love with a
candidate and we know and -- you know, that's the end of the
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we use a different term?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we all are positive about the choice of
a candidate for a county manager, then -- then fine, let's go forward,
but I think that what we should have done last week was, when -- was
-- when Mr. Rivera dropped out of the running is say, the field's too
narrow, the community deserves to have more potential candidates.
Frankly, had I known at the -- at the very first day that we had
the infamous discussion about who to invite and who not to invite, I
would have been more prepared to -- to be an advocate for a particular
candidate, had I understood the process a little better, because there
are -- I would have argued -- I would have been prepared to make a
case for the four that I wanted to invite.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was last meeting the -- the week that you were
out on vacation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You were here?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Last week was when we decided we would
vote on -- we would make the final decision on Thursday, and I went
along with that, and, in hindsight, I think it was a bad idea.
All I'm asking, let me just say this and then I'll hush, all I'm
asking is, that we do exactly what we're already planning to do with
one change. At the end of the day on Thursday, instead of selecting a
county manager, let's select some additional candidates to interview
because the community deserves a broader choice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm going to say, well, I -- I don't
support that particular course of action, but I'm sure that if, come
Thursday afternoon, if this Board cannot determine through the process
that we've been through over the last many weeks that we can't come to
a consensus that we will simply be forced in a position of
readvertising and starting the process all over, but I -- I can't
support interrupting the process at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. The community does deserve a
wide variety of candidates, and we had nearly 90. We've gone through
a very detailed process, and this Board had a discussion and decided
as a group who the finalists would be, and we didn't decide a set
number. We decided on the individuals and whether to invite them or
not. We didn't say, we're going to have two or three. We said, we'll
-- we'll -- as a group, we decided who we would bring.
Ironically, it's due to the fact we've been so slow that Mr.
Rivera withdrew from the process, and so I would certainly hesitate to
slow the process down any more, and -- and, obviously, we won't lose
our internal candidates, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We hope not, anyway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We hope.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may very well likely lose the --
the one outside candidate we do have by slowing it down further, so I
don't think that's particularly productive, but also the Board decided
again as a group not to reopen the process and then go and invite, so
we've had this discussion a couple of times already, and I agree with
Commissioner Norris, in that if we're not happy with any of the
choices on Thursday, there is nothing that prohibits us from saying,
okay, let's reopen it, let's readvertise, but I think we've gone
through a process. We have a group -- we, as a group, have decided on
two occasions who would be invited as part of this process and we need
to finish that process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me just say one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Berry was next.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's a correction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, you can correct him later.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just agree that we've had every
opportunity. We set the course. When we had the infamous, quote,
ballots, we had the opportunity to add any more candidates if we chose
to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those were worksheets.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Worksheets, whatever you want to call them.
It doesn't make any difference. A piece of paper with some names on
them.
The bottom line, we chose not to add any at that point in time.
We had further discussion after the two. If I were the candidates at
this point and I heard this discussion going on about wanting to
reopen, I would really consider whether I want to stay in with a group
that can't make up their mind, and we're -- we're coming across here,
folks, I'm afraid, as jerky-turkeys. We just can't quite get a
decision made here, and I think it's that -- we've set the course. We
have three viable candidates. Now let's go forward and make up our
mind.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like I'm the only
jerky-turkey in the group.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I mean, don't -- don't
take offense at that. The county symbol is a turkey.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is a turkey, but -- but the one other
thing that I wanted -- the only correction I wanted to make, and I
just want to know, did everybody get the same instruction they did on
the day that we marked our worksheets? I was told to pick your top
three, and I would have -- and I rejected that and -- and picked four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When did you get those instructions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, Ms. Filson delivered them to me as
-- as -- no? Okay. Well --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- my concern, I think I share a lot of
what's been said here, I have not had the opportunity to review all
three candidates, and if upon review of all three, I am not confident
in selecting one of those three, then I think that's the appropriate
time for the discussion.
The reason I asked if you were here last week is because I asked
last week if this Board had any desire, due to Mr. Rivera withdrawing,
to expand the -- the selection, and I'm going to throw in another
nightmare joke for you, but, you know, I don't know how long you've
been staying awake at night, but if it's been more than a week --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It has been.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then that would have been the
appropriate time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to be concerned. We have at least a
media source out there that is -- is not reporting the actions of this
Board accurately in this process, and anything we do that makes us
look like a Keystone Cops operation is going to come back tenfold, so
let -- we've decided a path. Let's stick with it, and if on Thursday
we are not pleased with the choices offered to us, we will have every
available opportunity at that point to broaden the scope, so I'd
encourage that as a course of action.
Item #10C
RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION CU-97-1 RE PETER ANDERSEN, BOAT AND AUTO
SALES - APPROVED
Let's move to Item 10(C), reconsideration of CU 97-1.
This -- this may go a little bit better, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Actually, this is -- you guys may
remember this was the petition for the outside boat storage and Davis
Triangle, that -- that came up right as we were beginning the
discussion of redevelopment of the Davis Triangle, and let me tell you
right now, as I have told the petitioner, I have no information at
this point to make me want to change my vote on the petition.
However, they tell me that they're either going to prepare some
information that will -- that will be in keeping with what we hope to
see for improving the Davis Triangle area.
I'd like to give them the opportunity to do that because I don't
want to shoot down a project that sort of got caught in the cross --
you know, in the cracks there as we were starting this project,
starting the Davis redevelopment project, so I am willing to move to
reconsider the petition that gives them either -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- two or four weeks to -- to come back
with something that then we can consider.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees or Mr. Weigel, are they
prohibited from coming back on their own in the process for six months
if we don't do this, or could they come back, they just have to go
back through the process?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- my recollection is, and Harjorie may want to
chime in, but I -- I think we do have a six month kind of tolling
period for this reapplication.
MS. STUDENT: I'm Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney,
for the record.
I'd have to check our code. I do know for fezones we have that
prohibition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I asked. I don't know '-
MS. STUDENT: This is a conditional use and a lot of rezoning,
and I'll have to check our land code if -- if I might real quick.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
If that's the case, I don't have any problem, for courtesy to
another commissioner, to reconsider that, but only on the agreement
that they'll come back with new information. I don't want to rehear
MS. STUDENT: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the case. I don't want them to
reargue their old information. If they come back with something new
and changed, obviously, we want to encourage economic development in
that area, and I don't want to make somebody wait six months to do
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it's not significantly different, I'll
make a motion to deny before they stand up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I remember when the representative was
standing at the podium, I was trying to show them that -- you know,
where the difficulties were and where they could make changes, and it
just -- it wasn't happening. There was no feedback. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if they can take that record, and they need
to review it carefully, and meet some of those requests, then I think
-- I think it's worth reconsideration.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion seconded for
reconsideration of CU 97-1.
Any further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none.
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
THE COHMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
Item #11A
BOARD ENDORSEMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN GRANTS PROGRAM - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING AND THEN
APPROVED WITH CONDITION THAT IF THE GRANT FUNDS ARE TERMINATED, THE
SHERIFF WILL REQUEST A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUNDING OR REALLOCATION OF
THOSE INDIVIDUALS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're on to Item Number 11. 16(H)(3)
is an item I pulled off of the agenda.
And is there a representative of the Sheriff's Office here?
I think I saw Ms. Osceola earlier.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I saw the sheriff earlier.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Saw the sheriff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They all left.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I even handed Mr. Hunter my concerns. Okay.
I guess we're going to -- Mr. HcNees, let's go ahead and go to the
general public comment that is not specific to items later in the
agenda, and let's have someone call the Sheriff's Office and ask if we
can have a -- have a representative here. I had two specific
questions on that that I've made them aware of.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh, somebody's here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you with the Sheriff's Office?
MS. BENSYL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you would please come to the podium.
The questions I had on this matter is -- is, every time we look
at a grant, we have begun to look at the out-year funding to determine
should the grant be withdrawn or no -- not continued at some point,
what the fiscal impact to the county general fund would be.
As I read your executive summary, if this grant were to be
terminated, the impact to the general fund would be approximately
$149,500 to continue this program, but that those positions would be
absorbed into current vacancies.
Is that the anticipated action should the grant funds be
withdrawn in some way?
MS. BENSYL: I have been advised that, you know, they're not
currently -- those positions are not currently in the budget, but at
the end of this grant period, that they most likely would be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, your name for the record, please?
MS. BENSYL: Oh, I'm sorry, Carol Bensyl.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And Ms. Bensyl your capacity with the
Sheriff's Office is?
MS. BENSYL: I'm supervisor in the Victim Assistance Bureau.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Which is the office dealing with this
grant; am I correct?
MS. BENSYL: Yes. We're directly under Captain Brown, and the
domestic violence advocates are in my office.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many years has this grant been provided to
Collier County?
MS. BENSYL: This is a brand-new grant that we've applied for.
It's an 18-month grant, so that it will be, you know, provided over 18
months.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. BENSYL: And because of the enormity of the situation and
needing these investigators to contact victims and -- you know, it's
very important they get a hold of them right away. That's why we need
the extra manpower.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I -- could I just -- I asked this
question of Crystal Kinzel, and the answer that I got was that these
are positions that the sheriff is going to be including in his budget,
and -- and the good news is we can hopefully get them funded with an
outside source for the first 18 months, and going forward, that they
have enough empty positions to cover this cost after the 18 months,
that they don't expect this to be an additional request in their
budget over what it would be in -- otherwise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The bad news is, we haven't had the
opportunity to look at that budget. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In other words, we're getting positions de
facto approved by accepting this grant. They then become a part of
the Sheriff's Office budget, and then will get funded ad valorem taxes
or other methods down the road when this grant, and let's use the word
when, not if, is no longer available. This is, in essence, the
approving of additional positions within the Sheriff's Office, so that
-- that was my concern.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You asked the question that I was going to
ask.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to read this paragraph in
its entirety.
It says, additional grant funding is being sought for subsequent
years. If additional grant fundings -- or funds are not available --
so we're not sure -- Commissioner Hac'Kie, you just said they hoped
they could fill that, but really they don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh, nobody knows.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If additional grant funds are not
available. These positions could be absorbed into vacancies within
the investigations divisions, which would assume current vacancies.
I don't -- that doesn't read, to me, that that's adding new
things in next year's budget that would be vacant or would be filled.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it says, or additional funding
would be sought for fiscal year '98-'99 in the amount of $150,000, and
so I share your concern. I think it's a worthwhile cause, but we're
being asked, in effect, on the consent agenda to be able to approve a
couple of new positions, and I just think the budget season is a more
appropriate time to be doing that, not today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the deadline for the grant
application?
MS. BENSYL: The grant application is due Hay 2nd. It will be
awarded Hay 21st, according to the schedule.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, the bottom line is, we always
have the right in the budget process -- it falls to us. It's
difficult to say, yes, you've had these victim advocates and now
you're not going to have them anymore because the grant has gone away,
but we -- that is our responsibility to make those funding decisions,
so I don't think it's true to say that we're adding them today.
MS. BENSYL: I'd like to point out also that this will have to be
supported through overtime funding to keep up with the cases that are
coming up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, too, and this isn't directed to you,
but two years in a row we add positions because of overtime, and every
time we turn around, we're being threatened with more overtime, and
itws not from you, please understand, itws just that line is getting
old. Iim getting tired of --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is, especially in light that they have
available vacancies that theylre going to sort this into when the
grant funding runs out anyway, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If theylre vacancies, then fill them and do
the job, rather than -- than overtime, so Iim hearing conflicting
information.
We do not have a Board meeting before May 2nd, do we?
MR. McNEES: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iim not prepared to go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just something about this doesnlt -- doesnlt
seem right to me. It doesnlt -- doesnlt gel. Iim getting conflicting
information.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Isnlt this similar to what we dealt with a
few weeks back with a couple of other grants from the Sheriffls
Department, and we said -- it had to do with computer --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, and we said those things that are hard
costs that we approved --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thatls right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but those things that were additional
positions or training --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we did not approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thatls right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this all personnel related? In other
words, these grants will go solely for the purpose of individuals?
MS. BENSYL: Itls for two investigators and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. BENSYL: -- also a computer program called Mosaic 20 that
will be used in threat assessment and management.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you currently have vacancies for two
investigators in the Sheriffls Office in this area?
MS. BENSYL: I canlt really answer that. I -- I mean, right now
the Domestic Violence Unit is -- consists of three investigators, two
assigned here in Naples, one in Immokalee, and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Because the staff report indicates
vacancies, and I -- I canlt even get that confirmed, again Iim not
trying to blame you for that, but youlre the only source of
information I have right now, just the information presented is not
consistent with what Iim hearing. Iim just not comfortable moving
ahead on something that -- that creates positions.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Do you want to continue it and -- and see
if we can get some of those questions answered before this long
meeting is over since there is a deadline?
MS. BENSYL: I was going to say, Chris Roberts was planning on
being here, and when he found out -- we thought it would go after
lunch, and so hels out in Golden Gate right now and couldnlt make it
back in time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I will accept a motion to continue
to be heard on todayls agenda later in the meeting after all other
public hearings.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion seconded.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye?
(The panel members responded)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hearing none.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS BY STANLEY OLDS, TY AGOSTON, AND AL
PERKINS
We're on to public comment.
Mr. McNees, how many do we have?
MR. HcNEES: You have three.
Stan Olds, followed by Ty Agoston.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounded like two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have one commissioner leaving at
noon. Yeah, let's go ahead and get through the three public comments,
and then we will take a lunch recess. MR. OLDS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, if you are getting up to
leave, I would ask that you do so quietly in respect to the speaker.
Thank you.
MR. OLDS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, commissioners. I
am Stan Olds, co-president of TAG, as you probably know.
I'd like to take just a few minutes of your time to explain how
the Taxpayers Action Group handles issues that come before you.
Two weeks ago, I spoke officially in -- in favor of keeping the
Ford global test track in the county by stating many economic and
environmental facts.
Last week, two members of our group mentioned incineration and
were speaking as citizens as they promptly identified themselves, and
the commissioners seemed to assume it is a TAG position.
Before any TAG member appears officially before you, the issue in
question has to be -- has to be brought up before the executive
committee and a group position voted on. Only then --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olds -- I'm sorry, Stanley, I have to
interrupt you. That was a joke. MR. OLDS: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was a joke. Somebody said, headline
reads tomorrow, TAG supports incinerator. That was a joke. We
weren't '-
MR. OLDS: Yes, I know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- saying it was a TAG position.
MR. OLDS: The Naples Daily News was here, and a lot -- a lot of
things happen when things come about like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please go right ahead, Stanley. I'm sorry for
the interruption.
MR. OLDS: Let me finish. I just have -- I have just a few more
little quirks here.
Let's see. Now, there are -- let's see.
Now, there are any number of issues that individual members feel
strongly about, and it is their right as taxpayer citizens to come
before you and express their views.
As you know, TAG monitors your meetings, and there are times when
something comes up that the monitors feel should be addressed. When
that happens, they are speaking as individuals, as indicated, not as
representatives of TAG. I just wanted to clarify the issue and get
the record straight.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Olds.
MR. OLDS: And I hope no more jokes take place up here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm afraid you're out of luck, Stanley, but --
MR. McNEES: Ty Agoston, followed by A1 Perkins.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm
speaking for myself.
I'd like to protest your issuance of a proclamation for the FoCuS
group this morning. There are several reasons for that. The voting
data indicates that Collier County is a conservative county, a
conservative republican county.
I seem to detect a pattern of deception in the way we govern. We
have a Scenic 41, it's a project private funded, whatever that means,
private funded group meeting with county employees and county elected
officials promoting a point of view where no one else is admitted to,
no one else is advised, and the focus seems to be in the same type of
a pattern.
Is that the way we're going to run the government, or are we
going to have these privately-funded groups, they will establish the
parameters, they establish the agenda, and then they will allow public
to have -- make comments on the agenda in the parameters they have
established?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty, may I ask a question?
MR. AGOSTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you and/or any of the other
members of TAG ever met with the elected officials or members of
staff?
MR. AGOSTON: Have -- no, we have not. I mean, sure, definitely.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you -- do you receive any public
funding?
MR. AGOSTON: Do I? No. Can I?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: TAG is strictly private; is that
correct?
I think I understand your point, but, I mean, part of the
process, regardless of what group it is, whether it's beautifying a
road or whether it's a Taxpayer Action Group or any other, needs to
have open communication.
One of the things the Board has stressed for our staff is to make
themselves available to different groups, including yourselves, and so
I disagree with your criticism of that.
And all the decisions are ultimately made here in the public, but
if they gather information or share information at a requested
meeting, and that's with you or any other group, I don't think there's
anything wrong with that.
MR. AGOSTON: I think you're taking the point off the direction
I'm trying to make.
The point here is that FoCuS, as well as Scenic 41, is pretty
much a kind of a railroad that's running on a track and there is no
one to change it anymore. The only time you can make it change is at
the formation of any endeavor, and the fact that I meet with you for
lunch is a semi-social, very informal discussion, as opposed to the
discussion I'm referring to is a very formal one, with a definite
timetable and what have you, which is being done behind the back of
the publics. I mean, the public is not invited.
I made a very strenuous effort of attending the Scenic 41, and
Mr. Saunders informed me that it's just simply impossible to be on the
mailing list.
Now, the composition of FoCuS also bothers me. It seems that
there is a bunch of -- and I shouldn't have used the word bunch of, a
group of highly respected environment socialists, I could almost call
it, who are --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, would that include me?
MR. AGOSTON: -- on almost on-- I do mean it, sir. I do mean it.
Anytime when someone tells me that a fish is more important and a
fish -- the fish eggs are more sensitive than my grandson's water
supply, I get very uptight, and I so considered that type of a
statement, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ty, have you volunteered to serve, because
they'd -- I'm sure they would take you? If you volunteered to join in
the FoCuS group, they'd love to have you.
MR. AGOSTON: I have no doubt in my mind that at this point in
time the agenda is set and the parameters are set.
Ms. Hac'Kie, when I hear the questions being asked, that, well,
do we want free Hedicare? Well, sure, I like free Hedicare, too. I
hate to pay those bills, and it costs me five grand a year for my
health insurance, so, obviously, you know, those type of a -- of
questions are one-sided, unfair, because there is no free lunch.
Somebody has to pay for it, either in an effort or in dollars, or
whatever, taxes, and I just wanted to make the point that, you know,
you, by -- I'm taking up your time now, sir. You, by issuing a
proclamation, essentially officially sanctioned their motives and the
way they're approaching the governments in this town.
Last time, I have read that the advisory committee for the new
charter school was appointed by the superintendent, the three out of
the five.
Is that the way you want to run a government, by the government?
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- I think we'll save a lot of time,
Ty, just by saying you're wrong?
This -- by adoption of a proclamation, this Board does not
endorse every element, nor do we perform background checks or ask if
they smoked pot in high school.
The proclamation is to recognize efforts on behalf of the
community in one form or another. Whether you agree or disagree with
those efforts is your God given right, and I encourage you to do that,
but by forming a proclamation, issuing a proclamation, we are not
endorsing every element and aspect of an organization, its members or
its mission. We're merely recognizing a current effort. Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners.
A1 -- A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups. I'm speaking for myself
this morning and the groups, nobody else. I am not paid. I'm a voter
and a taxpayer of this community.
With that, I'll just say one other thing that is important to the
commissioners, bloo, bloo, bloo.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How do you get that on the record?
MR. PERKINS: It's on the record, right.
Okay. Now, to get serious. Okay. You mentioned a budget
shortfall several times this morning that you're coming up. On
Wednesday, July the 31st, '96, in the Naples Daily, whatever you want
to call it, right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go ahead, John.
MR. PERKINS: The Ford test track withdrew its permits because of
the fact that Robert H. Gore, Naithloriendun Wildlife Sanctuary,
Florida Wildlife Federation, Environmental Confederation of Southwest
Florida, apparently put pressure on them because of the environment.
I've been out there. They're environmentally so clean it is
ridiculous, but the point that I want to make, the Ford company is
setting a precedent for environmental perfection for the entire
automotive industry around the world. Don't forget, they sell their
automobiles all over the place and other products; other products,
don't overlook that.
The 15-million-dollar expansion that they wanted to do is
taxable, and a majority of our taxes, and listen up, people, go to pay
the schools for our kids and our grandchildren. Pay attention.
Listen up because your -- they're letting three people -- or three
groups screw over the entire county, and if you want me to use Fran
Stallings' name, screw you, Buddy. It was in the paper, right?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A1, A1, I'm going to ask that your comments at
least be considerate of -- of other individuals. Let's keep that kind
of language out.
MR. PERKINS: Well, no, that language, I'm repeating, was in the
paper.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't care what you're repeating it for.
I'm asking you to just keep it -- keep it respectable.
MR. PERKINS: Will do. Okay. Let me go on with this, okay?
The land assess out there is $1,591,110, which is taxable at
$25,126.17. Again, goes to schools. Ford pays on their property and
their buildings, now, they're talking about personal property and
their buildings, $56,209.34. Ford also rents 127 apartments at the
tune of $88,900 a month.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, I'm going to have to ask you to tie
this to either current or future Board action.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Right. Okay, but let me just finish with
this. This is very important because Ford made a presentation today,
and it's tied in. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're all cheerleaders, but I just -- you need
to tie this in.
MR. PERKINS: Right. Right, but the people at home need to know
this, too.
Okay. They also provide 60 vehicles to the sheriff, $700,000;
vehicles to Vo-tech for emissions and diagnostic testing; vehicles to
Naples hospitals for the veterans; scholarships to the kids; tools;
tuitions.
They provide the track for the use of Collier County Sheriff and
the City Police for defensive driving courses. 75 officers taken --
are involved in that.
They also have 200 employees averaging over the Naples Daily
average, which in -- according to the newspaper and the TV, is if you
can't make $47,000 a year here, you can't live here. They pay over
that. Okay.
Now, today, they gave a gift to Midnight Basketball of $6,000.
They neglected to say they gave another -- or are giving or have given
Step-by-Step $5,000, Junior Deputies another $2,000, and don't forget,
those apartments and all this stuff is money that turns three and a
half times in this community.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Once again, thank you.
Okay. With that, we -- is that the end of our public speakers
for general comment?
MR. McNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
We have advertised public hearings that will resume immediately
after lunch. Let's try and reconvene as close to 1:00 as possible,
everyone.
(A recess was held from 12:08 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
Item #12A1
RESOLUTION 97-222 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSHITTAL OF THE PROPOSED 1996-97
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ADOPTED EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AND/OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD
DIRECTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to
reconvene the afternoon session of today's BCC meeting.
Commissioner McNees, I'd like to go over -- as we look at item
12-A-l, there's several facets to that. I know there are some that
are fairly innocuous, and there's probably not a soul here to talk
about, and there are some that are a little less clear cut, and we
have a lot more input on. Would you -- let me -- just tell me, what
kind of -- what do we have in the way of public speakers on which
items?
MR. McNEES: Well, you have 16 registered on 12-A-1 in total, and
a number of people have identified which element it is they wish to
speak about and a number of people have not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you say --
MR. McNEES: -- so it's hard to tell.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Eighteen, nineteen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm going to ask in the interest of time
and efficiency is that if you wish to speak on any of these growth
management plan amendments, we request that you fill out a speaker's
forms. There are some available out in the hall; is that correct, Mr.
McNees?
MR. McNEES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Submit them to Mr. McNees. There will come a
point that we are going to close it so that we can plan our time
accordingly and make sure everyone has an opportunity to address the
board on matters that you deem important. I just think -- what
happens is, we get them trickling in, and before you know it, we are
here at eight o'clock tonight. So, please, if you would, if you plan
on speaking or wish to speak on an item, fill out a speaker's form out
in the hall, and submit it to the county attorney or county manager
here so that we can plan appropriately.
With 20 speakers, ladies and gentlemen, that's an hour and a half
of public comment. I'm going to ask you to not be redundant in any
comments you have. I assume the majority of those that are
registering are under a future land use element; would that be
correct?
MR. McNEES: They are really spread across the board on a number
of issues.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What's the board's wish on this? I was
going to try and take those with the most speakers first --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it that way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- To give people the opportunity --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's organize it that way from the most
to least speakers. It's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have future land use element and
Golden Gate master plan are probably the two -- the two primary.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest probably then you
would want to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, your name.
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: -- with the planning development.
Probably the public facilities element and the future land use
element and associated sub-elements will be most of your speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, the difficulty is the number that I
have that haven't identified what it is they want -- they want to talk
about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's take those two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Why don't we go ahead and -- Mr.
Litsinger, let's go ahead and do, in order, the public facilities
element and the future land use element, and then we'll go through
what speakers are here specifically for those and save the balance.
MR. HcNEES: Perhaps I can ask, if you have registered to speak
-- if I can address the audience for just a moment. If you have
registered to speak and we get to the element that you're registered
on but you didn't identify that, please speak up if we appear to be
moving on and you haven't had your opportunity because it will help
us keep up with --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Speak up being defined as come and talk
to him in his ear.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and resume with the
public facilities element first. Mr. Litsinger, if you would, please.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger with the planning
department. I'd like to make a few opening comments before we get
into the individual presentations.
This is the transmittal public hearing for your 1996 and '97
growth management plan amendments including your evaluation and
appraisal report. Recommended amendments was a process that began
approximately two years ago. This will be the transmittal of the
proposed amendments as approved by the Board of County Commissioners
based on recommendations of staff, the Citizens Advisory Committee and
the Collier County Planning Commission. It will begin a review
process with the Department of Community Affairs and other involved
agencies of the State that will take approximately 120 days. It will
culminate with a final adoption public hearing in approximately
October of this year.
What we would propose to do today is to present -- have relevant
staff present each element as we've outlined the order this afternoon.
After the receipt of public comment on each element and the pointing
out of key points by staff and intake of public comment, then the
board would take a straw vote on each element after the individual
presentations, culminated by a cumulative motion and vote at the end
of the presentation.
If there are no questions, we can begin immediately with the
public facilities element and the potable water sub-element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and proceed with
those, Mr. Litsinger.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, commissioner -- good afternoon,
commissioners. For the record, Mike Newman, your water director.
The changes or modifications and deletions contained in the
potable water sub-element pertaining to the countyws water sewer
district facilities include the incorporation of the water master plan
which the board adopted in September w96, the deletion of several
policies and objectives that have been completed, a modification to
policy 1.1.1 which recognizes the BCCIs investigation into ASRs, an
alternate water source technology, the modification of policy 1.2.2
permitting service outside the urban boundaries for health, safety and
environmental concerns at the boardls discretion, a modification of
policy 1.3.2, an adjustment to the level of service standards for
water service within the Collier County water sewer district which is
in accordance with the level of service standards established in the
water master plan which the board adopted in September, a modification
to policy 1.2.6 -- excuse me -- defining the construction standards
for facilities that are going to be dedicated to the county from the
CD -- CD -- CDDs, modification to policies 1.4.3, 1.4.6 and 1.4.7
dealing with re-use to comply with the boardls direction to employ
re-use whenever economically feasible -- feasible and to mitigate the
health and safety impacts from re-use on the countyls potable water
system.
They basically entail the highlights from the changes,
modifications and deletions to the countyls potable water sub-element
dealing with the county water sewer district, and Iill be happy to
answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Letls go ahead and open up -- understanding
that we are going to have public input on many of these items, we may
wish to offer debate amongst ourselves after the benefit of public
input, but if you have any questions of staff, now would be a good
time, on any elements within this section. Any questions of Mr. Newman?
Okay. Mr. Newman, on the issue of expansion, and please help me
recall the element number. MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Outside of the existing water sewer district.
MR. NEWMAN: 1.2.2.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I understand that staffls position on
that is that if therels going to be development of a section where you
have several or, in some cases, hundreds of septic systems -- MR. NEWMAN: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that it is a public benefit, per se, to
have that on a controlled system. Therels an environmental benefit
to that. Is that a correct statement of staffls position? MR. NEWMAN: Thatls true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The downside being that once lines are
run, you may have the resulting effect of increasing the
attractiveness of the parcels along that line for development.
MR. NEWMAN: I -- I guess it could be seen that way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. NEWMAN: We wrote the language specifically so the board
could really only apply this option if it was for health and safety
concerns or to address environmental impact, so it wouldnlt
necessarily open up an entire corridor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, by adoption, we would have to make a
singular decision on each parcel that its impacts either are or are
not acceptable, and that would trigger or allow for extension of water
and sewer to --
MR. NEWMAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Are there further questions of Mr. Newman?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Newman, the -- the service area shown
in this plan, the statement that references the service area shown in
this plan is on page PW, dash, 9 -- MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that correct?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes, sir. That's the current boundaries of the
water sewer district.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess for my edification, we established a
water sewer district for the specific purpose of encouraging urban or
-- I guess just encouraging the use of those facilities first and
foremost to avoid single line expansions, to avoid -- in other words
-- help me with this. The nexus for that, as I understood it, was to
say, okay, here's an area which we feel comfortable providing water
and sewer service --
MR. NEWMAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and that coincides plus or minus with --
with the urban areas. There are areas outside of it -- MR. NEWMAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that are already included and some that are
not.
Would it be a more systematic approach to determine where that
water sewer district boundary should move first and foremost instead
of looking at specific parcel development? MR. NEWMAN: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is -- that's -- my philosophical problem
in that particular policy or objective is that if we want to expand
the water and sewer district to cover an area for environmental or for
public safety, health and welfare purposes, I don't have a problem
with that, but it seems it should be a system pushed from the district
perspective as opposed to a parcel specific look. Would you agree
with that?
MR. NEWMAN: That -- that would be one approach, and that
approach would basically, I assume, identify all the parcels that
would -- that could qualify under those conditions. The intent here
was not to open it up that broadly. The board had made such
allowances in the past for certain developments for health and safety
and environmental type concerns, and our intent here was only to
provide the language so that the actions that had occurred previously
would be more in conformance with the growth management plan.
So, we were just kind of doing -- this is kind of a housekeeping
type thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct in tying this, however -- and I
think the people that are here to speak on that need to know -- am I
correct in tying this in in some way to the Twin Eagles Developments
being proposed on Immokalee Road?
MR. NEWMAN: The language changes in here had absolutely -- were
-- are not in any way connected to that development. I mean, it's
just a coincidence that they happen to be occurring at the same time.
These were not put in here to allow central water and sewer to be
provided to that development.
Again, it would be strictly your decision, the board's decision
under the terms or under the conditions of this language to permit or
not to permit such uses of our facilities for development outside of
the urban boundary and outside of the Collier County water sewer
district boundaries.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is it difficult when something
becomes consistent with our growth management plan to say no?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In zoning we have discretion, and you can look
at compatibility and so forth.
When we are looking at expansion of water and sewer, I'm not sure
what criteria then becomes subject to review for compatibility or
consistency or what -- what is the measurable criteria that we can say
yes or no to? I guess that's where I'm at a little bit of a loss on
how -- understand that I'm folding a potential project into this
question --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I'm trying to figure out how the puzzle
-- the pieces will fit together.
MR. WEIGEL: I think Ms. Student is going to assist me here, but
I would think I would rephrase your question, is it difficult to be in
compliance with the growth management plan to say yes, and the answer
may be yes because we have to look at compatibility with the growth
management plan with this -- with this ordinance and some of its
elements or encauragings beyond the current boundaries that it relates
to.
MS. STUDENT: Marjarie Student, assistant county attorney for the
record. I have a couple of points --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Student, if I may interrupt you.
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you please repeat the last part of that?
Commissioner Constantine didn't quite -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- get that.
MR. WEIGEL: What I'm saying is that the adoption of these
ordinances are -- these ordinance elements need to be reviewed in --
for consistency with the growth management plan. So, your question
about, is it difficult to say no; in certain terms it may be answered
that it's difficult to say yes because you also have to keep in mind
the growth management plan and the limitations that it imposes upon
you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The way I would phrase the question is,
does change in the camp. plan bear any way on a vested rights
argument?
MS. STUDENT: There could be vested rights issues as it relates
to the change in the camp. plan, and it could cover a whole plethora
of items; usually we most often see it in the area of future land use,
and there's another point I would like to make about this. There's a
provision, and I put this on the record for the planning commission as
well because it's uncertain how DCA may view this for consistency with
rule 9J-5 when they review this sub-element, but there is a provision
in 9J-5, both for sewer and water, that we must address maximizing the
use of existing facilities and discouraging urban sprawl, and again, I
don't know how DCA might look at this provision in terms of the
requirements of this rule. It's worded somewhat broadly, but I put
that on the record for the planning commission, and I'm also putting
it on the record here.
Also -- and I was trying to find it in the future land use
element, I believe there is an internal -- would be an internal
inconsistency, which our plan must be internally consistent, between
the sewer and water policies and a provision in the proposed future
land use element that speaks to the fact that utilities cannot or
should not be extended beyond the urban designated area, and that's
what I was attempting to look for here because I did see it in the
future land use element.
So, those are two issues that we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Further questions of staff?
We are prepared to go to public speakers on this item, please.
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker would be Chris Straton followed
by Gina Gundeck.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to remind everyone, particularly
those who have not had the opportunity to address the board in the
past, you are limited to a time period of five minutes. We ask that
you have consideration for others in not being redundant. If you wish
to express support for a previous stated position, please do so. It
will carry the same weight as that initial position. You don't have
to take all five minutes, but please use the time as efficiently and
appropriately as you can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, how many speakers do we
have on this item?
MR. McNEES: We're probably up to about 25 by now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Now, we are dealing specifically with
the public facilities element of the growth management plan on this --
at this point in discussion.
MR. McNEES: Five on this particular element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Ms. Straton.
MS. STRATON: Thank you.
If I may, in the interest of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name?
MS. STRATON: Chris Straton, and I'm here as president of Collier
County Audubon Society. I'd like to talk about water and sewer at the
same time since the issues are the same, and that will make it much
more efficient.
There's no secret; I've been quite concerned about the issue of
extending water and sewer outside of the urban service area. A year
ago, there was an attempt to expand the urban boundary, and the
community felt that that was inappropriate, and our elected officials
agreed with them.
The concern that we have on this particular item is that the
language is vague. It does open up the opportunity for water and
sewer for fairly broad statements to be brought into the non-urban
portion of the county. The concern is that growth management will be
difficult, if almost impossible, if we do not know where the urban
services are being provided, and water and sewer are definitely urban
services. So, it leads to sprawl, which we all know is much more
expensive and makes it much more difficult to do the necessary
planning.
We feel that -- you know, we currently do have people on septic
fields, even within the urban area, south of Pine Ridge Road. So,
basically, the concern that we have about this is -- this language
opens up a Pandora's box. It makes it very difficult for the
community to know where the growth is going to be occurring so that
the growth can be appropriately managed, and -- and that was the
concern. This is urban sprawl as we see it, and that is why we
object.
Other people that will be joining in that objection are here and
speak on their own behalf, but I do know that we have heard from
business leaders, Lely Resort Community, the second district
association, MITA, AAUW, in addition to groups that will be speaking
here today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you're not here to speak for those
organizations?
MS. STRATON: Well, they were all at the rally this morning, so
I'm not speaking on their behalf. Some of them were not able to stay,
but others will be speaking.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. McNEES: Gena Gundeck followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. GUNDECK: Good morning, commissioners, or afternoon I guess
it is now. For the record, Gena Gundeck. I am speaking for myself as
a resident of Golden Gate Estates against the extension of this water
sewer utilities.
We do feel, as Ms. Straton has just indicated, that it will lead
to urban sprawl. There will be no definition as to what can happen.
There are many, many concerns, and I'm sure others will address them
as well; different issues as well -- I will be asked -- I will be
speaking on different issues, but please, do not allow this to happen.
We are very concerned about what will happen if this does go through.
If it -- I -- I don't know how to express my concerns in just a couple
of moments, but I will agree with Ms. Straton that we feel the same
way as Collier County Audubon and, apparently, the same as Florida
Wildlife Federation because we have spoken. This is not in the best
interest, in our opinion, for our county. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Nancy Payton followed by Bruce Anderson.
MS. PAYTON: My name is Nancy Payton. I'm with the Florida
Wildlife Federation, and I wanted to turn in 35 forms from people that
did attend the rally this morning. There are many still in the
audience that are wearing a green ribbon. A green ribbon means that
we are opposed to the extension of water and sewer beyond the current
designated service area. These are 35 people that were unable to
remain today or did not want to come forward and speak but wanted to
be registered in opposition to the extension, and I turn those in for
the record. Thank you.
And I also wanted to comment that, to us, this is far more than a
mere housekeeping measure, that it does involve a major overhaul of
our community, our house, and therefore, we are opposed to it. It
opens up a broad area. There are no restrictions. There are no
overlays as to where this is appropriate and where this is
inappropriate. There seems to be a lack of significant thought into
how this might impact our community, and putting in such a broad
statement for health, safety, welfare or environmental reasons is, we
feel, inappropriate and does open up our community to urban sprawl.
It opens up rural areas, environmentally sensitive areas, to types of
development that may not be in that area's best interest.
I did call around trying to find out what the balances were
environmentally between septic and central water and sewer, and I yet
haven't found anything that balances central water and sewer being
better for the environment than septic. If septic is properly
installed and maintained, we have various ordinances within our
community -- I'm still searching for the information that balances
central water and sewer, but I haven't found it, and I'd be interested
in seeing the documentation that the county has that central water and
sewer beyond our current area wherever is in the best interest of the
environment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just for your information, that would come
from the Department of Environmental Protection. We've got segments
that have been required in the past to go off septic and onto central
water and sewer for the purposes of leaching of drain fields into
environmentally sensitive areas, so -- I've seen that from DEP, Mr.
Newman; is that correct? MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
MS. PAYTON: Well, in my discussions, if they were properly
installed and maintained, that conceivably, we would not have that
problem, and therefore, I would hope that our ordinances and current
oversights that our county currently has, that we could deal with that
problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, water -- just septic systems out in the
rural part of the county you have no problem with whatsoever?
MS. PAYTON: If they are properly maintained and installed, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Anderson followed by Michael Simonik.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Young, Van Assenderp &
Varnadoe.
The battle that the Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife
Federation are trying to re-ignite was settled a year ago when the
county commission voted not to expand the urban area boundary and
increase density in that area from one unit per five acres to twenty
units per five acres. They won that battle, and expansion of the
urban area boundary is not the issue. The issue is simply whether the
county will provide language in the comprehensive plan to recognize
what the county's practice has been for the last 15 years, at least,
and that has been to encourage property owners, and, in fact, to
require property owners to connect to the county's water and sewer
systems rather than have on-site water and sewer plants or wells and
septic tanks.
As a former assistant county attorney who has served as the
attorney for the county water sewer district from 1982 to 1988 when
the county's flood and utility system was under attack from the
development community, I can tell you that the county's policy has
always been to require connection to the county's water and sewer
facilities whenever and wherever they are available, and as the
preamble to the county water sewer district act states, that policy is
based on public health, safety and environmental concerns.
Now, the county water sewer district act is a special act of the
legislature that was adopted after the growth management act was
adopted and before our comprehensive plan was finally approved. I
helped write that act. I wrote it to preserve absolute maximum
flexibility for the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the
governing board of the county water sewer district to take whatever
action was in the best interest of the district, including expansion
of the water sewer district boundaries or contracting for water and
sewer service outside those boundaries.
The only reason for the staff proposed amendment is to resolve
possibly ambiguous or conflicting language in the current
comprehensive plan. The language in the water sewer district act is
unambiguous and clear that in the event of a conflict between that act
and any other law, such as the comprehensive plan, the least
restrictive in favor of the district's powers applies, and those
powers are to be liberally construed.
Now acting as the county water sewer district, utility service
has already been extended outside the urban area. To the south and to
the east, the precedent has already been set, most recently in
November of this past year when expansion of the boundaries of the
water sewer district was approved to serve the Old Florida Golf Club.
Now, the Old Florida Golf Club lies less than a half a mile from the
property that is the subject of the pending application for the Twin
Eagles Golf & Country Club PUD.
I should point out that the Twin Eagles property is zoned
agricultural and already permits, as a matter of right, single family
homes with golf courses. I want to make sure everybody understands
that.
Those who call themselves spokespersons for the environmental
community and claim that residential golf course communities are some
kind of new form of urban sprawl or some new urban use that is against
the county's current laws are either grossly uninformed or
deliberately misleading.
I'd like to point out on the future land use map here the area in
question, the small ag. area here. It is located on Immokalee Road,
and it is west of the Estates. This particular little ag. area is
unique among all the other ag. areas in Collier County because it's
surrounded on three sides by urban and estates designated lands which
permit much greater densities, and on the fourth side, on the north,
they are bordered by lands targeted for conservation uses and
acquisition under the CREW program.
These 14 sections of rural land are what I would call the hole in
the doughnut, and they already have in that area a water plant, a fire
station, a grade school, a middle school and a high school under
construction. In addition, the Orangetree PUD located further east
requires that development to eventually connect to the county water
sewer district.
I do understand the concern expressed about there's no limit on
where the service can be extended. To that end, I would offer a
compromise proposal for your consideration that would limit the area
where the county can provide service or, alternatively, provide
limitations on an area -- in the rural area where the property owner
can provide interim service through on-site facilities. I believe
either of these are preferable to the alternative of septic tanks and
wells, and I'll distribute my proposed language.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Newman. If someone were to
go out and do a -- not just a single family home but do a group of
homes or a larger number, would an on-site distribution system for
water and sewer be more environmentally friendly than individual
septics and individual wells?
MR. NEWMAN: The answer -- my answer to that would be yes. The
degree would depend on the environmental circumstances, the aquifer,
whether it was shallow, whether it was confined. There would be a
number of issues that would be involved, but overall, I think the
answer to that would be yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that approach more safe than individual
lots doing individual wells and individual septics as far as --
MR. NEWMAN: From my perspective, I would prefer to see that than
individual well and septic systems because that -- that -- the water
from those facilities are required to be tested, and it is required to
meet EPA and FDEP regulations; where a well, there's no testing
requirements. They never know what's coming out of that ground, and
the sewage has to meet the same type of regulation which a septic tank
is tested periodically to ensure it's not contaminating any aquifer or
any adjacent streams or lakes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said that -- in answer to all of
those, from your perspective. What is your perspective? Your
expertise is utilities; is that --
MR. NEWMAN: Correct, and from my -- you know, perspective as the
county's water director and being involved in utilities for 15 years,
that would be my answer to that question.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, I think the fairest answer to your
question is it depends, and staff is only suggesting here that the
language be such that in the case that the variables say that the most
appropriate thing to do is to provide central water or sewer in a
particular situation, that you have that flexibility. We are not
attempting to presume at this point that in all situations, anything
is appropriate. They are just trying to give you the flexibility
based on the analysis of a specific situation if you think it's
appropriate to be able to provide central water and sewer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess that's where I get a little bit lost
because the criteria is not apparent to me.
If I want to develop a site with single family homes, I want to
throw 200 homes on a piece of property, and I come and ask the county
to extend water and sewer or allow me to extend water and sewer to my
property, does that meet the criteria? I guess it's -- it's -- we
talked about the ability to make these decisions on a case by case
basis. I'm looking for what the criteria is because if the criteria
is met by someone just simply stating that water and sewer is better
for the environment and the project than individual homes, then,
basically, we've opened up everything for extension. So, it's that
criteria that we keep talking around --
MR. NEWMAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that -- that is at the heart of this issue
and not necessarily --
MR. NEWMAN: And commissioner, to answer your question as best as
I can, that was the reason that the decision on what constituted
health, safety and welfare and environmental concerns was left in the
board's hands rather than staff's hands, so that you as a board can
decide what criteria you wanted to use to evaluate those projects and
apply that accordingly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ms. -- Ms. Payton's comments to the -- to
the contrary, I think that it is pretty much an assumption that --
that septic is the worst of the choices available, and if we say -- if
the criteria, and if the only thing in that plan is that the board can
do it, can expand the lines for health, safety, welfare, everybody
knows that you're going to go to DEP, DEP is going to say, we hate
septic.
So, if we are going to expand it, why don't -- why make it on a
case by case basis. The criterion will be that it's better for the
environment, and we're going to build a house here anyway, so for
God's sake, let us do it with a sewer line, and that's exactly what I
don't want to see happening. That's why I don't want to open the
door.
MR. NEWMAN: I understand that, commissioner, and again, this was
merely to, you know, include some language because of some previous
decisions that were made by the board to extend outside the service
area. We wanted to bring those -- those type of decisions into
conformance with the comp. plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I appreciate that, and I don't have
any criticism of staff for bringing this forward. I just --I just
feel like prior boards may have done what prior boards have done, but
this board, I hope, is going to tell you that we don't want to do that
anymore.
MR. NEWMAN: Now, speaking to Mr. -- Mr. Anderson's specific
project, he did approach us, and he did ask us about the availability
of water and sewer and knowing what the board's policy was about
expanding urban sprawl, we basically indicated to him that we would
supply water through a master meter located at the boundaries of the
district, that they would own the line that would travel out to and
through their developments, and that would remain in private
ownership. That would prevent other people along that -- that
corridor from connecting into that line because it would be a private
line. It would not be owned by the water sewer district.
So, that -- to address part of your concern about the expansion
of urban sprawl, that could not necessarily happen under these
circumstances because the line wouldn't be owned by the district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, one of my pet peeves is when
anyone comes to the board looking for a change or assistance and then
kind of gives a veiled threat that says, well, if you don't approve it
this way, we're just going to do it anyway, and I hear a little bit of
that, Bruce, when you say, this land already permits homes and golf
course and so on. I know it does. I know the ag. allows golf course,
and you can have one every five acres, and there is the argument that
one to five is certainly better than a year ago when it was twenty to
five, but frankly, I think it would be very difficult to sell a high
end product, which is the only product you could put at one every five
acres, I think it would be very difficult to sell a high end product
on a septic system, and -- and I still have the question -- I don't
know that in my mind, and maybe I'm alone on this, but I don't know in
my mind that the question of cjustering has been completely answered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if it has not, then I'm positive
no one can invest big money and expect to get a return selling million
dollar homes on five acre lots with a septic tank. It's not going to
happen.
So, I don't know if -- and I'm taking an assumption here when you
say, gosh, we can already do this, maybe you can, but I don't think
it's financially feasible. I don't think it's economically feasible.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm concerned the direction we're
headed here does encourage urban sprawl, does encourage things that
don't happen now, and you asked earlier, does this make it easier or
make it more difficult to say no when someone comes in, I get
confused, and that's why I asked to hear it twice by Mr. Weigel's
response, and quite simply, the answer is yes. I mean, anything we do
is a step toward making it easier. It is certainly easier if we make
that change than it is today to do that, and -- and so I'm not sure I
want to make that easier, but I have a real concern. I don't -- I
think between the cjustering question and the septic question, for
anyone to suggest that they would go ahead and build anyway is
misleading.
So, when we ask the difference between septics and piping out
there, they are valid questions but it's not going to happen. They
are not going to develop a million dollar home with a septic system in
the back yard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not -- what I want to be very
careful of is not to mix the two. The reason is there are valid
reasons and valid areas for cjustering. There has to be or this board
wouldn't have adopted the cjustering concept, and we need to deal with
cjustering issues and what is either marketable or not in that respect
when that discussion comes forward.
I want to keep the two very separate because the intent of -- of
them are individual. Extension of water and sewer lines, and I really
haven't heard anything that makes me feel comfortable that the way to
go about this is this type of an amendment as opposed to an evaluation
of our water and sewer district. If we are going to expand water and
sewer capability, we need to do it by expanding the district, and that
would allow us the opportunity to look at, as you referred to the hole
in the doughnut -- if it's going to develop at one unit per five acres
and, you know, one way or another, then -- then I would say in the
long run, providing services to that area is going to be required for
schools and so forth where we run lines out there, we're going to be
making people connect.
So, the idea of some type of centralized system starts to make
sense if it's going to develop. That's not our decision to make,
whether it does or doesn't.
So, I -- I think that's the better approach than the -- the idea
of just running the lines, and that's where I -- I think the
discussion becomes more appropriate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the key phrase to everything
you said is if it's going to develop, and I realize cjustering, the
question of cjustering is a separate question, but it is related, and
if cjustering is not allowed in a situation like this, then the answer
is probably that it's not going to develop because it's not
economically feasible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or that it's not going to develop at an
accelerated --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- plan. It's going to be a house at a
time, which is what rural means to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, I've got a lot
more thoughts, but I know we've got several more people to speak from
the public, so I'll quiet down until we conclude those.
MR. ANDERSON: Just -- I'd like a chance to respond to that. I'm
not certain whether the homes are going to be mill -- you know,
million dollar homes out there or not. I'm -- I'm not in on the
marketing. I'm just the lawyer, but I would know that there are some
very, very nice and expensive homes in the Estates and in Pine Ridge
subdivision which are on septic tank.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. ANDERSON: And I would also -- I would also point out to you
that as part of the backup to your 1989 comprehensive plan, there was
an urban boundary report, and it said with respect to rural
agricultural lands, and let me quote, cjustering of homes should be
allowed and encouraged to provide open space, concentrate private
centralized public facilities --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to give everyone eight
minutes?
MR. ANDERSON: -- and protect environmentally sensitive areas.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'd -- I'd just like to throw in my two
cents worth here. When I looked at this, I looked -- took a whole
different approach to it, and I'm looking at it as a -- forgetting
about what we have and what we are going to have in the future but in
terms of sewer lines particularly and water consumption, I cannot
believe that we can sit up here and entertain any idea that would
encourage in any way, shape or form the continuation of septic systems
in Collier County.
This has nothing to do with expanding anywhere, going anywhere.
I would think that this would be something that this board would want
to entertain in terms of trying to get as many of the areas within the
urban boundary, outside the urban boundary, whatever, onto a sewer
line as opposed to encouraging septic systems, and I think that
without some kind of language in here that encourages that, I -- I
think -- I think we are missing the boat, but -- maybe I've
misinterpreted this in the wrong fashion, but that's the way -- that's
the way I view this. I just think we are going the wrong way, and
take all these other issues out of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker?
MR. McNEES: Yeah, two more on this element; Michael Simonik
followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. SIMONIK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My
name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy coordinator for
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm here speaking on behalf of
our 5,000 members, our over 600 volunteers and our 32 member board.
We simply and certainly disagree with the new language in the
amendments for the potable water. Mr. Anderson said that the new
language makes it unambiguous. I find that the new language makes it
very ambiguous. It clearly states that the central potable water
service by the county is limited to -- limited to the service area
shown in this plan. The new language would say, unless otherwise
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That, to me, makes the
whole policy ambiguous, and I wanted to talk a little bit about --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Did you say by the board making a
decision, that makes it ambiguous?
MR. SIMONIK: Oh, you can either vote for it or against it, so
the policy is ambiguous.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wanted to clarify that.
MR. SIMONIK: Yes. You certainly never make any ambiguous policy
decisions.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Too late.
MR. SIMONIK: Too late.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're digging out, Mike, but keep going.
MR. SIMONIK: I want to address some of the concerns that come up
about -- the environmental concerns between septic and potable water
and sewer lines. Nancy Payton had brought it up a little bit, and
we've been talking about it, and staff has certainly been involved
with it for many years.
As an adjunct faculty -- a faculty at the University of Florida,
we put together a workshop up in Charlotte County and took out all the
elected officials, the DEP representatives, county staff, and we drove
them up to Tampa, Florida where the university is doing research on
septic systems, and what we found was the jury is still out on whether
or not sewer is better than septic because they've looked at different
areas, they've looked at developments, and they put wells in and
drilled wells and tested samples of water from developments that are
on septic systems, and they found no great amounts of plumes of
nutrients or bacteria or that flowing in the aquifer away from these
developments. So, myself, as a biologist, I'm very unconvinced that
sewer is -- is definitely better than septic.
Another thing is, we haven't talked about the density of the
homes in the development that are on either septic or sewer. If
you're talking about a home on five acres, that's only one septic
system and one family using that on five acres. If you're talking
about a condominium or apartments that have 20 units on an acre,
certainly that's not going to work because you're pumping out a lot of
nutrients and a lot of bacteria, and the biological processes just
can't eat that stuff up fast enough, and it will go down into the
aquifer, but if you have a lower density -- which is why DEP allows
septic on homes that aren't on lots bigger than one acre -- that's
their limit, the one acre limit, and that's why you'll see the
cjustering issue come up again today where they want to put homes on
the minimum of one acre, and they can't go any lower than that because
that's, right now, all they can get on septic out there, and that's
the one acre limit, and DEP finds that satisfactory to have septic on
the one acre.
So, I would say the environmental concerns, it's -- it's still
out, and I don't think that it's definitely -- everyone should be on
sewer and -- potable water and sewer system rather than septic.
Another thing is, out in that area, that's our water recharge
area, and people are using the water. If you put everybody on sewer,
when they flush their toilets and use their showers, the water goes to
the plant which then goes to the river that goes to the bay, and guess
what, it doesn't go back down into the aquifer. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we have a correction here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I heard a no, no, no from the corner, so
Come On Out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, sending sewage and effluent to the
river, to the bay --
MR. SIMONIK: It's employment to the waste water director. We
just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you've got the wrong commission.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll make it real clear, we put nothing
out to any river, nothing out to any bay. It is all re-used, okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the city he's talking about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's another group of officials running
around putting stuff in the rivers and the bays but it's not this one.
MR. SIMONIK: But -- but we are certainly opposed to the
expansion of water and sewer services out beyond the urban area.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Simonik.
MR. McNEES: Ty Agoston followed by A1 Perkins.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to limit you guys to only --
MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- five times a day.
MR. AGOSTON: -- my name is Ty Agoston. I live in the area
you're speaking of, and I find it kind of ironic that the people here
making statements trying to enforce a policy that has nothing to do
with the septic system or the water.
I lived just outside of New York City for about 100 years, and I
raised five children, and in my town, we had a septic system, and I
hate to tell you, I had four bathrooms, and with all the girls taking
showers, I always sweated it out how long will my septic system last.
Anybody who tells you that a septic system is as good as a sewer never
lived with one; not at least for the length of time I have.
I believe that right now you have a window of opportunity with
Golden Gate Boulevard being built, you should be able to lay sewer and
water lines at the same time with a considerable savings to the
county, and I believe that you should supply all those people because
although they do not subscribe to the Conservancy or whatever with the
30,000 members, I'm sure that if you took a survey there, I have no
doubt in my mind that those people would love to have the water, the
security of a secured water supply and the security of a sewer,
because let me tell you this, although it has improved lately, you
have very frequent power failures out there, and I don't want to
follow that line of reasoning down any further, but the fact of the
matter is, is that also provides a problem.
So, I really believe that your consideration should be simply
what is of benefit to the people there, and it should not be what the
people who want to contain the urban sprawl want to use as one more
tool to enforce their wishes. I believe that those people out there
should not be penalized in a political gamble here, that, hey, let's
control the urban sprawl, let's not give them anything. I mean, I
think -- I don't want to pay for someone's environmental push here
that they want to control growth. They should -- they should have an
argument with you on the zoning issue, and that should be followed
along the zoning issue only, not the fact that you're going to
prohibit a sewer build or a water supply out there. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
MR. HcNEES: You have one more, Mr. Chairman; Pat Clark after --
after Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: I'm going to be short. A1 Perkins speaking for
myself.
There are two things that popped up. First of all, I'm in
agreement with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Agoston. That takes care of that.
HRS had a program on Channel 54 about septic tanks. It's
available to you. It was on the educational channel. It states that
two foot of sand does filter out a certain amount of -- most of the
impurities, okay, but that's not the total answer.
I want to jump back just a little bit. ASR wells were brought up
and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, no, no. We are not talking ASR here, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Oh, okay. I thought I heard that in the beginning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not a part of this, this amendment. We
are not talking ASR. Okay. Next.
MR. PERKINS: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I meant next subject, but if you're done,
that's fine.
MR. HcNEES: Pat Clark.
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Clark, president of the
League of Women Voters of Collier County, and I'm here on behalf of
the league to express our deep concern over the new proposed rule that
would allow the extension of the sewer and water services to areas
beyond the urban boundaries.
With approximately 300 square miles of land lying outside the
urban boundary, the league believes that the extension of water and
sewer systems to these largely agricultural rural areas would invite
the very type of urban development that the county's growth management
plan seeks to avoid. The league encourages the county commissioners
to reject the proposal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Is that our final speaker on this item --
MR. McNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on this section. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we going to take a vote on each
element?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we need to take a straw vote on each
element. I guess what I'd like to first ask is -- and Mr. -- I'm
sorry, Mr. Newman, we have several revisions to this. Would you like
to walk us through each one, the proposed language --
MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and then -- and then let's discuss the
changes, offer any changes and take a straw vote on each one.
Mr. Newman, if you'll -- and you might help us by telling us
which pages you are on, and by the way, these pages aren't numbered.
That makes life a little difficult.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to vote on these now
because I want to -- I want to have a little more discussion before I
start voting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought we'd go through each one, and if you
have difficulty with that objective, we'd have the discussion at that
time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that acceptable?
MR. NEWMAN: Okay. There's no page number. Is everybody -- are
all the board members on the right page?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, where are you?
MR. NEWMAN: Goals -- it starts --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know if I'm on the right page
because I don't know where you are.
MR. NEWMAN: -- two thirds of the way down the page, it says
goals, objectives and policy, and it starts out with goal one,
protect the health, safety of the public and assure access --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are in the potable water sub-element.
MR. NEWMAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The back of the first page.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just needed to know --
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, excuse me for interrupting. We have
one more gentleman who has identified himself as wishing to speak on
this particular element. It would be Arron Hansika.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He hadn't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and assume this
settlement. Last speaker, please.
MR. HANSIKA: Thank you. I had to speak up. It was misplaced in
the file there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine.
MR. HANSIKA: I am Arron Hansika. I've lived in Collier County
since 1984, and I hear a lot of talk about the water lines, the sewage
lines, the property rights and so on, and I think -- I want to offer
an opportune -- this is an opportune moment for me to remind everyone
of something more that we are talking about, something much more
fundamental, much more basic, and it's happening all over the country,
all over the state, all over the county. We are not unique. Call it
urban sprawl. Call it over-development. We all know what it is. We
all know it's happening.
We cannot steal more land from the wild and tame it with pipes.
It's happening all over. We are part of it, and I want to read
something to you that I found in a book here. As the environmental
problems become more evident, I am getting more -- a more receptive
response when I talk write about the ecological crisis. Still,
avoidance reactions are common. Host boil down to, I don't want to
hear about it or it's not my responsibility. Some people convince
themselves that it's not happening or that it's not my planet, but if
this is not my planet, then whose is it? If not my family, whose? If
not my responsibility, whose? I am both a victim and the victimizer.
I am the cause and I am the cure. I'm going to act from this
knowledge. I am not acting out of obligation or idealism, but because
I live in a straw house and I smell smoke.
So, when you're hearing about all these details -- I mean, think
of something very fundamental, something very basic. We need to do
something that we can be proud of, something not only for the people
in this room but something for the greater good. I think we all know
what I'm talking about. So, just remember that one very basic thing.
We cannot have further destruction masked as construction. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have to -- excuse me, sir. You -- you --
you brought it up, and I've heard it several times about urban sprawl.
Do you consider one unit per five acres urban sprawl?
MR. HANSIKA: No, I don't. What I consider urban sprawl is the
-- what I think we are all talking about is the threat. If we bring
out the pipes -- I mean, that just -- that's inviting urban sprawl.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I was just concerned whether you were
talking about number of units or whether you were talking about the
services --
MR. HANSIKA: I mean, if you bring the services out there, the
people will come.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Newman, are we ready to go through each?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please proceed.
MR. NEWMAN: Okay. Objective 1.1 will remain the same. The
first change is in policy 1.1.1. Originally, this policy was intended
to call for the investigation of the Coral Reef aquifer which is the
aquifer underlying the property to the north of Immokalee Road as a
potential water source, long term water source.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need to stand corrected.
Mr. Perkins, I spoke incorrectly. One of the changes here does
deal with an A -- ASR, and I cut you off on that item. If you have a
very quick comment, I need to let you make it. That was my mistake.
MR. PERKINS: The quick comment on the ARS -- ASR wells, okay. I
don't know whether these people know what it is. You shove a hole
down into the ground, pump water down there, create a balloon and save
and capture the water. When we get dry, we withdraw the water.
The point being is, Southern States Utility has shoved one down
800 foot and in one of our -- the consultants that came here telling
us that we had underground rivers here that were paid for by the
county also mentioned that the first one was at 800 feet.
Now, what I'm trying to say, if the county shoves down at 800
foot, and Southern States Utility shoves down at 800 foot, we have
connected the two pipes together by an underground river, and I just
wanted to make you guys aware of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
As we -- as I look at what we're going through, if we do this
with each policy and objective throughout the day, we are going to be
here at 3:00 a.m. --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- if we are lucky. So, -- not all of
us, huh?
What I guess would be more appropriate is to ask the board if
they have recommended changes to various policies, and we can maybe
then just --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- just let those that are less conspicuous go
ahead and proceed as written.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1.1.1, I think I'm probably alone.
I'm just not comfortable with ASR, so I'm seeing if there is any other
interest in not including that and if there isn't, I'll quiet down.
I'm not going to argue it again.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's a little late to not include
that. We are doing it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I just -- I agree. I just don't
support it, and I want to be consistent.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: As you know, I've not supported the
principle either but I haven't been successful in blocking that, so
it's going forward, and I think we probably need to have it in our
plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, 1.1.4 and 1.2.1, I'm
fine with.
MR. NORRIS: Likewise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1.2.2 is where I begin -- I think our
discussion hits the heart of what we've been talking about.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll just kind of throw out what I feel. I've
already said that if we're going to talk about extension of water and
sewer into non-urban areas, we need to do it in a systematic approach
in reviewing our water sewer district boundaries. There are
properties that are going to straddle water sewer boundaries that
we're going to have to deal with in some way. There is going to be
the need for some level of -- of flexibility because not every square
peg finds a square hole to fit into.
However, what's proposed here, I'm confident in this board's
ability to discern what is, in fact, taking advantage of a situation
and what is reasonable, but I think the public's opinion of our
ability is a little less than maybe ours is. The concern I have is
that let's either take a systematic approach to water and sewer
extension or let's -- let's not do it at all, but the line for
property issue is too difficult to broach unless there are more
substantial criteria.
The one thing -- and Commissioner Berry, you mentioned missing
the boat, and you make a very good point. There are going to be
properties out there that are going to develop, like it or not. If
we allow cjustering in any way down the road, what we are going to end
up with are places in which it may be advantageous, not necessarily
for county water and sewer, but for systems to be installed so when
county water and sewer is ever available there, they can just simply
hook up to them, and I think if we are going to say right now that we
are not going to extend water and sewer beyond the existing service
boundary, we need to allow for the provision of centralized systems so
they can be hooked up at some point in the future if that ever occurs.
I think to not do that is to isolate systems and delay further costs
on the property owners down the road.
In addition, I'm more comfortable if the water for 50 homes comes
from a single well that is required to be tested by the state and that
water quality has to be monitored, I am more comfortable with the
health and safety and welfare of our citizens than I am with 50
individual wells, and if we are going to see parcels come in under,
you know, unified development plans, putting a unified system in,
whether privately operated or not, makes sense to me because it is the
only way to force the measurement of those health and safety criteria.
The other side is allowing each site to develop individually, and that
criteria cannot be applied by this board.
So, I'm not comfortable with what's here, but I like the idea of
allowing for systems, private systems to be installed because I think
the safety controls are far better than individual homes (sic).
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned a couple of times we
needed to decide where it's appropriate services be provided or where
the line should be moved, and I guess equally -- and I think you mean
this as part of it -- but is if that line should be moved at all, and
-- and if those things should be provided.
I just think of last year when we had the whole urban boundary
discussion, and I realize they are different things, but the -- when
the board decided not to tinker with the urban boundary, and that was
something that was very clearly supported by the public, I think, with
the exception of maybe one issue, that was the one that received more
attention than any other since I've been on the board. I think it was
a clear message to discourage activity outside the urban boundary, and
-- and in my mind, upscale homes or mid-grade homes, for that matter,
and a golf course and water and sewer, add all those together and it
equals urbanization. You are having urbanization when you have those
things.
The natural progression is then you need a convenience store to
take care of the people that are there. You need other things. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where we are headed if
we start allowing that and encouraging that.
I was glad to hear one of our county attorneys talk about 9J-5
and the concerns. This may not pass muster anyway, 9J-5 indicating
that we should use the existing areas, and that we should discourage
urban sprawl. I don't think the question is what the density would be
here as far as urban sprawl because clearly that's -- the low density
is a good thing. I think the idea that more developments further and
further out is urban sprawl is an accurate portrayal.
We talked about the question of how difficult it would be to say
no, and I just -- I don't think there's any argument that it is easier
to say no under the current scenario than it would be. I'm not saying
we couldn't still say no if we change it, but it is certainly easier
to turn this away under the current situation.
The cjustering question you mentioned earlier, Commissioner
Hancock, about the board wouldn't have talked about that and allowed
that if we didn't have some idea in mind. My recollection, and
Commissioner Norris may help me here, but my recollection was that
that was actually Commissioner Matthews' initiative and specifically
referenced agricultural properties and trying to deal with the housing
situation in Immokalee and taking care of people on farmland.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I wish we had those minutes, and
-- and maybe before the day is over we can get those minutes, but that
was for a very specific purpose, and that was to take care of the
housing problem for migrant farm workers in Immokalee on agricultural
land that they wouldn't otherwise -- farmers wouldn't otherwise be
able to house.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That perspective was later broadened within
the environmental slant. I know -- we'll talk about that during
cjustering because I remember that in the private sector.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you talked about
don't encourage septic, we don't want to miss the boat here and
encourage septic, and if we run water and sewer on Immokalee Road --
for me, if we go ahead and run water and sewer or allow that,
Immokalee Road, for example, will quickly develop. If we don't, it
won't quickly develop, and so I don't see it as a question of are we
encouraging septic. I see it as a question of are we discouraging
urban sprawl and urban uses outside the urban boundary, and to say
that nothing will ever happen there -- I know different things will go
on over time, but we are going to dramatically increase that process
or accelerate that process if we allow water and sewer.
Finally, if the -- if the choice was simply, we know it's going
to develop in the next five years and either we can have septic or we
can have water and sewer, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that
we would prefer water and sewer over septic, but that isn't the
question. It's a question of, do we encourage more urbanization or
not, and if we put in water and sewer, it will accelerate that
process. If we don't, that will be a long time coming on that
corridor and other corridors outside the urban boundary. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my -- I guess this is sort of a straw
vote. You can sort of count our votes as we are talking, but mine is
-- well, mine is pretty clear. I came in here with a green ribbon on.
I think we have very few opportunities to really set policy, and this
is one of those. The policy is we want to discourage growth outside
the urban boundary. That's -- that's the policy I'd like to see this
board set, and -- and one way we have to do that is by not even
permitting further extension of water and sewer lines outside the
boundary. That's my position.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, I -- I think I'd like to point out one
thing, if only for purposes of internal consistency, and maybe some of
the planning folks can help me. It has been a long standing,
consistent position of this board against the proliferation of small
private central water and/or sewer providers, and the comment you just
made a few minutes ago that there may be cases where that's
appropriate instead of extension of county water and sewer district
facilities, I sense a pendulum beginning to swing here, and I want you
all to be aware and make sure that the staff keeps us consistent
internally in that if we're going to make a change and begin to accept
the concept of small private central utility systems, that if that is
a change, that we recognize it as such and we don't -- we don't do
that accidentally because it has been probably a 15 year, Bruce
Anderson can help me, policy of this board that that has not been the
desired situation. You have preferred in every situation central
water and sewer as opposed to the proliferation of small private
systems. You need to make that decision knowingly and be internally
consistent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One of the reasons I'm worried about that in
this area is because your -- you know, 95 percent of the county,
you're right, but we have conditions regarding the Orangetree
Development out on Immokalee Road that there are references to future
water and sewer for that site. Now, it's not binding on the board --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I understand that, but we do have a very
much urban development as an anchor out there and what is otherwise
rural agricultural land, and I think if there's one area, when you
look at our future land use map, that you can anticipate one per five
acre development in some form or fashion, it's this corridor, and I
think as we look at possible expansion of that district at some point
down the road, we're obviously not talking two or three or five years
here but something out in the future, what I'd hate to see is the --
that -- that -- the additional cost of retrofitting areas that are
currently on singular systems -- or not on singular systems, but
individual parcel systems. That's a tremendous cost. I -- we're -- I
mean, my neighbor is getting fit with sewer right now. I live at
Goodlette Frank and Pine Ridge, and we're getting sewer right now.
I'm paying six grand for sewer. I personally happen to like septic.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That darn county.
Do you know -- what is the density out to Orangetree?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Density at Orangetree is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, it's significant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not one to five? It's nowhere
near that, is it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, heavens, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's at least four units an acre.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know the number -- total number
of homes that are built out there, ballpark? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four hundred and twenty-three and waterways
because I did the plan.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. I worked on that
settlement agreement, and Commissioner Constantine, my recollection is
there's about 2,000 acres and there were approximately 8,000 units
that they are allowed to build there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where I say that if there's ever a
place in which an extension of water sewer needs to go, it would
eventually be out to Orangetree.
You may remember Royal Cove --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- where they walked away from the plant and
left us, the county, with the bag in coming in and providing service.
No offense to the developers of Orangetree, but I wouldn't envision if
that plant gets old, a much different scenario occurring where we are
stuck holding the bag and we have to run lines out there. That's why
I'm worried about this corridor. If we are going to have to run a
line to Orangetree ten or twenty years from now, I'd rather
communities or parcels be able to hook up to that, and if they all go
singular lot, that can't happen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd rather Bruce's client pay for the
line.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I understood your point. I guess
the -- the only point I wanted to make here is that's an area that's
going to have fifteen, 18,000 people at build out which is different
than a community with 200 homes, and -- and the reason that that was
set aside, the county would have the option of having some
participation in that, was for that very reason that you're saying
there is that if you're going to have what essentially will be a small
town, then we need to ensure the option for some safety there, and I
just -- that's a different scenario, I guess, than the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I'm just saying the line is going to run
out to Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here's the point I think -- to address your
concern, anybody that's considering developing a parcel, even at one
to five, would be well advised to make sure that they have their own
package central system rather than individual lot type facilities so
that if sometime in the future there are lines that go out to
Orangetree, then they can hook those up, but that's not our problem.
That's theirs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Newman, can they do that now? Can
they develop their own system? I don't believe they can.
MR. NEWMAN: Orangetree?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, anything else.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, in a rural area, can someone develop their
own package plant?
MR. NEWMAN: I believe there are provisions within the comp. plan
-- they are not within mine -- well, I think that -- it doesn't
specify. There is a provision right in the package you have there
that -- that -- that makes that allowance. Now whether that speaks to
within the boundary, the urban boundary or the Collier County sewer,
water sewer district boundary, I don't think it's clarified there. I
think it leaves it open.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I'm sensing a consensus on the board
that the extension of water or sewer in that area is not desirable --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is that fair?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Up, SO --
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
Okay. The consensus does not meet all five,
No. Before -- no, hold on here.
Well, I can only read looks unless you speak
I understand.
Okay.
I just am now taking --
You're so shy.
Yeah, right.
This isn't -- this isn't a popular topic because one of the
things that I've been concerned about is this idea that if we don't do
this, that growth isn't going to happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sure.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This seems to be the thing. If we don't do
this, then growth will not happen out there, and I think I might as
well go out and dig a hole and stick my head down in the sand and just
ignore the fact that that ain't the truth. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I cannot understand -- you know, I'm not
for sprawling all over, and I was over in the East Coast the last few
days, and I understand what everybody gets paranoid about when they
come off of Alligator Alley and see a sea of homes over there that
greet you that didn't use to be all the way out to what is -- what
used to be 27 but it is now, okay. I mean, it's just a mass of homes,
and I understand that paranoia and -- but what people still, I think,
forget, if you look at the Estates -- look at that map right up there
on the wall. What we are talking about is a small area, and you can't
do some of the things that a lot of people are worried about, it's my
understanding, but we forget -- we don't talk about that. We only
talk about one corridor, and everybody is imagining the East Coast.
If you look -- correct me up there, what is that pink area?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Estates.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Estates.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And what is the density in that pink area?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One per two and a quarter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One to two and a quarter.
MS. CACCHIONE: One unit per two and a quarter, and there's,
right now, no provision for central water and sewer. For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione.
I also wanted to clarify one other item on Orangetree. There's
only -- that was a result of a settlement agreement. There are only
2,100 units permitted on four square miles, and it is cjustered along
the frontage.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But my point being, if that is permitted the
way you're telling me it is, then what makes you think that we are
going to have another East Coast in Collier County with what is given
right up there? It doesn't make any sense. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, there would have to be a whole lot
of reorganization around here for that to take place. Pam, maybe you
can explain that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me explain what my fear is about that,
Barbara --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is that -- I know we are trying to keep
these two discussions separate, cjustering and -- and sewer and water
lines --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are going to keep them separate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're related.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm not talking about --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but if -- there are two separate
discussions. We -- should we put the lines out there, but if we put
the lines out there and we allow cjustering, that is a meaningless map
because if you cjuster -- what is built out there will look exactly
like what's built inside the urban boundary because that's how
developers do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're absolutely incorrect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's what I believe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You cannot build -- tell me one development in
the urban area that is one unit per five acres.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But nobody builds one to five. Everybody
builds one to two and a quarter, two and a half. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're talking visually.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm talking it will look exactly the same.
You will see the Vineyards out there. You will see Lely out there.
You will see -- everything that's in town, you will see out of town,
and -- and -- and that's meaningless. That makes the urban boundary
meaningless.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I guess I'm not panicked real easy because
-- and understand, I know some of you are very supportive of this, but
understand that you have counterparts that live out there that are not
here today that do not feel the same way that you feel --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- and I also have heard that side. Now, I
know you're here. You're vocal, fine. There is another side out
there who lives in your area, and I'm looking at several because I
know where you live, but there are several out there that do not share
your concerns about this, but they are not -- they're working.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: They are not sitting here today.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I just have a real strong concern
about this, and again, it goes back, maybe I don't have any
historical, I don't have any data in front of me about the water,
sewer, whether that's better than the septic tank system, but let me
tell you, when you get a hundred year storm like the people had out in
that area, and they were flooded, and they couldn't use their septic
systems, then don't sit and tell me that a septic system is better
than a city water and sewer area.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I will -- I just refuse to
believe that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- let's go ahead -- ladies and
gentlemen, we are not accepting comments from the floor. Please,
let's bring this discussion back to policy 1.2.2, whether there are
recommended changes to that policy, deletions or what is submitted.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, do you think that
by putting water and sewer in, it will not accelerate the development
of that corridor?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think any more so than what's
already happening out there, Mr. Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree on that.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me offer a suggestion. Mr.
Newman, you may have -- I may need your assistance in crafting this.
Commissioner Berry, you know, I don't disagree with you, but I think
we need to look at it from the perspective of the water sewer
district, not of this comprehensive plan amendment. COMHISSIONER BERRY: How do we do that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that would be another step that would
occur down the road. It's not something that's going to occur in this
discussion today just because we don't have the information. We have
to look at what future demands and needs are, what are existing
extensions, what the gaps are in the system. It's a very --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: What can we do here then with this? In
other words, what do we have in your language that allows what you're
talking about or -- or does this allow it at all or --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Or you just simply eliminate the new
language.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it allows us to look at the boundary
of the water sewer district any time we want to. It didn't have to be
in this comp. plan, and let's keep in mind the business about -- you
weren't here the last time we talked about it, but it came to be
called the comp. plan you've got to remember is the stick the state is
going to beat you with later. Anything we put in here, the state is
going to make us do or fuss at us if we don't do. I just think we
need to leave the language out, leave it as it is without the
addition, and then we can talk about the boundaries of the sewer
district.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: As it was.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would agree with that if I know that in the
rural area you have the ability to do a centralized system. Do you or
do you not in Collier County now have the ability to do that?
MR. NEWMAN: Independent of the water sewer district?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. NEWMAN: A private system?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. NEWMAN: I think that's probably sketchy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I need to know that is for the
potential in this particular area, not -- it doesn't -- it doesn't tie
our hands to anything. I'm just trying to look down the road as best
I can.
MR. NEWMAN: 1.5.2 basically says that the county will discourage
-- discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of private sector or
package potable water treatment or sewer plants. So, basically, it
would not be permitted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. It says that we would discourage the
proliferation of. That's different from thou shall not have one. MR. NEWMAN: This is true.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Discourage the proliferation.
MR. NEWMAN: This is true.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lots and lots of, big difference in my
judgment.
MR. NEWMAN: Right.
MR. HcNEES: Maybe we can get Mr. Arnold's opinion on that. I
think it's a land use question, no offense to our fine utility
friends.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services
director.
This is a portion of the code that has been uninterpreted, if you
will, or part of our comprehensive plan. The only interpretation that
was relevant to this was issued back in 1989 clearly said you could
not do private package systems outside the urban area. We were also
given an ORC report by DCA back in the early '90s relative to this and
required to put back in language that referenced the urban designated
lands of the county which would make it clear. That's the only place
you could put in interim package treatment plants for water and sewer,
and the two objectives that I would find relevant are policy 1.5.1,
policy 1.5.2 of the water sub-element. Similar language is contained
in the sanitary sewer sub-element, but the references there -- the
intent clearly, in my interpretive opinion, would be that they were
written so as not to allow package treatment plants outside the urban
designated lands.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was -- that was, again, my concern, and
I'm not looking county wide. I'm not looking at the hitherlands out,
you know, to the east in the middle of an area that's inundated three
months out of the year. I'm looking at upland sections that are along
a corridor that -- you know, quite frankly, there are two corridors
that we, on the planning purposes, should treat a little differently,
one is Immokalee and one is U.S. 41, because of the existing what I
call anchor developments.
On 41, we just had an approval this morning for going south.
That is a -- you know, that's a -- it's only three or 400 lots, but
it's an urban type development. Orangetree is the same thing, urban
type development. In between, something is going to happen
eventually, and I just don't want to be caught behind the eight ball
when it does.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody does, but I
agree with Commissioner Norris and Commissioner Mac'Kie, that I'd be
more comfortable leaving this be and then addressing it as you had
suggested before, you know, as we have the ability to but outside this
forum.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, was the saying I can count to three?
That's three to remove the language and no support for additional
language regarding interim package plants; is that what I'm hearing?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just unhappy with the interpretation.
Frankly, Wayne, I would ask that maybe you look at it again because I
don't -- unless the state told us, and you're saying that they made us
add this language from an ORC report, but it seems to me that we need
some language to have it within the board's discretion to be able to
approve a package plant outside the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And it does say that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think it says that, so I'm surprised
that we can't find -- I mean, I would ask you to reconsider your
interpretation unless the state has said you can't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's ask that that discussion be
scheduled for a future agenda. Since it's not a part of the
advertised public hearing today, any changes to that, I think, would
be inappropriate unfortunately, but --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: But it is. It's policy 1.5.1.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought it was 1.5.2.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Either way, it's today's discussion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in the book for today, which is why I
think we might be able to talk about it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Policy 1.5.1 has language in there that
does allow the board to make a discretionary call. If that language
was put in also in 1.5.2, I don't see what the problem is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and -- as we get
to that, let's talk specifically about amendments to that.
Okay. So, 1.2.2 will remain the same without the additional
language, and that language is deleted which is, if I'm not mistaken,
most of the people are sitting here paying attention to.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, 1.2.2 will go unchanged?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1.2.2 will be unchanged.
Next, policy 1.2.6, any questions, comments, complaints on that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make sure I understand.
Mr. Newman, can you explain to me the -- Mr. Newman.
MR. NEWMAN: I'm sorry. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me one acceptable,
why are we adding that, what's the purpose of the change?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It just gives us the authority for review and
approval.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just gives us veto authority, if
you will?
MR. NEWMAN: Yeah, if the system is not built to what we consider
acceptable standards.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. One -- We have deletions from 1.3 and
additions?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These are, again, updates to reflect the --
the --
MR. NEWMAN: New level of service standards that resulted out of
the adoption of the new water master plan update.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on that section?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Independent district private sector
systems, what does that change mean?
MR. NEWMAN: I can't address that. I didn't deal with that
portion of it.
Mr. Blue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where are you reading that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right here, unless otherwise approved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, the unless otherwise approved by
the board for certain reasons, I don't -- what does that mean?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The way I read it, it means at the
board's whim, but that's why I need clarification.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's how you read everything.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the social concern?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm wondering.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Social concern?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who suggested this change, do we know?
Nobody seems to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody take credit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If nobody can take credit for it, then
maybe we don't need to add it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There you go.
MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn, public works operations
director. The source is clearly stated there as chapter 10-D-6 of the
Florida Administrative Code. I would suggest to the board that this
was added as a result of changes to that administrative code to be
consistent with that, whereas all of those level of service standards
that apply to non-county districts are based on 10-D-6.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And the meaning of this is,
other than the fact it matches some state code, the meaning of this
is --
MR. FINN: The meaning of this is it gives the board the
flexibility to move outside of the level of service standards
addressed in 10-D-6.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not just less restrictive but more restrictive
also?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, if we have a unique situation like
the one -- the trailer park there that we -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Royal Cove.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then we'd have more freedom to deal
with something like that? HR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No further questions. That's 1.3.
Our next changes are objective 1.4, minor verbiage change there
as I read it. Policy 1.4.2.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The same.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The same.
Policy 1.4.3, same; and policy 1.4.5, changing a date; 1.4.6 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on 1.4.5, are we just -- we are
going to have a new plan? We just gave ourselves an extra six years?
MR. NEWMAN: We have another -- another level. Our latest permit
from the South Florida Water Management District requires us to go
into an enhanced program, so that reflects the completion date of --
or anticipated completion date of the enhancement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would that be another unfunded mandate?
MR. NEWMAN: We have a whole list of them if you need them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we don't have any, really have
an option but to include that?
MR. NEWMAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1.4.6, there are some changes there. Give us
that in a nutshell, Mr. Newman.
MR. NEWMAN: We have anticipated some problems in some systems.
If -- if the design does not account for the removal of a certain
portion of the domestic flow from domestic systems for -- that will be
supplemented through a tense system, and it is intended to ensure that
the potable water systems function as intended by FDEP and that they
continue to provide that or protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's strictly new construction;
we're not talking retrofits?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes, that's absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1.5.1, that is the additional language,
Commissioner Norris, you identified as giving the board some
flexibility in a line for site specific single plants?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It would, and if that were also added to
1.5.2, I think that concern that you have would be addressed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Newman, can we reflect that language in
1.5.2. gracefully?
MR. NEWMAN: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The purpose of that is so that if
someone wants to develop a cjustered community and put their own
package plant in, this board would have the option of awarding that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or not awarding it, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the reason I include that is all this talk
about the Twin Eagles Development caused me to go back to the original
cjustering -- not the original. Now I know the second generation of
cjustering -- which had the environmental attribute to it that we may
find that for a specific environmental purpose, a single plant is more
advantageous to the community there than doing the individual. I'm
just -- I want that flexibility for that, and if we were -- if we ever
projected extension of sewer line to a school that's going to occur in
six years and the communities that are developing along that would
eventually have to hook up, then we can allow them to do the interim
plant for eventual hook up. It just gives us that flexibility where
it makes sense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, we're giving ourselves --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Can I ask a question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead, Pam.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're giving ourselves the flexibility to
approve a package plant while rejecting the flexibility to approve
water and sewer lines. Why wouldn't we likewise need to look at --
well, I guess it's not a part -- it wouldn't be a part of the system,
so we wouldn't need to look at it as an expansion of the district
boundary. It just makes me nervous that we are getting the same
place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I remember is a lot of discussion on the
Boyne project was that the septics, the way they were designed, were
not -- were going to have an environmentally degrading effect.
However, a centralized package system would have been much cleaner for
that development.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could -- could the language say something
other just general health, safety and welfare and say if, you know,
environmentally detrimental or --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what it says. To address environmental
or public health --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Health and safety.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and safety concerns.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. In regard to the
Orangetree area, there's going to be two new schools coming on line
out there within the next couple of years, three years maybe max. How
does this affect that package plant out there? Is that what they are
going to hook up to or what are they going to hook up to out there or
-- they've got to hook up to something. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The schools?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh, or are they going to have a package
plant?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding is those schools, we run
water and sewer lines to them if they're -- the schools being
constructed right now, isn't the county running a force main or are
they --
MR. NEWMAN: We haven't been approached for any of the schools
that are going to be developed along --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So --
MR. NEWMAN: -- Immokalee Road east of --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm talking about Orange Tree --
MR. NEWMAN: -- 951.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- Tim. There's going to be a new
elementary school and a new middle school out there within the next --
the new elementary, I believe, starts next year.
MR. NEWMAN: They will -- I'm sure they will approach the
district as they did with the Golden Gate Big Cypress Elementary
School.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just a thought.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, Oh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that -- is that amendment
acceptable?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The way you've got it here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not crazy about it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like you said before, I can count to
three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good luck putting all those actions
into a single headline newspaper but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, they'll find a way.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even better luck to us for getting
more than five pages done every two hours.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay. Well, I think this is one of the
more contentious --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- issues, so -- with that, Mr. Weigel, is it
appropriate to take on these by section, the potable water
sub-element, to have a vote or is it just a straw vote or have we done
what we need to do, and then we'll take everything in final action
later?
I'll ask Ms. Student then.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, the way we've always done this is to
take a vote on each sub-element or element, as the case may be. So,
you need to take a vote on each sub-element and then the element
itself, and then when the whole thing is done, the whole plan. That's
how we've always done it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We need a motion on the potable water
sub-element.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of this potable water
sub-element with the changes as we've discussed.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Okay. We are now on the public facilities, we also have the --
MR. NEWMAN: Thank you commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. McNees -- or I'm sorry, Mr. Newman.
The sanitary sewer sub-element is the second item under public
facilities.
Mr. Clemons, am I correct in that there aren't a lot of
differences here than what was presented in the potable water
sub-element?
MR. CLEMONS: For the record, Tim Clemons, waste water director.
There's not a lot, commissioner. There are some -- some language
cleanups. The sub-elements are basically updated to reflect the 201
facilities update that this board approved last April as we were
getting ready to start work at our south county regional facility as
well as some other changes that have occurred since the last update.
As far as the capital side goes, there are no changes as we have
not yet completed the sewer master plan, so there are no changes to
your capital plan at all at this point.
There is some language very similar to what you just discussed on
the potable water side that you wanted us to look at and take out. I
can go through the amendments or the deletions one by one if you would
like.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on 1.4.2 and 1.4.3.
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand these, these have to do
with connecting public and private property to treated effluent for
irrigation?
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the added -- the change -- we are
deleting, incorporate these into future planning and adding, when
economically feasible and in accordance with the board's direction?
MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just wonder if we couldn't -- I want
to encourage that, and -- and when economically feasible is determined
by who makes me nervous, so I wish it just said in accordance with the
policy of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me give you an example. Remember when we
had a problem with the cemetery on Vanderbilt Drive that was -- you
know, people complained we weren't watering. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the owners of the cemetery wanted
effluent because they weren't -- they didn't have enough water from
Southwest Water Management District, they didn't want to spend the
money for potable, and they wanted effluent, but the nearest line was
more than a mile away, and to run that line solely for that cemetery
at the rate payer's expense was not, in my opinion, economically
feasible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But wouldn't you rather have the board
able to make that decision, no offense to staff, but I don't want
somebody to come to staff, and staff say go away, no need to talk to
the Board of County Commissioners because it's just not economically
feasible. I would like -- I am so in favor of extending treated waste
water for irrigation that I would like to open that door as wide as
possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding is these always come to the
board anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, people ask about them and get told we
don't have enough, it just won't work. I mean, I hear that.
MR. CLEMONS: Generally --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is true most of the time.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is true.
MR. CLEHONS: Generally, it would be true. If you would like, we
can bring all those before, but you would be inundated with requests
because we receive quite a few each week --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just like to have the option.
MR. CLEHONS: -- and some are not feasible, some are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like for it to come back here. I'd
just like to delete the when economically feasible language and leave
it just to the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going to support that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm not either. I -- I feel like
we have to leave a little bit of administrative leeway here. These
guys know the system better than anybody, and I don't think they're --
it's nothing out that shouldn't be, and we still get a number that
come to the board.
MR. CLEHONS: We are looking for all the customers we can get
generally. If we can do it for a reasonable amount --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we have given the policy directive to
expand effluent systems, so they have to act in accordance with that
policy or --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: And your policy directive was clearly where
economically feasible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
HR. HcNEES: That's what you told us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there other changes or --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Policy 1.5.2, it's the same discussion we
had on the potable water --
MR. CLEHONS: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that add that language that's in 1.5.1,
that additional language, I think you cure the problem we discussed
earlier.
MR. CLEHONS: And make it consistent with what you did on the
potable water sub-element?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct, given the board discretion
where environmental or public healthy and safety concerns are
relevant.
MR. CLEHONS: All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Really, we just made those two
consistent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, the two elements are consistent at this
point. There is -- Mr. Clemons, help me with the language. There is
nothing in here that would allow for the extension of sewer lines
outside of the sewer district; is that correct?
MR. CLEHONS: That is correct, sir --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve --
MR. CLEHONS: -- outside the urban boundary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- sub-element with the changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have speakers on this one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers registered specifically
for this?
MR. HcNEES: We had speakers registered for water and sewer, and
you heard them all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- Ms. Straton.
Ladies and gentlemen, I understand some of you may be registered
on several items. Let's be as concise as possible on those.
MS. STRATON: Thank you. Chris Straton, and my apologies. I
just need clarification on policy 1.5.1 because that says discourage
urban sprawl by permitting central blah-blah-blah only in the
designated urban areas, and it still has that language unless
otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address
environmental or public health.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We just took that out.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no, the other way around.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These are central sanitary sewer systems, not
county sewer systems. This is not expansion of county sewer lines.
MS. STRATON: Oh, okay. So, clarification --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These are the central.
MS. STRATON: So, these would be private?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Package plants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MS. STRATON: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion stands.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the sanitary
sewer sub-element. Any questions or discussions? Seeing none, all
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Adopt the pace on that element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to adopt that pace for more of these.
With that, I believe we are to go to the land use, future land
use element.
Ms. Layne.
MS. LAYNE: Lee Layne, for the record.
Commissioner, if we could, because you have three other
sub-elements within the public facilities, and they should be very
quick. If you could cover all those and then take the public
facilities all together, it would make it a much cleaner package that
way rather than having to come back and vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are those the natural ground water, the
solid waste?
MS. LAYNE: And the drainage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the drainage.
Do we have speakers registered on those, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir, not that I can recognize.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and let's try and get
through these as effectively as possible.
We are now on the natural ground water aquifer recharge --
recharge sub-element.
MR. GIBSON: Commissioners, I'm Gail Gibson from your pollution
control department.
The natural ground water recharge sub-element underwent some
changes, primarily in the area of continuation language, taking out
dates certain of things that were accomplished. There were three
additional policies, 1.3.5 which recognizes the need for some
planning, including county, city and the district in terms of water
resources, and 1.5.4, 1.5.5 which dealt with some additional clean-up
in terms of petroleum storage tanks and the conditionally exempt small
generator program we already have in-house for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the fiscal -- Mr. Gibson, is there a
fiscal impact to our staffing levels with the implementations of these
goals and objectives?
MR. GIBSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is really just update language to make it
consistent?
MR. GIBSON: Update the language for continuation -- consistency
with 9J-5.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Basically, I see the words update and
implement change to continue to update and implement. MR. GIBSON: To continue to, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions on the
objectives and goals in this session? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any
discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
The motion carries four to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
The next element in public facilities, solid waste sub-element.
Mr. McNees, do we have any speakers on the solid waste sub-element?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Russell, good afternoon.
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, solid waste
department.
The solid waste sub-element modification essentially is an update
to reflect current conditions and some streamlining and deleting of
items of tasks that have been completed. The level of service
standards remain the same of two line -- two line cell capacity for
two years and ten years of total capacity.
Do you have any questions on any particular item, I could answer
those for you?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you tell me why 1.3.4. has been
deleted?
MR. RUSSELL: That's under define and cost of continued landfill
in Collier County over the next five, ten and twenty years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Does that appear somewhere else?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we are talking about over here
taking in consideration operating capital cost under 1.2.6, but we're
95 percent of the way through knowing the answers to a bunch of
questions having to do with permitting landfill, buying the land and
the cost of transmitting.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, the -- the fact that we plan over a 20 year
period is addressed in the narrative that follows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't see a material difference in 1.2.6 and
1.3.4 in application. The application seems consistent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Are we -- are there any questions, further questions of staff on
the solid waste sub-element? Seeing none, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion moved and second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Seeing none, we are on to drainage sub-element, last element of
public facilities.
MR. BOLTS: John Bolts, storm water management director. The
drainage sub-element has been completely rewritten. It is a major
rewrite since the adoption of our 1989 plan. It incorporates our 1990
master plan and also recognizes the 1991 cooperative agreement we had
with Big Cypress Basin. Otherwise, the goals and objectives and
policies have been modified to recognize the course of action that
you've already taken and your support of projects such as the Lely
area storm water improvement project, the Naples Park project and the
basin studies we proposed undertaken of the Gordon River.
You've also given substantial support to accelerate our
maintenance program by the addition of staff and equipment and
supplies, and I'd just like to thank you for your commitment to the
storm water program, and I'm available to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Bolts on this item?
As I read through it, this appears to be just an incorporation of
recent board actions, and there's nothing inconsistent that I came
across.
MR. BOLTS: No, sir. I think it's been added -- you've already
initiated it. There's funding available for it and it's just to
maintain the course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, it places no long-term financial burden
on the county that we haven't already anticipated?
MR. BOLTS: That's correct, sir. They use special districts and
things of that nature.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have questions?
Do we have any speakers on this matter?
MR. HcNEES: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Seeing none.
We've been going quite some time now without a break. Let's go
ahead and take five minutes. We'll return with the future land use
element.
MS. LAYNE: Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. We need to take a
motion for public '-
MS. LAYNE: On the total element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Facilities elements entirety. I need a
motion on this, please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve it as noted in our
discussions.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Seeing none, motion carries.
We'll recess for five minutes.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are going to reconvene the -- excuse me,
ladies and gentlemen, I don't mean to interrupt your conversations
with the meeting but we are going to reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting.
We are on the section of the future land use element. This is a
rather thick element. There are -- there are specific issues that I
think are of interest and concern to individuals.
Ms. Cacchione, if we went through change by change, you know,
we'd be having breakfast when the sun comes up. So, what I'd like to
do is to go through really the changes in which there is some
discrepancy on, and let's discuss those, and the balance, if the board
has any individual questions on those or questions are raised by the
public, we can address those on their own.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione, the
comprehensive plan manager.
First of all, one of the main changes you'll see throughout the
document is a format change. We tried to make it more consistent in
format, easier to read. We've gone with a bullet type format. We've
identified language changes in bold as well so you can see everywhere
that there's a language change.
We really tried to consolidate some of the plan as much as
possible. Starting with objectives one, two, three and four, we
basically identified projects that have been completed with those
policies, and those are the major changes in those areas.
Policy 3.l-J, we may have to revisit the noise boundaries based
on the plan of the airport noise -- new airport noise plan that is
coming out, we may need to adjust those boundaries, and we can do that
when this comes back at final adoption.
We added a new policy to recognize the Marco Island master plan.
We made an addition to policy 4.4 with regard to corridor management
where the board has discretion to provide other corridors for planning
concerns, and we also identified several corridors that were discussed
at your joint planning workshop with the city.
In policy 4.5, we said we will re-evaluate the industrial land
based on the tenets of the economic plan recently adopted.
4.7 is a new policy with regard to re-development. We've
identified seven specific corridors that need some attention rather
than just the broad brush of the plan itself.
Policy 5.1 identifies all those properties that are improved or
through ZRO have been granted an exception or an exemption, and we
have mapped those properties. There's also some language that we'd
like to add to that policy which allows for those properties under
5.11, which is the commercial under criteria, we are taking out the
provisions in that criteria of the 25,000 square foot limitation and
the 5 percent design level traffic, and we'd like to allow those
changes to be made, so we need to add a little bit of language with --
a little bit of language here which excludes policy 5.11.
Policy 5.2 recognizes and clarifies that the board makes all
final determinations with regard to consistency with the plan.
Policy 5.4, there was a little discussion here in regard to
compatibility. As part of the EAR, we were asked to look at trying to
identify the more specific elements which determine compatibility, and
the planning commission suggested that we refer to the land
development code and use the criteria listed in there, and that would
be up to the board's discretion as to which approach you would like to
take on that policy.
Policy 5.6 will need to be clarified pending your cjustering
discussion which will come up a little bit later in the document.
Policy 5.11, and this, again, is the policy which allows the
properties that have already been considered for commercial under
criteria to continue and to remove that 25,000 square foot limitation
in the design level traffic concern.
Objective 6 and the subsequent policies were deleted and located
in the housing element for the most part except for the Immokalee
master plan which was changed to objective -- policy 4.2, excuse me.
Under the urban designation, support medical facilities which can
locate adjacent to a hospital, we wanted to clarify that it was not
permitted around those hospitals that would have a short term lease,
so that we would not get the ancillary facilities where the hospital
may be moving in a short period of time.
We removed health clubs as a water dependent water related use.
We clarified that maximum densities are not an entitlement but
they are, in fact, base densities that may be permitted, and the same
thing with all the density bonuses, so that we clarified that
provision.
The -- in response to the board's concern and direction under the
EAR to look at the neighborhood commercial component, we proposed a
neighborhood commercial component within residential PUDs, maximum
acreage of 15 acres. One thing that we need to do, and hope to do
while this is up at DCA for their review, is look at specific
standards to implement that district on proposed uses and development
standards and have that to review in your LDC for the July cycle.
The next issue is in regard to business parks and this combines
two districts in our plan. It combines the business park district,
which was already in the plan, as well as the industrial under
criteria district.
There are some additions that were left out that have been passed
out to you, and those are items F, G, H and I. Those criteria should
be added into the plan, and that language should be -- should be
brought forward.
The next district is the office and infill commercial district.
This is a district which would address smaller properties on arterial
and collective roadways in the county and provide an opportunity for
office type development. The properties could be no more than 12
acres in size. They'd have to be on an arterial or a collector, and
they would be eligible for office type uses. It would also permit
jumping of a local street, not an arterial or collector street.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which element is that?
MS. CACCHIONE: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which number, which element is that?
MS. CACCHIONE: That is in the future land use element.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which policy is that?
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 29.
Staff has looked at all the parcels -- we think we've looked at
all the parcels that that could potentially affect, and that would be
approximately 105 acres that could become eligible under this
provision for office type commercial.
There is one additional change that will be brought up, and that
is adding properties that are on the arterials and collectors that are
bigger than 12 acres. They can only request 12 acres for commercial.
The rest would have to be in a conservation open space easement, and
adding those properties in would bring the total up to 131 acres.
Excuse me one moment.
I'm sorry. I misspoke on those numbers, 130 acres the way the
language is here today, which includes collectors, arterials, jumping
across a local street. If we add the other provision which allows you
to take the front piece, the front 12 acres in and the balance in
conservation and recreation, it could be a potential of up to 200
acres of commercial for office type uses.
Now, this provision also allows that if you have commercial on
both sides of you, you can infill with the higher district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is?
MS. CACCHIONE: If you would have like C-3 on one side and C-4 on
the other and you were a parcel in between, you could come in and
request a C-4 designation. Then a determination would be made through
the zoning process whether you were compatible at C-4 or something
different than that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But if you have commercial on one side, even
at C-2 or C-3, you're only allowed C-1-T as this is written? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is just office space?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I -- later I'm going to want to discuss
that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIP4vLA_N HANCOCK: -- because I think some minimum retail
commercial, kind of convenience commercial like dry cleaners and that
kind of stuff that are not -- I mean, I think that can be expanded a
little bit without opening Pandora's box on that. So, I want to come
back to that as a point of discussion.
MS. CACCHIONE: Again, this a district we would like to also work
on because we do think there's a land development code that changed
that needs to go along with this, and we would like to work on that
while it is up at DCA. That review period is 120 days, so that will
give us an opportunity to look at that.
The neighborhood commercial subdistrict S-i, that you will hear
from a potential -- a property owner and their consultants in regard
to that, and I will just leave that for now.
The density rating system, again, we clarified that the base
density is not an entitlement, and the density bonuses are
discretionary. We've kept all the density bonuses in that are
currently in the plan, and we added two additional density bonus
provisions.
The first of those is if you are 15 acres or less in size and
you're located on an arterial, you would be eligible for an additional
three units per acre and that would be for the first 500 feet of
depth. Again, the intent was to try to provide an option of
residential at something higher than three units per acre, three or
four units per acre.
The second density bonus is if someone would use a traditional
neighborhood design component, which is kind of the pedestrian
interlocal interconnected streets, that they could also achieve two
units per acre bonus if they would go through that, and again, that
one would also take a specific land development code so that we can
work out the specifics of what we are looking for as part of that
district, and also, as part of that, the 15 acres that is the
neighborhood commercial permitted in the PUD could be utilized like
their village center and included within that.
In terms of the activities centers, we deleted activity centers
19 and 21 because those are in the Marco Island master plan. We have
drawn site specific boundaries on all the activity centers except for
six of them. The -- these six activity centers will require either a
master plan activity center which is up to the individual property
owner to come in and do or a specific plan which the county would do,
and if -- the specific plan would really come into play more when you
have more than one property owner.
Three of these activity centers, there is only one property
owner. The other three which are along 951 and Immokalee, the
interchange in Immokalee and Rattlesnake Hammock and 951 -- excuse me,
the interchange at 951 and 1-75, those three along the edge, those are
the ones that will need specific plans because there are four property
owners in the first one. The planning commission added about 250
acres to the one at 951 and 1-75, and we think that those need to be
looked at in terms of a specific plan, and then the last one is 951
and Rattlesnake Hammock.
We can begin that effort, again, while this plan is up being
reviewed for the -- by DCA. We can look at those areas and work with
those property owners and try to come up with a more specific plan
that we can then put into this amendment package when it comes back in
October.
There was a provision in there to allow these activity centers
that we drew specific boundaries around to have 16 units per acre.
That has been deleted.
We have reinstated the ag. exemption for the area of critical
state concern, and finally, the cjustering language has been added.
Planning commission did not agree with this language.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page, please.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 50.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: I'm sorry this is so confusing, but we tried to
do cross through and underlining, and it kind of turned out to be
really difficult.
The staff's suggestion was to limit the amount of cjustering
permitted. At most, you could cjuster 500 acres which would be about
a hundred units. The maximum density would remain the same at one
unit per five. Septic and well would be permitted. No central
systems would be permitted. Seventy percent of the area had to
maintain open space. No golf courses were permitted, and a minimum
buffer area was required.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds more like an LDC than a comp. plan
to me.
MS CACCHIONE: And I would --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's the other thing, is there's a lot
of details in this that -- and you said -- you cited something I said
when -- shortly after I got on the board is once you give it to the
DCA, well, it's theirs to twist, turn and use against you, and by God,
we've seen them do it.
MS. CACCHIONE: I will tell you the planning commission's
recommendation was to delete all references to cjustering and leave
the plan as it is and the interpretation which has been rendered that
cjustering is permitted.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see a copy of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So would I.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: During the meeting if it's at all
possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to resolve the issue of cjustering one
way or another here today because there's a lot of people here to talk
about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue.
MS. CACCHIONE: There are some specific language changes, the
language change I went over in policy 5.1. There was a language
change suggested on page 25 to add under item 15 that hotels and
motels are permitted that are consistent with those policies as well
as the Immokalee, Golden Gate and Marco Island master plan.
The business park change, I've passed the additional criteria we
would like to add which is F, G, H and I.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would go on page 25?
MS. CACCHIONE: The business park language, that would be the top
of page 29. I apologize for that. That is something that was agreed
to by the planning commission and is part of their recommendation to
you.
Under the office and infill, if you do decide to go with the
provision which allows commercial on the front and the balance to be
held in open space, we would suggest that you add the wording
conservation or open space to that language.
Under the traditional neighborhood downtown on page 33, we would
like to clarify that the commercial we are talking about there is what
is provided for in the PUD commercial. That language was kind of left
out of there, and I think that would be a clarification we would need
to make.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to keep interrupting you,
but what page? I'm having a heck of a time following you. MS. CACCHIONE: I know. It is really difficult.
One of the things we are going to do is take this all out when we
-- when we get it back from DCA so it will be easier to read.
Page 33, the highlighted portion, the traditional neighborhood
design.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is going to sound like a silly
question, but is there a rhyme or reason to the order you're going in,
why we went to 25 to 50 to 33?
MS. CACCHIONE: These -- there are six language changes that I
would like to add to the plan, and that's what I'm going over right
now, and this is the end of the presentation here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious why we didn't take
them in the order they appear in here?
MS. CACCHIONE: Frankly, because I had them on this separate
sheet at the end of my write up.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good answer.
MS. CACCHIONE: And this is the last one on page -- well, 33, we
want to add that provision about commercial, and then I did go over
the one on page 39.
We also need to do some clean up on the maps if the board decides
to go with those specifically designated. We need to remove the
access management overlay that is on the activity center maps. That
is not intended to be part of this. We use that as a base map, but
that's way too specific to put in the comprehensive plan.
We also needed to replace map eight for the historical district.
There was an error on that, and we handed that map out to you, and
again, we will have clean copies of all this when it comes back from
DCA, and I apologize for the way this format turned out. It was -- it
was very difficult to do.
With that, I can answer any questions or turn it over to the
consultant to present the neighborhood commercial business
subdistrict.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the pleasure of the board? Do you
have questions of Ms. Cacchione or would you like the consultant to go
through the neighborhood commercial aspects?
I know I have some questions on that myself.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's go to that then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Does that relate to a page in here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As we discuss each section, of course we want
it to relate to a page in our book, so -- who's the -- who's the
consultant?
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop representing John and
Alec Pulling.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, you're not a consultant hired by
Collier County?
MS. BISHOP: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're representing individual interests?
MS. BISHOP: Right, writing language though -- as it turned out,
we were writing language for policy for the staff for the neighborhood
business district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a little confused here, Ms. Cacchione,
when you said the consultant because as far as I'm concerned, Ms.
Bishop's presentation is in the same format as all others who have
registered to speak as public speakers on -- on matters in the future
land use element, not necessarily as a consultant for the county.
MS. CACCHIONE: I just put that in there because that was -- it
is in your -- the planning commission did recommend that we put it in
your packet and bring it to you, and I would have gone through the
complete packet then if you had that presentation, but it's up to you,
however you want to hear it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's give a minimum amount of leeway here.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you concur with Ms. Bishop's
comment that she's writing for staff?
MS. BISHOP: No, not writing for staff. We've been working with
staff to create this policy, taking in all their input to create
policy. Everything we've done has been with staff's input for the
last four months. So, we are not actually making them write it. We
actually wrote it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page please.
MS. CACCHIONE: We have provided input. Staff has made a
recommendation not to include this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, you're recommending not to include
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, but the planning commission put it in the
packet. So, we give you planning commission's recommendation, and
they --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's theirs?
MS CACCHIONE: -- said to forward that business subdistrict to
you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did they -- do they recommend that we
approve it, the planning commission?
MS. CACCHIONE: They actually didn't take a formal position on
that. What they did is said include it in the packet and have the
board discuss it as a policy decision.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're on page 29.
MS. CACCHIONE: 29.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Bishop, in fairness to all the
other speakers, what I'm going to ask is for you to try to conform to
the five minutes as close as possible.
MS. BISHOP: No problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll go ahead and start that. Please
continue.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Let me give you some paperwork.
What we are handing out to you is, obviously, more changes that
we've been making on this business subdistrict. The color exhibits
are just to show a typical site that we have chosen. By no means
does this mean that this site is going to be zoned or any of those
things. It's used as an example at this point to set this policy.
I think that what we came up with is that the activity centers
have been a problem from -- or not necessarily a problem, but
certainly a -- they haven't quite turned out the way that everyone has
planned, the scale, the traffic, the neighborhood, the fact that the
pedestrian -- that they are not as friendly as I think everyone had
hoped to be right up front.
The report for the commercial land use study states that the
development of the local neighborhood centers is essentially
unaddressed in the comprehensive plan. So, this was intended to try
to address what we considered a neighborhood business district.
The proposed neighborhood business subdistrict proposed small
scale and appropriately treated office and neighborhood commercial
infill. It incorporates very high quality urban design. It would
prohibit commercial strips and any kind of large scale development at
all. The -- it would be consistent with the ongoing quarter
management plans as access would not be allowed on any of the
arterials.
The policy that we have handed out, in the separate -- separate
non-colored bound section goes through the kind of things that we are
talking about. It also incorporates some LDC language so there would
be a separate policy versus -- followed up with LDC codes which would
be very, very constrained.
Now, this policy does not in any way, shape or form guarantee
zoning for anyone. This would be considered like a privilege to be
able to do this kind of product. It does not open the county up to
excessive commercial. There's only, from what I'm understanding from
the planning commission meeting, 89 acres that would be a current --
that currently would be affected by this type of policy. It would
still require a land use map change. I would still have to go to the
comprehensive plan. You would still have to do zoning.
We are encouraging PUD type of zoning here so that there would be
a master plan approved at the zoning level, and these corners would be
master planned. There is a designation of a minimum and a maximum
size, 10 acres being the maximum per quadrant for this kind of
commercial.
The LDC changes that we are also proposing in here get into a lot
of detail versus -- you know, on smaller parking lots, more stringent
landscaping codes, smaller building sizes, nothing bigger, let's say,
than 6,000 square foot for a single floor, pedestrian access. Plus,
we have to prove that you're serving a neighborhood essentially with
the kind of services that would be there.
The -- what we would like to do is request that you review this
and treat this as another policy and perhaps forward this and let us
maybe finish working with staff because we still feel that there's
some fine tuning that needs to be done with the basic criteria, making
sure that it's not too specific for the policy, yet when the land
development code changes, it would be very, very specific in itself.
It also gives the county the opportunity to create better
commercial areas, unlike what we've seen so far in some of the
activity areas. I think what we are looking for is the kind of
village things that you would see at Venetian Village or perhaps
something like at Waterside Shops -- excuse me, Waterside Shops where
you -- even though it's a center, as you go around it, you don't feel
like you're in one big area. You have little potted areas and small
little accesses. That building has access all over it, so it breaks
up the big mess, and this is what this is intended to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just need to ask a clarification. The
reason you've proposed a separate subdistrict is because there's no
provision for any type of commercial unless you're located adjacent to
existing commercial; is that really the reason for what you're
proposing?
MS. BISHOP: There's two reasons. One is, unless, of course, you
do have an activity center, one is that the local areas -- there are
many areas where PUDs don't have neighborhood commercial areas that
are already built out, and this would accommodate some -- the couple
of areas that are left that do, in fact, not have available small
neighborhood commercial in their area. That would include personal
services like a dentist, perhaps, or dry cleaners or, you know, the
small local business owners type of businesses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But they wouldn't comply for -- with office
and infill commercial -- MS. BISHOP: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- because they are not adjacent to
commercial; is that what you're saying? MS. BISHOP: Exactly, right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned the problems with
activity centers and are suggesting that this would be better.
MS. BISHOP: One of the ways that we suggested is that -- that we
think that this is going to be better, one is because it's going to be
pedestrian oriented for one in that there will be no access on the
arterials, only on collectors. So, that would keep a lot of the
driveway management corridor access problems to a minimum.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are not envisioning eliminating any
of the existing activity centers, right?
MS. BISHOP: Actually, I'm not aware --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, as part of your proposal,
we're not --
MS. BISHOP: No, no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, this is additional --
MS. BISHOP: It would be a case by case, right. There may not
be -- when someone comes to you with the zoning and says, this is what
I'd like to do, you may not find that that is an appropriate use or
that the commercial is not necessary there or is not needed, right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my point is, I agree with your
point that activity centers could use some improvement and that --
MS. BISHOP: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- certainly have been subject to
criticism, but adding an additional type district and adding
additional commercial isn't necessarily a way to improve activity
centers.
I think if the question was do we add more activity centers in
the future or do we do this, well, then that would be an easy choice,
but I don't think activity centers -- we'll see any additional ones
right away.
MS. BISHOP: No, I'm sure you're probably right about that. This
is something -- this is actually taking a different approach than the
activity center approach. This is really intended to be a smaller
neighborhood business area, not so much an activity center where you
see the big anchor stores and the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you'd shorten the answers so we can kind of
get through this. Other commissioners have questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is just that the activity
centers are already there. They are already going to build out where
they're at. We're not going to add any additional ones, so this
really doesn't have anything to do with activity centers. MS. BISHOP: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just a new --
MS. BISHOP: Right, it's just a policy for a new kind of
commercial, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my reading of this is -- goes back
to that long-range planning meeting we had where we were all fussing
about that you have to go down an arterial to get a loaf of bread, and
that this might permit some neighborhood kind of commercial if it's
interior to a neighborhood, that's real important to me, and if it
would serve existing neighborhoods, and if you can get your dry
cleaning and a loaf of bread and some milk without having to go out on
an arterial, I think that's real positive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me throw a curve at this because
this is -- you've actually chosen probably one of the more unpopular
corners as an example.
MS. BISHOP: Well --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: People who live in the immediate area.
MS. BISHOP: Of course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me draw an example for you.
Airport Road has parcels that front Airport Road that are not very
deep. The type of residential development that is allowed there at
four units an acre isn't being developed. What is being developed is
either affordable housing at eight or ten units an acre, or adult
congregate living facilities at 22 or 26 rooms per acre, both of which
have their -- their place to be and so forth.
What concerns me is we have -- a lot of people here, if you took
a poll of most of the people here, they're going to tell you they're
concerned about density. Yet, we look at these small parcels that
front arterial roadways and we ask ourselves, when the development
pressures are such that this property becomes too valuable to hold
onto, what is the development scenario for it, and right now, it's
high density residential, period. You can't make it any type of
commercial.
My concern is that high density residential adds a lot of people
in a small space. It places greater demand on our services; water,
sewer, police, fire, et cetera, and the taxes are not substantial.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They are negative.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The opposite is true of low intensity
commercial. We are not talking about Wal-Hart or Toys-R-Us.
How many of you have ever seen -- and I'm going to ask for a raise of
hands. How many know where the Walden Oaks business office is? How
many of you know where Airport Road is? Okay. You've all driven by
it. The point being that there are some office retail uses that can
be designed in such a way that they are --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That you don't even know they are there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- tremendously compatible with residential
areas, and this is something I've been trying to accomplish.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the infill that are being looked at -- that
we are being asked to look at today, it's good. It relies on existing
commercial. What I'm worried about is those isolated parcels that
aren't next to commercial and how they are going to develop, and it's
that potential scenario that causes me to look at this and say this is
a concept that we need to explore, but if we are going to tell someone
that you can develop any type of commercial there, we need to raise
the bar for how it's developed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Big time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to improve -- not just -- I mean, we
already have commercial architectural standards that would apply, but
some of these criteria are the things that we need to do. We need to
make it so that it's attractive and compatible.
One thing I mentioned to Ms. Bishop is if we were to go down this
road, at the time of fezone, we're not going to get these stupid
bubble diagrams, you know, that say we're going to put a building
somewhere in this three acres and we're going to do parking and we're
going to do landscaping. I want to know what it looks like, what it
feels like and what it smells like, and if you can't show me those
things in a public hearing, then I'm not going to -- to consider it.
So, I think the concept here -- if people begin weighing -- as
you drive down -- and Airport Road is a perfect example. As you
drive down Airport Road, what do you want to see 20 years from now?
Do you want to see apartment complexes fronting that roadway or do you
want to see lower intensity retail office, office or retail with
vegetation and plantings and a little more hidden and back off the
roadway? I think most people will tell you the second, and it's less
impact on our services and -- and it diversifies the tax base so that
those of us who own homes pay a less and less portion of the county
tax bill.
So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- with all that stage being set, I'd like to
see something like this as an opportunity.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question of you. You may
be able to answer it. You just kind of triggered there, and that is
you talked about office use or low impact retail. As far as services
like transportation or solid waste, does that generate more or less
than the adult congregate living facilities? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not the ACLF, but if you look at affordable
housing where you have ten units an acre, multi family housing
generates about seven and a half trips per unit per day. The
transportation is part of why this needs to be looked at further, and
that's how we determine the uses. We would have to make sure that the
impacts are the same or less --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or less.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- than the type of residential development
that could be allowed, and I made a note when Ms. Cacchione mentioned
it. There is a recommendation in here to offer a density bonus to
properties on arterials of three units an acre. That's exactly what
our residents don't want. They don't want more, you know, of the
apartment complexes fronting those roadways and so forth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They would rather have this than that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think they would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not sure, but I think.
MS. BISHOP: Well, and this doesn't guarantee anybody anything.
It's just a policy, right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like -- I want -- I don't want to lose
the opportunity to -- to -- to investigate this, but everything that's
presented here, I think, is overly cumbersome to put in a growth
management document. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you know, that's -- I've said more than my
piece on that, but I think we need to explore that opportunity and get
a little more input on it, but I would like to see something in this
cycle that gives us that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we go to the rest of the public
on these?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Bishop --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- was the first of the public speakers, I
guess, per se.
MS. CACCHIONE: If you'd like, I can provide you acreages for if
you change the criteria, how many acres of property it would affect,
so that when you're making your decision about if it should not be
adjacent to commercial as an example, that's about 314 acres.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, but that -- that -- that's not a de
facto zoning. I mean --
MS. CACCHIONE: I -- I understand, but if -- if you would like
that information, we do have that calculated, and for the density
bonus, we were talking somewhere in the area of six to nine units per
acre depending on the size of the property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While we're hearing public speakers, would you
look at that six to nine units per acre, what kind of traffic impact
that 314 acres would present versus -- and I saw Mr. Kant or someone
-- there he is -- versus low -- you know, office space, not dental or
medical, just traditional office space?
MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Sally Barker, would be followed by Alan Reynolds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I take it that means your voice is still alive
and well?
MS. BARKER: Six throat lozenges later, yes.
For the record, my name is Sally Barker, and I'd just like to say
a few words about this proposed neighborhood commercial business
subdistrict.
In concept, I think it's a good idea, but I understand from
speaking with staff that there are only two locations in the county
where this kind of subdistrict is doable, and one of them has to be --
one of them -- well, the one that you were given the brochure on is
Orange Blossom and Airport, and I'd just like to pass out a few maps,
naturally.
The map is stolen from the county's own activity center map. The
red area is the intersection in question, and the bluish purpley thing
is the industrial that wraps around Pine Air Lakes, that wraps around
Ridgeport which sort of runs into the activity center at Pine Ridge
and Airport.
Anyway, as you can see from looking at this particular map, there
is no shortage of commercial in that particular area. Within one and
a half miles south of the Orange Blossom/Airport Road intersection is
the industrial, Pine Air Lakes, whatever. To the north there is the
proposed Vanderbilt Beach Road activity center, and farther north of
that is the Immokalee Road activity center.
We are talking in excess of three million square feet of
commercial either on the ground or proposed for the semi near future.
While the idea of a neighborhood -- this neighborhood commercial
subdistrict is to give local residents an area to run out for a loaf
of bread or a gallon of milk or whatever, I have concerns because this
subdistrict is, at least -- at least as pictured in your brochure
there, has no interconnect with the residential areas adjacent to them
unless somebody goes and knocks a hole in the long gray wall around
Emerald Lakes. You still have quite a long ways to get to this little
village shop on the corner of Airport Road, and I certainly can't see
the people down in the Villages of Monterey and the Crossings huffing
a mile down the road to this little village shop to get their loaf of
bread or their gallon of milk and then huffing a mile back just to get
to their gate before they even get to their house. They are going to
drive, and if they are going to drive, they might as well keep on
trucking another mile and a half down to Publix or Winn Dixie where
they don't have to pay the inflated convenience store prices for their
loaf of bread or their gallon of milk.
So, I don't see where the advantage is to having this little
cjuster of village shops right there on Airport Road and Orange
Blossom. I really don't, and the other problem I have with is that
Orange Blossom, technically speaking, doesn't qualify for this sort of
development.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that takes care of that problem, doesn't
it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MS. BAKER: It's not a collector.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That takes care of that problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. So -- so, you know, bad example
maybe for this issue, but I hope we won't get too distracted by this
one intersection and not lose sight of the big picture. We're talking
comp. plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You focused on retail. You forgot one thing.
MS. BAKER: What?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Office. Would you have that individual drive
another two miles to their office every day or be able to work closer
to home, less traffic on less segments of roadway? There is -- there
is an advantage to it, but the individual uses are not what our growth
management plan is all about. That's our LDC.
MS. BAKER: But you can't have all office and call it
neighborhood commercial business subdistrict because the concept
that's outlined was going to have the little grocery store, the little
dry cleaners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Some places. Some places it would, and
some places only office would be appropriate and some places neither,
and that's -- you would have to apply. This is not an automatic.
This is an opportunity to apply.
I -- I hear you, and I don't want to discount what you're saying.
I just want you -- I hope that some of the responses are reassuring
that this train hasn't left the station, you know. We are not doing
that intersection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This bothers me too '-
MS. BAKER: Well, our concern is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as an activity center.
MS. BAKER: What they are proposing in this brochure you've got
is not so much a neighborhood commercial subdistrict, which would be
nice if it were in the neighborhood. What they are proposing, in
effect, is a mini scale activity center, and frankly, Airport Road has
enough activity centers. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, how many speakers do we
have on this?
MR. HcNEES: On this particular, you only have two more.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: Alan Reynolds and Dudley Goodlette.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. My name is Alan Reynolds.
Actually, the item I was going to speak on was not this specific
provision but some other aspects of the future land use element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's appropriate now.
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Very good.
My comments can be very brief because we have spent a lot of time
at the planning commission and working with your staff. I was
particularly involved in four different provisions in the plan that
were reworked during the CAR process.
The first is the mixed use activity center subdistrict. As
Barbara has explained, there are provisions now that require the
activity centers to go through a master planning process, and we are
supportive of the planning commission and the staff's recommendation
on that subject, and we can answer any questions if you'd like.
The second is the business park overlay district. Once again,
the planning commission and your staff and the property owners have
worked very closely to come up with a provision that really fine tunes
some existing provisions in the plan, and we are supportive of that
planning commission recommendation, and then there are two other small
provisions that were put in, one with respect to PUD commercial and
the other for traditional neighborhood design, and we would urge you
to pass these forward as they have been presented to you, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Reynolds on either of
those four? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to thank the staff, Barbara and Vince, in
particular, and Wayne for working very closely with us during this
process. It was -- it was a very good one. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: We now have three more. A couple of our generic
registrants have expressed interest in this one. It would be Mr.
Goodlette followed by Tyler Day.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. I'll be brief as well. I also want to speak to exactly
the same issues that Mr. Reynolds just spoke with -- to as opposed to
the items that Ms. Bishop previously addressed.
Dudley Goodlette, for the record, with the law firm of Goodlette,
Coleman & Johnson. We represent the owners of property in activity
centers number seven and number three, those being the activity
centers on 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, that being number seven,
as well as 951 and Immokalee Road, that being activity center number
three. We also have been -- have been working with Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
Varnadoe and others and members of the staff. We wholeheartedly
endorse the recommendation of the planning commission and what I
understood Ms. Cacchione to say earlier today, which may be a little
bit different than what is in your agenda of materials, but as I
understand it, the staff is endorsing including activity centers
number three and number seven, sending those to the Department of
Community Affairs as is for many of the reasons, frankly, that, Mr.
Chairman, that you alluded to for -- in the neighborhood infill
commercial are many of the same reasons that I would have stood before
you and urged you to maintain or retain those activity centers. I
will not endeavor to -- to -- to belabor on that subject at this
point.
If there are any specific questions about the properties in -- to
continue to be included in activity centers that we represent, I'll be
available to answer any questions perhaps later.
I also had signed up to discuss the business -- district business
park overlay district. In that case, I'm speaking on behalf of the
economic development counsel of Collier County, John Passidomo, the
chairman who was here and had to leave and asked me to just merely
mention to you that it's consistent with and as you would expect what
the economic development council has been working with your council of
economic advisors as well as your staff in developing your economic
plan. We wholeheartedly, the economic development council, endorse
the business park overlay district. We think it's -- it's -- it's a
very positive part of the plan as it's going forward, and we urge you
to retain that language as proposed including the additional
paragraphs E, F, G, H and I that Ms. Cacchione alluded to when she
made her presentation.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions, I'd
be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Goodlette? Seeing none.
Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich with the law
firm of Roetzel & Andtess.
I've got some comments on the office and infill commercial
subdistrict. Essentially, we worked with staff, and we agree with all
of their recommendations. However, we believe that there are some
unique parcels out there that there needs to be a little bit greater
flexibility when you have commercial on only one side.
In particular, I represent a client who has C-5 on one side. We
would be limited to office type uses under the staff proposal. We
would like to see a little bit greater flexibility to no longer limit
it to just C-1 type uses but basically allow lower intensity
commercial uses that are compatible with adjoining residential uses.
We would still be required to come back to the board and show you what
we are going to do, but we would not be limited to just C-1 type uses.
So, we would recommend that kind of expansion on the language,
and basically, I guess it's 6-E on page 29, and if you have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had circled that one myself because I was a
little concerned that C-1 only allows for a professional office, and
there are some situations in which you're between two uses that there
are some minimal retail uses that are acceptable, and I would hate to
preclude that in our growth management plan. The place to do that is
our land development code.
So, if we are going to put this in the growth management plan, I
think we need to address the issue of adjacent compatibility, but let
the LDC determine what uses are compatible. Again, I don't want to
give the state more in this issue than we need to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just compatible commercial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I just think we need to address the
issue of compatibility --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and leave out the specifics. So, I'm going
to ask that that be amended in some manner there before the board
takes any action.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. I mean, in the case
you cited, if there's C-5 nearby, then clearly you need to have
something less than C-5 but that doesn't necessarily mean only office
is appropriate, so I'm open for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's already actually covered under H.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we need to make sure that we --
maybe not here in the plan but in the LDC, have some way of factoring
transition in as compatibility, not just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- compatibility of uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've got C-5 on one side and C-2 on the
other, the C-5 is not compatible.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right, and if you have C-5 on one side and
residential on the other --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're talking C-i, maybe C-2.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- what are you going to do?
MR. McNEES: You have one more speaker, Mr. Chairman; Tyler Day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DAY: Thank you. My name is Tyler Day. I'm a resident of
the Villages of Monterey on Orange Blossom. I'm also president of the
North Naples Citizens Traffic Group and a charter member of the
Transportation Traffic Calming Task Force set up by George Archibald.
I strongly support what Sally Barker said with regard to the
concerns about this commercial subdistrict. In particular, I
recognize that you have put a hold on the animal control area that was
going to be sold. I wasn't here at this morning's meeting, but if we
look at it from a traffic standpoint on Orange Blossom alone, and I'm
not saying this would be the same in other districts, but this was the
one that was used as the example in what you have in front of you now,
you've got roughly 2,500 to 3,000 individual traffic trips just by the
residents that now live on -- on Orange Blossom, and that's not
including the Calusa Bay people that will be, who knows, perhaps
another thousand or more, or the Autumn group that's going to be
across the street, Autumn Woods. We are going to have an awful lot of
traffic on there just by individuals.
If you're adding another commercial center at the end and it is a
mini mall type of operation, one, there's no need for it. As Sally
mentioned, there are six or more malls in the area within less than a
mile and a half and some being planned to develop, especially the
activity center up at Vanderbilt Beach Extension Road and Airport
Road.
So, I'm basically saying, while the Orange Blossom area is of
prime concern to me and a lot of the people who I represent, I would
like to say that I think, in general, with any new mini mall concept,
that we need to look at it very carefully and consider specifically
the impact, traffic and otherwise, on the people that live in the area
of the proposed mall operation. So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Day, you made my point exactly. For us to
talk about mini malls or strip malls or retail centers specifically is
-- is extremely inappropriate. What we are talking about here, and
this is very, very important -- activity centers promote a certain
type of retail use because that's the only place you can find
aggregate acreage in which to build a -- a Publix. What we are
talking about are -- when I think of an office building that is
compatible, I think of the -- the dentist office down at Bailey Lane
next to the Wilson Miller building. There are two parcels that are
office developed. One is dental. One is -- yet, they are very
compatible, in fact, immediately adjacent to residential. It's the
way they were developed that makes them compatible, and that's what
this subdistrict, in my opinion, is doing.
It's not -- it's not saying some uses are -- can just go in there
and do their thing. It's saying the manner in which you develop
creates the compatibility with these low intensity uses.
So, you're right, mini malls, I'm not interested.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forget it.
MR. DAY: Well, I think also that we have to look at the traffic
impact of any sort of a congested area, especially at the end of
Orange Blossom, which is a nice winding road through there that is not
-- it's not a cross county road. Maybe someday they will want to have
it that way, and maybe it's in the plan, and certainly the road across
the street, which is a connection of Orange Blossom to heaven knows
where, is a less developed road, but we have to be very careful in
terms of the impact of all this traffic in a very small congested area
that has primarily family developments in it, and if you stick another
-- whether it's offices or convenience stores or whatever it is, it's
going to end up being -- having the same effect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. I have a concern over traffic in
predominantly residential areas like you do.
MR. DAY: I know. Okay. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Day.
MR. DAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Weren't you a strong proponent of opening
up Pine Ridge to drive through from your area?
MR. DAY: Well, I think the concern there was the fact that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I think it's very inconsistent of you
to get up on one hand and say you don't want traffic down your street
after you were up here as a proponent of putting traffic on someone
else's street.
MR. DAY: Well, that -- see, you got a little confused, Mr.
Norris, because, in effect, that is a concern with -- with closing
public roads and even without any approval, George Archibald has gone
in further and built a blockade --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: George Archibald doesn't work here.
MR. DAY: -- and this really is not the subject of the meeting.
If you want to talk latter -- later, I'll be glad to talk to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking at the maps in here and
the examples you give, and it shows four different parcels. How large
was the parcel that is designed here where the current animal control
facility is?
MS. BISHOP: I believe it's 9.64 acres. Directly across the
street is the Italian American Club which I believe is five acres. On
the other side, the piece that will be, when Orange Blossom is
realigned, that parcel, which is now five acres, will drop to about
three and a half to four acres, and the one on the south side is only
ten acres.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that's my concern here is --
the idea is a good one, and as Commissioner Mac'Kie had said earlier,
if you can keep people contained much like they are on a couple of
developments off Vanderbilt, that's a wonderful idea. MS. BISHOP: Well, and we -- I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my thought.
MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You answered my question. Thank you.
The -- my concern is that we are creating a big commercial
intersection of a mini version of Pine Ridge and Airport, and it may
be prettier because you might have more trees and bushes and all, but
the way the wording is here, looks innocent enough, item A, must be a
minimum of three acres and a maximum of ten acres, but -- and you do
that on all four corners, then you've got 40 acres, so it's not such a
minimal impact anymore, and I'm just concerned what we are looking at
here isn't for the convenience of an existing neighborhood because
when you're on all four corners as this one, and I realize this is
just one proposal, but as this one is proposed to be on all four
corners, that's clearly designed to benefit the motoring public on
those two major roadways, not designed to benefit people back in
Emerald.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we're only creating that if this board was
to fezone those parcels to create this situation, which I think I've
heard at least three of us say -- this is probably the worst example
of what I brought up that I can think of because this is -- it ends up
being an aggregate 40 acre commercial, you know, kind of a commercial
enterprise, a development. This is not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is, example, what's the nursery across
from Lakeside? It operates as a nursery right now when you drive by.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Buckley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Buckley, Buckley, something like that.
Someday that property owner is going to sell. Now, is that property
better off as an affordable housing apartment complex, which is
probably the highest and best use of that land, is that property
better off as a low intensity office type, you know, use. I'm looking
at those types of parcels, not this intersection.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me give you the answer to that
question. We turned down directly adjacent to that an affordable
housing project because of -- we -- we don't have a concentration on
any part of the county. Part of our land development code says we
won't concentrate affordable housing in any one section. So, this
board has already said that's not an appropriate area for affordable
housing. There's Bear Creek or whatever it is. Next door is the
vacant area that was turned down, and then you've got the area you're
talking about. So, I don't think you're going to have affordable
housing there.
The other option available to that land owner is to come in and
ask for a fezone, and I think they have that option right now to say,
okay, I'd like to do something different than affordable housing. I'd
like to fezone, and they have that option to come to us and ask for
another use for their property --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Residential.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- without making this change.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A residential use though.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: True.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They don't -- they don't have the option
of asking for anything other than a residential use there, and I would
like to open the door for neighborhood office or neighborhood retail,
and they can't -- I mean, they can't ask for that right now without a
comp. plan amendment because of activity centers and -- and it not
meeting any of the comp. plan criteria.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would be open to this if we
limited within a certain proximity to one another to ten acres rather
than ten acres on each side of the intersection because I think your
example is a very good one. There are specific areas, and if we make
ten acres within a half mile area, whatever, but just so we don't end
up with a 40 acre mini activity center there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree.
Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: What makes this a -- it's hard to separate
this particular one that we are talking about. We all know where we
are talking about. We also know that down the road to the north,
within a matter of a very few miles, I don't know what it would be,
two miles maybe, maybe it's not that far, you have a major activity
center on that corner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I liked his proposal, the chairman's
proposal much better regarding eventually what might happen with that
one parcel where the nursery is now in terms of a building, yeah, a
building or a business.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Office.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Office kind of thing.
My concern is that any of that area along Airport Road, I venture
to say, unless things change dramatically, I can't see anyone walking
to a store to get a gallon of milk along Airport Road. It just does
not make sense.
If you're talking about Lakeside crossing over and coming over to
pick up a gallon of milk, you've got to be insane. You'd stand a
better chance of going out in the middle of 41 at five o'clock
traffic. Airport Road --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We never know exactly how you feel about
an issue, Commissioner Berry. I've noticed that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Hey, I've been this way all my life. Why
change?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It just doesn't make sense, and so to get
real excited, the concept itself, I think, sounds really great.
Unfortunately, it's hard to separate this particular one out because
it's laying in front of us here, and we are looking at a specific
area. I can't think of too many areas right now in Collier County,
particularly anything east of Airport Road, that this really applies
to. I just don't see it happening.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a couple of nods or uh-huhs
when I said, what if we just limit it to ten acres in proximity to
other things. If the board -- if the majority of the board is
comfortable doing that instead of allowing four corners all to appear
this way, then I'll go with this. Otherwise, I -- I -- I can't favor
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we have to look at location criteria.
So, yes, I -- I think that there -- we don't want it to aggregate. We
don't want ten acres next to ten acres next to ten acres creating --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm talking about these, you know, infill
pieces that are among residential, not just among a commercial
setting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I agree with that, and let's just be
careful that we get that in the LDC and not in the comp. plan. That's
my only other comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a good place to put it. Let's just
come back and alter it and tailor it.
Okay. It sounds to me like there -- there is some agreement that
a form of neighborhood commercial subdistrict needs to be looked at.
I'll try to do some words -- thinking on that as we get close to a
motion if every one would like to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- take it that way.
Do we have any other public speakers on this matter?
MR. McNEES: You had two other speakers registered related to
activity centers, and we've strayed a little bit into that. I don't
know whether you want to hear that now or whether that's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and do that as part of the
future land use element.
MR. HcNEES: Hario Curiale and Geri Fitapelli.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are either of those individuals here?
MR. CURIALE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, county commissioners.
It's been a long day, I imagine, for all of us, right?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Marco Building & Supply, right?
MR. CURIALE: I imagine my map is 18, 9. I don't even remember
CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You need to give your name for the
record, please.
MR. CURIALE: My name is Mario Curiale. I'm the owner of Marco
Building & Supply located on Marco Island.
I'm here for -- speaking on behalf of the piece of real estate
which I'm buying to relocate or build a second location for Marco
Building & Supply, and previously, I was in front of this board, I
imagine, about two or three months ago, if I recall, and I received a
preliminary approval for about 75 percent of the land to be
incorporated in C-5. That -- the C-5 is required by the zoning
ordinance, by Collier County ordinance in order to have a building
supply operation.
Since then, we, myself, I have been in contact with the staff,
and the Collier County people are very helpful throughout all this
process over this activity center to find out to incorporate which
land and which land not to be incorporated, and as of today, we come
to find out that the staff finally came up with a recommendation to
incorporate the land, which was the recommendation from Mr. Reynolds
which was at the meeting, I imagine, a couple of months ago.
So, through all the studies and all of the meetings that we went
through for the past three or four times, three or four months, find
out -- I don't have any paper or agenda with me, so I speak from an
old piece of paper here. I imagine what staff recommended was to
incorporate the remaining land, which was about three and a half acres
left, so the whole strip of eight and a half acres would be, in turn,
accepted as a C-5.
As it stands now, we only have five and a half acres. That was a
major detriment for our project in order to make that workable. With
the recommendation by the staff and Ms. Cacchione, she showed me today
that they were recommending to incorporate the remainder of land and
naturally make this project reality.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Curiale, am I correct in saying that what
you're asking for has been recommended by staff? MR. CURIALE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You can probably stop right there
because I don't think anyone has a problem with this activity center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We like it.
MR. CURIALE: I really appreciate it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CURIALE: -- okay, and I would like to emphasize this. It's
been a long day. I've been having a very lousy cold for two or three
days. I have a migraine headache. I will not let you down. When
this project is done, I will make sure you guys will be happy about
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Curiale.
MR. CURIALE: I really appreciate it. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last item that you called that we didn't
get was --
MR. McNEES: The last speaker waived.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, the last speaker waived. Okay.
With no more public speakers, we're at a point now we need to
either accept or accept with modification the recommendations
presented to us.
Ms. Cacchione, if I could ask you to step up to the microphone.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we go through those gray boxes in
order page by page --
MS. CACCHIONE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and maybe you can direct us through
that.
MS. CACCHIONE: The first one appears on page 12, and this
depends on your action with regard to cjustering. If you choose not
to include any criteria with regard to cjustering in the plans, we
will make these deletions or there's also staff recommendation in the
language which we reviewed earlier which occurs later in the document.
MR. HcNEES: We have some speakers on cjustering that we haven't
gotten too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm sorry. Just clarify again.
You're suggesting that we delete any reference to cjustering?
MS. CACCHIONE: The planning commission suggested -- the planning
commission's recommendation was to delete any reference to cjustering.
Staff's recommended language appears on page --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently not nearby.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 50.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like -- do we have any other
registered speakers on the future land use element other than the
cjustering?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, you have four others who haven't identified any
specific item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before we start going item by item, I'd like
to hear from all of those speakers. So, why don't we get all speakers
for future land use element, give them an opportunity to speak, and
then we'll go ahead and move through the balance.
MR. HcNEES: Bruce Anderson followed by Gena Gundeck.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record,
again, my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, Van Assenderp & Varnadoe.
I'm here to urge you to follow the recommendation of your
planning commission with regard to the issue of cjustering, and that
was to delete any new references to cjustering that were proposed by
your staff and also to leave policy 5.6 of your future land use
element as it is written today and not to tamper with it. It already
addresses the issue of cjustering generally along with the PUDs and
encourages its use to preserve open space in environmentally sensitive
areas.
I think some of you have already voiced the concern about putting
any standards relative to cjustering in here because it will only give
the Department of Community Affairs a weapon to beat you with, and I
would agree wholeheartedly with you on that.
If you do want to have some standards for cjustering, the place
to do that is in the land development code so that way you keep it
purely a local government matter and not invite the Department of
Community Affairs to get in the middle of that battle, and I don't --
I just urge you to follow the planning commission's recommendations.
I could speak in more detail about that, but I made a fairly
detailed presentation to the planning commission, and there were a
number of items that were buried in there that had to do with
cjustering, including recommendations that would be in contradiction
to the earlier action you took today to allow this commission the
opportunity to have people have on-site water and sewer systems, and I
won't get any more into it because this is not the proper forum to
debate the old interpretation that was recently issued. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to know if we ever got the
interpretation that I was asking to get to see a copy of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that I'm going to ask we not make that
a subject of discussion at this board meeting because it's not a part
of these amendments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. It's just something I've been
wanting to get my hands on for a long time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure. We'll make copies for you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any question for Mr. Anderson on the question
of cjustering?
I'll tell you, I do agree with many of these -- many of these
things that are in here are just -- I mean, these are -- are decisions
that we need to keep local decisions and not something that I want to
give to the state.
So, I'm not comfortable because I would have to go through and
alter half of these things to make myself comfortable with them, and I
just as soon delete it myself.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
MR. ANDERSON: And again, I would just ask you to follow the
planning commission's recommendation on policy 5.6, which is to leave
it alone as it is written today.
MR. McNEES: Gena Gundeck followed by Michael Simonik.
MS. GUNDECK: Good afternoon. For the record, Gena Gundeck,
resident of Golden Gate Estates.
It was a rather interesting meeting that Mr. Anderson was just
referring to, a planning commission where it was a record, I think,
environmentalists and attorneys for developers actually agreed on
something. We were all quite shocked. However, we agreed for
different reasons, and I am against the cjustering.
I have -- there are some good points, but there are also some bad
points about it. One being a sort of urbanization in an Orangetree
type of development is what I can kind of see. The open space, farm
lands that are -- have been farmed are -- there's nothing there to
preserve. So, I have a problem with staff's language concerning the
vegetation and the buffers. Most anything, if anybody's been out to a
farm field, the only thing growing is Brazilian Pepper. We all know
that has to be eradicated. So, if you have to have a buffer, what are
you going to have? You're not requiring -- and you need vegetation to
be planted. That's just one of the points.
No private water and sewer systems, I feel that's a good thing.
We don't want to see that. We don't want to see any possibility that
those could be expanded and sold. We don't want to see any
possibility that -- like you had voted previously not to extend the
county's water and sewer out there, and preservation of land, I do
agree with that. We absolutely need to do that, but for something
that is worth -- has some substantial worth, and not to say that
something without trees on it has no worth because it may be -- whoa,
is that an omen -- it may be a good filtering system for water. That
may very well be. The soil itself can do a lot to do that.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Michael Simonik followed by Chris Straton.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you hear that you're up to 30,000
members at the Conservancy?
MR. SIMONIK: Yes, that's great, isn't it?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's pretty good. Good job.
MR. SIMONIK: And we actually have 5,000 family members, so we're
probably closer to around 10,000 people.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. SIMONIK: Michael Simonik, for the record, for the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
On policy 5.6, we agree with the staff's added language that
includes within the designated -- urban designated area. We'd like to
see that language put in there, although that does not still answer
the question of whether or not cjustering is allowed outside of the
urban designated area.
We are opposed to the rural residential cjustering subdistrict
mainly because it will encourage urban sprawl, and we are against
urban sprawl, and this language and just PUDs outside of the urban
area are being used to allow urban residential developments in our
rural areas, and I guess a comment on some of the staff language on
cjustering, we are just as uncomfortable with that language as the
chairman but probably for a lot different reasons.
So -- but we do oppose the language that's added to the comp.
plan for cjustering.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could be the same reasons as our
chairman's though, I'll point out to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wouldn't bet on that, but --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or maybe not.
MR. SIHONIK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Ms. Straton followed by Dwight Nadeau.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have to have fun every now and then, you
know.
MS. STRATON: It's 4:15. Oh, that's my time. I thought that was
the time to go home.
It's Chris Straton, Collier County Audubon Society.
We are quite concerned about the issue of cjustering, and what we
are concerned about is the ability to allow what I refer to as an
urbanized type of development pattern within the rural agricultural
area. We don't like the language that was put together, but there
have been other instances in today's discussion where there were some
issues in terms of different types of business districts where staff
was suggesting that between now and October through the land
development code process, we look at LDC language, and since this is
such an important issue in terms of the character of the community, in
terms of what is that interpretation and how it gets applied in the
agricultural rural area, which is over 325 sections of land where that
could be applied, that I would hope that we not -- we don't ask DCA to
get involved. This is a local issue. Our elected officials, the
members of this community should be able to make the decisions in
terms of what we want the community to look like, and we need to
address what is agricultural rural, what is that real character we
want before we end up with something that we said, well, geez, that's
not what I really had in mind.
So, I would hope that we not include comp. plan language but that
you do direct staff that -- to look at land development code language
to address this entire issue of standards as it relates to
agricultural and rural.
There are other counties, and I understand that even Collier
County had a situation where we used to have a rural designation, and
we had an agricultural designation. The density may be the same but
the characteristics in terms of residential land use would be
different, and perhaps it's appropriate for us to start to look at
that type of thing since we do have such a huge portion of the county
that falls into this general thing called ag/rural and to determine
where we would like the ag. to occur and that type of a pattern and
where we would like to see some other non-urban type of development
pattern.
So, I would hope that you would direct staff and perhaps as part
of the work that's being done at the whole issue of density reduction,
urban sprawl, you know, and all that work that came out of what
Commissioner Constantine initiated to look at some density reduction,
this would be a very good time to start to look at those particular
standards, to modify our land development code to come up with that
particular planning effort. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Dwight Nadeau followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Dwight
Nadeau, McAnly Engineering & Design. I -- basically, I'm going to
waive in that I urge you to support the planning commission's
recommendations to exclude the cjustering in the conservation as well
as in the agricultural rural area and to maintain the integrity of
policy 5.6 the way it stands. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like you've been sitting next to
Sally Barker back there.
MR. NADEAU: I've got a cold.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Hello. My name is Nancy Payton. I'm with Florida
Wildlife Federation, and we'd like to express our opposition to the
cjustering amendment that's being proposed in the growth management
plan.
I also wanted to bring to your attention a memo that was issued
by the growth planning department in December of 1990, specifically
discussing cjustering, and the conclusion was, cjustering is not
permitted in the agricultural rural land use designation, and I'll
make this memorandum available to you so that you can read that as you
read the most recent interpretation of whether PUDs are allowed in
agricultural and rural areas, and it will give you some perspective on
the schizophrenia we seem to be having in this community with whether
cjustering is or isn't allowed in the ag. rural area or whether it's
disguised as PUDs, then it is allowed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the author of those two opinions the same?
MS. PAYTON: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That would be schizophrenia.
MS. PAYTON: Well, this is institutional schizophrenia, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we all work for county government and we
don't agree.
MS. PAYTON: That's true, but when you're issuing an opinion, it
would help that it be the same or if I come back and keep asking,
eventually I may get what I want.
I -- I do support the idea of exploring cjustering, exploring, I
want to make that very clear, cjustering through the LDC, although we
are not comfortable with cjustering in the ag. and rural area. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: That would be it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There are no more speakers on the
future land use element then?
I believe you've already spoken on this matter.
MS. GUNDECK: Yes, sir, I just want to make one comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
MS. GUNDECK: It's been my first opportunity to work with Ms.
Cacchione --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, compliment staff for a while.
MS. GUNDECK: -- and I want to say, it has been a pleasure.
She's been very cooperative, and we worked with her on goal two and
cjustering and other things, and we may not always agree, but it has
been a pleasure, and I meant to say that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I appreciate that.
THE REPORTER: Hay I get your name?
MS. GUNDECK: Christina Gundeck.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if anyone would like to compliment the
board, you will be given additional time also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and -- let's go ahead and get
back to walking through these now that we have had the opportunity to
hear the public comment on everything from cjustering to Ms.
Cacchione's work product. Why don't we go ahead and go back -- rather
than read through individually, let's kind of take them a group at a
time.
Ms. Cacchione, where there's a difference of opinion, either what
we heard today or planning commission and staff, let's focus on those.
Can we do that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one question. Who assembled this
and what's the logic behind having the same topic on page 12 and page
50? I'm just having a little trouble, and I need you, as we do each
of these, I need you to walk me through it literally because I can't
-- I can't follow it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Me neither.
MS. CACCHIONE: And I do apologize for this. We did not
originally do it in a cross through and underlining format. It was
suggested by the development community that it would be clearer if we
did that. In this particular instance, it didn't really work out.
The first changes are policy, and they identify districts. If we
were to put language into the comprehensive plan, we would be
identifying rural cjustering subdistrict -- rural residential
cjustering subdistrict. I think there's a universal agreement that no
one likes the staff proposal on page 50. So, I guess the main thing
we need to know is if cjustering is permitted in the rural area, if
that is the board's interpretation, then we can address that
specifically in the land development code if you so direct us to do
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would be my preference not to include this
cjustering language and to address the issue of cjustering in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is not necessary -- I agree with
you, but that's not necessarily an endorsement that cjustering is
allowed.
MS. CACCHIONE: And that's the critical basic question we need to
answer --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I said address, not approve.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- in the comp. plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should she have said that verbally? I
want to clarify.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Okay. So that would -- we are
deleting references to cjustering as indicated on page 50 unless Mr.
Arnold, of course, has got tremendous heartburn on that.
MR. ARNOLD: Only if you have additional questions relative to
the cjustering issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Later.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go on with the other recommendations in
which there was and has been some disagreement.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next area where there is a gray block is an
agreement between planning commission and the staff.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 19.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see anything that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, you're on the wrong 19.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's two 19s.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The different page 19.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, the other page 19, sorry. Got it.
MS. CACCHIONE: Policy 5.1, that was where we added the
additional language except as allowed by policy 5.11, and that's at
the end of the sentence there, the second sentence.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the impact of changing PUDs
approved prior to adoption, to properties zoned prior to adoption?
MS. CACCHIONE: It would allow any property, whether it's a PUD
or a basic residential commercial category, to make changes to that
district as long as they don't increase the overall intensity. Right
now, only PUDs are permitted to do that, and it would allow also
properties zoned RHF-12 to change their zoning but they can increase
the intensity or to shift from a commercial to a residential use. So,
it would allow a little more flexibility than exists today. Right
now, this policy only addresses PUDs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The commercial residential makes sense, but
the RHF-12 -- RHF-12 incorporates all other less intensive residential
zoning districts into it, does it not? So, if you're zoned RHF-12,
you can build RSF-4 if you want. It's incorporated by right, isn't
it?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, you don't have the developed -- the
development standards for RHF-12 wouldn't fit in RSF-4 development.
You would need to fezone to some other district.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Instead of residential commercial, but not
residential because that's true in commercial. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: Commercial is cumulative. We did have a
situation where a commercial hotel wanted to fezone to a residential,
and the language just didn't provide for it, and so we intended to
create a little more flexibility with that provision in terms of
overall changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you're in agreement with CCPC on that?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that? Let's move to the next
One.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 20 was where there was some disagreement
with -- between staff and the planning commission. The EAR required
that we go and look at some standards for compatibility. Staff tried
to provide that in the language. The planning commission felt that we
should use our land development code in a criteria there to define
compatibility. So, this would be a policy decision in terms of which
way the board wants to go on --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to see DCA kick that one back
because it references the LDC, aren't we?
MS. CACCHIONE: What DCA has told us in the past on the
objections report is that we must have the basics in our plan so that
when we do the land use -- then when we do the land development code,
it has to be consistent with the parameters in our camp. plan, and
that seems to be the key thing. Otherwise, it's self amending. You
change your LDC any time you want if you don't have the basics of what
you want to see in your camp. plan. That's why it's so important that
it's set out, albeit in general terms, but it has to be set out in the
camp. plan so that when you do your LDC, you have something to fall
back on, and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- that is generally what we've been working on
with DCA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to go to planning commission
recommendation and see if any of the staff had changed at DCA.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could happen. I like the compromise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's try that, and if it gets kicked back,
then we're going to have to go to specific language more like what has
been proposed but let's see if we can't -- if DCA is a little
different animal than it was the last time we proposed that.
MS. CACCHIONE: Policy 5. --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that okay with everyone?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh.
MS. CACCHIONE: Policy 5.6, we would remove the new language
except for the provision where we would like to continue to review and
amend the zoning and subdivision regulations to allow for innovated
techniques. That would, again, relate to the cjustering provision.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, 5.6 goes back to its original --
MS. CACCHIONE: Except for that last sentence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- except for the last sentence. Okay.
Any problems with that? Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next change is on page 24, and planning
commission requested that we change the language to short term leased
facility --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- rather than the way we had it worded, and we
agree with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions?
Okay. Keep going.
MS. CACCHIONE: The business park language, we went over adding
that additional. That was an oversight, and we should have included
that in there, and we are in agreement on the business park
subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we are interested in the neighborhood
commercial or some kind of it, is this where it would go?
MS. CACCHIONE: Actually, it's -- it's the next thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to go back to the support
medical facilities item on page 24.
How do we define support medical facilities?
MS. CACCHIONE: Support medical facilities are defined in that
first sentence as physician offices, medical clinics, treatment,
research, rehab centers and pharmacies provided that dominant use is
medically related, and they can be located within a quarter of a mile
of a hospital.
What we didn't want to do is get in a situation where there would
be a short term lease for a hospital, and that hospital could move,
and then you would have the ancillary facilities of support medical.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And short term is going to be defined
somewhere later in the LDC or something, because what's short term?
MS. CACCHIONE: We --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want it in here. I just don't
want --
MS. CACCHIONE: -- left that to the discretion of the board to
make that interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When is the last time a hospital went to a
short term lease?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, the urgent care centers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's defined as a hospital then?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, not exactly but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the real life impact of this?
I'm not following, I guess.
MS. CACCHIONE: The impact would be if a hospital, such as an
urgent care facility located in a shopping center and they had a five
year lease and planned to leave in five years, that there would be
some concern with adding medical facilities that are related to that
hospital being there if it isn't going to be there, and so that is why
we clarified that language.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. That gives us some discretion
because we are getting a lot of store front emergency medical clinics,
and that would then -- they could come in under previous language and
ask that medical offices be allowed in that shopping center.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm with you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that -- okay. Is that a fair application?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct or within a quarter of a mile of
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it gives this board the discretion based
on that to deny that as a use.
Okay. Any questions on the business park?
This is something that's going to kind of slip through, but I
think is pretty exciting, is, again, it's another way to convert, you
know, what potentially could have been residential land to quality
business park like Collier Park of Commerce or something like that,
so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Take it off the rules, boys.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very exciting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like that. I get excited about some of this
stuff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's a planner.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next is on page 26 where we talk about the
PUD neighborhood village subdistrict. We had very specific criteria
in here as recommended by staff. We've agreed with the planning
commission that that more specific criteria would be better located in
the land development code, and we will work on that between now and
October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good answer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this -- is this the same as the
neighborhood commercial business subdistrict?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is Village Walk, that concept.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm still looking for where to put that in
because I want something in there about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's later.
MS. CACCHIONE: It comes a little bit later, and I can go through
each of those provisions --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I'll hush if you promise you won't let
me miss it.
MS. CACCHIONE: Again, this is a repetition of the business park
because it occurs in a couple different land use designations. The
business park is permitted within the urban area, so it can go
anywhere in yellow on that map provided you meet this criteria. So,
that is why it's in a different couple of spots. It can go in
industrial designated area or anywhere identified in yellow on the map
behind you, the future land use map. So, that's why the criteria and
the standards will be very important.
The next one would occur on page 29, the office and infill
district. I think this is where there was some discussion in terms of
making some modifications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me go ahead and start on that one. This
list, 12 acres, did I hear you say that we are at 15 or is it staying
at 127
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, if you go to 15 -- I don't know exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fifteen acres goes to 60 units, and you start
getting into what is, what I call, a viable small community. When
you're at ten or twelve at four units an acre, it's less. I think it
becomes more attractive for this than it does for that, so I'm
comfortable with the twelve acres rather than going to fifteen.
The second thing is I wanted to, and I think heard the majority
of the board indicate that we would, eliminate E on number six which
is limiting to C-1 zoning district and assert or actually just leave
in H then, the project will become compatible with existing land uses
and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Leaving compatibility in but take out the C-1
specific reference.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So, you're eliminating this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
MS. CACCHIONE: The concern that staff would have, and I'll just
go over each parameter, if we include properties that aren't adjacent
to commercial on either side, they're not on -- they don't abut it on
both sides or one side, you're looking at going to about 629 acres
of commercial under the eligibility for commercial under these
provisions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are not talking about that yet. This one
we've left in on office and infill commercial subdistrict. We are
talking about those that are immediately adjacent to commercial.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At least on one side.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least on one side.
The neighborhood commercial subdistrict is the one you just
referenced, so let's have that discussion on that specific --
MS. CACCHIONE: The one other concern would be in getting -- one
of the reasons staff proposed office was because of compatibility
issues on the smaller parcels. If we were to get drive through, fast
food and C-4 type uses, that that would be a concern. If you want
that addressed in the land development code, we could do that. It
would seem that being an office and infill district, we should make
some mention on the type of uses we want to see in this district in
the comp. plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have no problem with office and low
intensity commercial as a statement but not defining a district and
the reason --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Office and low intensity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And low intensity commercial as allowable uses
because, again, it's a question of compatibility. I don't think
anyone up here would stick a drive through McDonalds next to a
residential neighborhood. I mean, you have to give us some credit, I
hope.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, the reason I say that is because C-2 is
generally considered your lower order of commercial, C-i, C-2 and on
up. C-2 includes all those type of drive through uses, you know, and
the personal service type of aspects. If you would like me to
specifically identify the uses in the land development code, we can
take that approach and just include --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I'd like to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see that as well.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- office and low intensity commercial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, and then we'll define those specifically
in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only thing that worries me is the low
intensity, but I guess if we're going to define it in the LDC, I
Ca~ '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know how many times using the SIC code,
you either include something or leave something out that you didn't
originally intend?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that gives us the discretion to alter that
without going through this cycle and convincing someone in --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Tallahassee what's best for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can go with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, that would, in fact, eliminate E
for removal, leave in H.
MS. CACCHIONE: As I understood E, project uses are considered to
be office and low intensity type commercial is what you wanted?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. Let's revise E to read just
that.
Okay. Are there any other recommendations on office and infill
commercial subdistrict?
Okay. So, we don't -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, this is it. This is
what you were talking about earlier.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, actually, hers comes right next.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I'm saying, the neighborhood
commercial subdistrict next.
What has been proposed in its existing form just boggles the
mind. It's way too much. We have a concept we're trying to
accomplish here with neighborhood commercial subdistrict. When I say
we, I'm not sure there's a majority of the board, but for the time
being.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a blanket question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Staff does not support this. Why?
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically, because it occurs at your
intersections again, and with the activity centers the way they are,
which was not how they were intended but how they developed, I think
you would be looking at a similar situation with smaller levels of
commercial at the intersections, and that is part of the reason.
I think right now we have provisions for PUD commercial which
we've provided a broader opportunity for, and there's already a
thousand acres zoned in PUDs for neighborhood type commercial uses.
So, I think they are -- I think that's the major concern.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, and I agree because I think as we and
the residents from -- that talked from North Naples, both from Pine
Ridge and -- it was kind of neat to hear someone from Pine Ridge and
Monterey talking on the same issue and agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It could happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Neighborhood commercial subdistrict, I -- I --
let me offer a couple of changes in that that takes it away from that
intersection concept. The last line on page 29, neighborhood
commercial subdistricts may provide, and then it continues, instead of
will provide, may provide neighborhood scaled, daily convenience
goods, professional and personal business services and residential
dwelling units. Here's where -- here's where I think the change is
necessary. Qualifying sites shall be located immediately adjacent to
arterial or collector roads instead of at the intersection of.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three lines in.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So, just adjacent to instead of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At the intersection of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, adjacent to instead of at the
intersection of.
MS. CACCHIONE: Which follows very closely to our office and
infill district because it is adjacent to collectors and arterials.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
What we need to do at this point is two things, and I'm not sure
of the wording, because we need to make sure that we don't get a four
corner development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. How about this? Adding onto A,
the neighborhood commercial subdistrict must be a minimum of three
acres, maximum of ten with no maximum residential area required, and
shall be located no closer than two miles to any other neighborhood
commercial subdistrict. That way, you don't have four of them on top
of each other. You can have one somewhere on your stretch. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think two miles may be --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The miles are not available, optimistic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the type of uses we're talking about, two
miles seems pretty far away.
MS. CACCHIONE: Two to three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was actually thinking a half a mile because
what we are talking about, again, are low intensity office type uses,
not necessarily retail commercial. It's a different animal than
what's in your activity centers.
So, having them -- you know, something like a quarter of a mile
is too close, in my opinion, but if we had something in the tune of a
half mile --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I could support that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. That avoids the -- the
other suggestion I would make on changes, under E, I'd just like to
eliminate it, residential densities granting an additional eight units
per acre. I don't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Out of there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
I also think H would then have to be removed also, the
neighborhood commercial subdistrict must be located at the
intersection of an arterial, collector, et cetera. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nope.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, H must be removed also.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we get consensus on your suggestion up
top that qualifying sites shall be adjacent --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Shall be located immediately adjacent to
arterial or collector roads with adequate levels of service.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but did we get a consensus?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just blurted it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have consensus for that change.
There are other things in here that -- that I think are -- are
kind of fluffy, but they don't hurt us in there. What I'm looking for
in the balance of this are things that tie our hands unnecessarily.
Does anyone see any of those that gives you heartburn?
Here's one that I think is inappropriate. In the upper
paragraph, it says the neighborhood commercial subdistrict may include
small restaurants, drug stores, specialty retail stops. Again, that's
something that the land development code should indicate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's too much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, everything after -- and this is halfway
through the paragraph.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I see.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The neighborhood commercial subdistrict may
include, I'd like to strike all of that all the way down to specific
conditions. I think that's an LDC -- those are all LDC issues.
Are you with me there, Ms. Cacchione?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it too simplistic an approach to -- I'm
kind of scared to say it, but to strike all of A through H and say
something like what we've said before, we are going to address those
issues in the LDC?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, because I'm not going to vote in
favor of it if we still have the possibility of four corners being all
associated with each other.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we just create the possibility
of this district in this comp. plan and address the specifics of it in
the LDC?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I'm not interested in even
having a possibility of 40 acres all cjustered around an intersection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's a middle ground between what
you're proposing and what I'm hearing that would make sense.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we were on the right track
before that suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, let --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hear me out on this. If we go -- where it
says specific conditions applicable to neighborhood commercial
subdistrict include the following, A, we've already modified with
Commissioner Constantine's request of -- at the end of A where it says
residential area required, and help me with that, we inserted a half
mile instead of two miles?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It should be located no closer than
one half mile to any other NCS.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we are requiring a minimum of
one-half mile separation between uses.
I think B is unnecessary. It's limiting the square footage.
That's a part of the zoning process --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's too much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and that's part of the LDC. So, I'd like
to eliminate B.
C, I like because it sets the tone for what is to be developed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then everything after D, I don't think is
necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we can do it in the LDC, and that
-- that then, Commissioner Constantine, does keep in the protection
you were looking for, and I didn't -- I wasn't thinking when I said
eliminate A because that -- that, I understand, is necessary for
support.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of this is currently
reiterated in the LDC, and how much would have to be added?
MS. CACCHIONE: None that's in the LDC.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing's there?
MS. CACCHIONE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The LDC would have to be created.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the -- one of the appealing
things about -- as long as they are limited to ten acres in any one
acre, is that they go above and beyond, and that's one of the selling
points that Ms. Bishop made, and that -- I know we don't want to tie
our hands, but I want to make sure that we have some intention of
doing that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And going to the next level rather
than simply just having another ten acre area for commercial
development under current --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, maybe we can even puff up C a little
bit more than what's already there because it -- I think it's where we
start to require some of those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you know, it's already there in general
terms in D. It's wordy --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but it's already there.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't -- why don't I modify that that we
will leave D in with all the individual points because I think it does
set the stage for a different type of commercial? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: D?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: D, that talks about the subdistricts urban
design standards will incorporate the following.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I thought you just took that out.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I said everything after D.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But what I hear Commissioner Constantine
saying, if I read you correctly, is let's -- let's go ahead and put it
in the growth management plan that this is just not straight
commercial, that there are additional level considerations to our
system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because this is where we talk about things
like pedestrian, special lighting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't object to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But let me ask if it wouldn't be more
appropriate to just develop an entire category in the LDC and define
all this there?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think either in the end provides exactly
what we are looking for. I think we need to be a little concerned
that -- again, I'm always -- I'm always hesitant to put stuff like
this in the comp. plan because of what --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just can't envision a scenario in
which we're going to think, gosh, we want to make it less attractive,
and I think D is just saying, look, we want to make this something
more than just standard commercial --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Tim --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I think you're right, E, F, G
and H we can dump. I agree with your suggestion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The only thing is, if we -- and I'm just
thinking out loud here, but if we leave in D, we are subject to DCA
telling us what they think satisfies those criteria whereas if we put
that in the LDC, it's strictly up to us, and that's -- I want those in
there. I want that to be a part of it. I'm not interested in it
without those kind of higher standards, but I hate to give it to DCA,
and we are the board who's going to adopt the LDC. I can go either
way, but I just think that's an issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's take a -- let's take a little
straw poll on D. All those that feel strongly about inclusion of D?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those who feel that that's an LDC matter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think we need to take --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. You voted both sides.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no. I said fine -- I did not vote
both sides.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You can't lose that way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think your statements -- your statements
being on -- obviously, on the record that we are going to take D and
use that as the umbrella model in the LDC and make sure we have full
compliance with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I think it will be done, just a different
vehicle, and E, F, G and H to be eliminated. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. Item F requires us to go through a
comprehensive plan amendment to place it on any particular site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, I think --
MS. CACCHIONE: And this could be done, I believe, as a small
scale amendment if it's under ten acres which means it does not go to
DCA for their review. It goes to them -- it doesn't go to them in the
sequence that we normally take plan amendments, but there is a
threshold on how much of that you can approve per year. I think it's
like 80 acres, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't -- I really don't want DCA approving
or not approving fezones of ten acres or less here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me either.
MS. CACCHIONE: What I'm saying is they would not. They would
not be involved in the process, but it would take a comp. plan
amendment to specifically cite this ten acres --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would it --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Cacchione --
MS. CACCHIONE: -- the way it's currently written.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is it ten acres or less or is it up to
ten acres?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think it's ten acres or less.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The actual wording is a minimum of three acres
and a maximum of ten. You're talking about the state language?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I'm talking about the state language.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, we're going to have to change that because
you don't want three acres per quadrant. So, we are going to say that
-- I think we are going to have to modify that because the way it
reads is you have to have three acres in each quadrant and that is not
what you want.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
MS. CACCHIONE: You want a maximum of ten on the arterial or
collector --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying --
MS. CACCHIONE: -- within --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ten contiguous acres. I don't want
this -- I don't want anything broken up into different pieces.
MS. CACCHIONE: Right, so we need to change that language.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I need to clarify that if
I didn't before. I'm looking at --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's clear enough to me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a parcel, but if we could put in
the word contiguous or touching or whatever we want to do there
because I don't want somebody to come back with 2.5 on four sides of
an intersection and say, wait a minute, this is all one neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, a maximum of ten contiguous acres --
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is that --
MS. CACCHIONE: If I could suggest something too, we can transmit
the language and then -- in the form you're discussing here in terms
of an amendment. We can work on the LDC provisions, and then you can
see them both when you're ready to adopt, and at that point, you can
decide what you want in the comp. plan and what you want in the LDC,
and you can change the language at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection to that, just so
we are clear.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, at this point, I think that's the stage we
are trying to set.
Okay. Are there any other additions, deletions, changes to that
section?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we losing anything by deleting G,
must be consistent with the county access management plan and
compatible with surrounding land uses?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Required by -- required by ordinance already
to be consistent with the access management guidelines. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
So, our only changes are the one you had suggested at top.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we dropping -- we didn't -- I
don't know that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I recommend the deletion of the section that
reads the neighborhood commercial subdistrict may all the way down to
where specific conditions begin. I recommend eliminating that. I
think it's more appropriate in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then ten contiguous acres, and
then shall be located no closer than a half mile to any other NCS.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No -- and then just delete everything
after C.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: After --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After C.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: After C.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And use that as a model to go in the LDC.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yep, and folks, this is going to be a working
district. I mean, we're going to have to do our work when the LDC
comes around to make sure it's what we expected it to be. Ms. Cacchione.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I've got one last question
about this before we leave it. I'm still confused, Barbara, about --
is a comp. plan amendment -- a comp. plan amendment will be necessary
in any event to locate this district?
MS. CACCHIONE: No, I think you removed F which would not require
a comp. plan amendment.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so, this generally is available and
would be implemented via just a fezone?
MS. CACCHIONE: Right --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- which means you can locate ten acre parcels
within a half a mile of each other and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- come in and request this through a fezone.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: I do want to call your attention to the density
bonuses that were added.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. CACCHIONE: I don't know if there's any discussion of those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Density bonus for properties adjacent to
arterial.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two nos.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three nos.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand the concept.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Where are we? What page?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please, what's the page on those?
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 32.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, this is the promotion of residential
infill. You know, I know it's ten acres or less, but my whole reason
for going through what we just went through is not necessarily to
promote the small pod residential developments as the only or sole use
for them, and I think the offering a bonus, we are going to send it
that way. So, I'm just not comfortable with all the density
reductions we're having and we're talking about doing a density bonus
at this time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me just give my opinion. I
think the worst thing we can do in our community is take five to ten
acre parcels and add density to those and make them little pods of
overdeveloped jammed in housing when the rest of our community is
developing at a low density high quality rate, to promote something
that would encourage somebody to come in and make smaller, cheaper,
jammed in housing. I just -- that's not what I want to do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you agree to take this out?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think -- I hear what you're saying there,
delete that one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That baby is gone.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That leads us to the next page where
TNDs are also suggesting density bonus of up to two units per acre. I
just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Where are you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next page, 33.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That neighborhood --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom of the box.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, we've been trying to encourage this
type of development but can't find the right mechanism.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Love it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is one of those that TNDs have capture
rates. You get the internal commercial mixed with -- we've already
seen it happen without the density bonus in Village Walk and in Island
Walk I think that's being proposed. I'm not sure the bonus is
necessary as much as -- for TND as much as we need to make sure we can
let them do those type of centers internally.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to see a density bonus.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How can we encourage this or is there a
need to encourage it?
MS. CACCHIONE: We can if you --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the marketing place is encouraging
it.
MS. CACCHIONE: We could review our land development code to
ensure that there is nothing in there that is constraining people from
requesting this type of development at the current density levels.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we allow residential units over shops
anywhere in the county?
MS. CACCHIONE: That is where we have a problem because our
zoning districts right now just limit it to the point where it's
basically an employee, and we want to broaden that, and I think that
would be an important concept to broaden. I think we want to try to
allow those kinds of opportunities --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- especially for getting into mixed use. You've
got to have really tight architectural standards and designs with
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we can do that in the code, right?
MS. CACCHIONE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then I'm in favor of removing this for now.
Let's see what we can do with the code from here. See what we can do
with the code to accomplish that, and if we can't, then we'll come
back here as a last resort later somewhere down the road.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying to remove the two dwelling
units?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Well, actually --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The entire traditional neighborhood design?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without the dwelling units, there's no purpose
for the balance.
MS. CACCHIONE: There's no purpose for it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Remove the entire '-
MS. CACCHIONE: -- that I can tell.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Remove all of number eight.
Okay. Everyone agrees there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there -- is there an opportunity -- I
just hear a lot -- I see a lot of faces in the crowd going ah-ah. Are
we done with public input or can we get some input on that subject?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we already went through them
all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we went through the public speakers, and
we didn't talk about this specifically. I think it was under the
assumption that there wasn't a problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Alan Reynolds, I'm the
one who had worked on this language, and I asked if there was any
discussion about it because there's been a fair amount of work and
research done on -- on this provision. So, I would ask if you're
talking about just getting rid of it at this point after the staff and
the planning commission have already supported it, I would -- if you
want to have some dialogue about it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to hear something.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- we did -- we did some fairly extensive research
on this subject before we put it in, so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reynolds, I think the only question the
board has is why do we need to give two dwelling units per acre
density bonus to encourage this sort of development when the
marketplace seems to be saying we would welcome that type of
development?
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. We did -- very valid question. We did an
extensive amount of research on that. We looked at over 100 TND
projects across the United States. Typically, the density range for a
TND type project is between five and eight units per acre. That's the
density of which they work because typically what you have is more of
a compact pattern. You have smaller lots with alleys, tighter
streets, but you have a mix of uses, and really to make the whole
scheme viable, you've got to get a certain level of density that,
frankly, is slightly higher than what your base densities provide for
right now in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reynolds, can I ask who we is when
you said we've done a bunch of research?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, myself and my staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For Wilson, Miller?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
We are not representing any property owner on this. This is
something that is an emerging trend across the country right now, and
it's something -- probably the best example is Seaside up in the
Panhandle, Celebration which is a Disney community, and my belief is
that if you don't put a provision like this in your plan and allow
some kind of incentive for it, I think it's going to be a long time
before we can start encouraging a TND project to occur.
So, I would urge you to just leave it in and maybe we can work
through the standards and give you a higher comfort level so that when
it comes back for adoption -- I've already talked to Charlie Gauthier
at DCA about trying to give us some more information on it.
So, if you leave it in, I think we've at least kept the dialogue
going at this point, and I suggest maybe we can do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we need to leave it
in to keep dialogue going. We revisit this thing every six months,
and we can certainly keep a dialogue going, and if we decided
something we want to do, we have an opportunity to add it later, but I
don't know how long of a time it's going to be before we see this sort
of thing. I remember you and me walking around an existing project
here in Collier County and talking about this very concept as it
exists now and how it's being planned for a project -- another project
that's already been approved here, and those are both without the
density bonus.
So, when you say, gosh, I think it may be a long time before we
see this sort of thing, I kind of disagree with you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, let me differentiate between what we talked
about the Town Centre and this. This is a much broader scheme. This
talks about the total integration of the residential uses with the
retail. I mean, the best example is probably Old Naples. I mean,
that's the closest thing we have in Collier County right now to a
traditional neighborhood plan. It is not like Village Walk which is
really very much of a hybrid. It uses some of the techniques but it's
not a true TND. A true TND has very specific design characteristics,
and my concern about waiting at this point is that we're probably
looking at the next opportunity to get something enabling in the plan
for another year. So, then we are talking about developing standards
after that.
I think if we can just go ahead and get this in the plan right
now, we can work between now and the fall on some more specific
standards which would be in the land development code. At that point,
I think you can decide if you don't like the concept of TND and the
way it's working, it's very easy at that point to take it out, but if
we don't include it right now, there's no impetus, I think, to develop
the standards that you need to look at.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you know as well as I do that
there's nothing easy about taking something out when you're dealing
with DCA, and it's not just as easy as simply removing it.
If we don't have a clear picture now, it doesn't make -- in my
opinion, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why you would include
something when you don't have a clear picture.
I agree with you. We want to look at it in more depth, and if
we want to keep it on the front burner, that's fine, but we don't have
a clear picture right now. We don't have clear answers right now.
So, I'm not prepared to keep it in here just so that we can keep a
dialogue going. It really doesn't make sense.
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm talking more -- I'm trying to make this
happen. I mean, I'm not just doing this -- this is not just an
exercise. I mean, we want to keep the momentum going so that we have
actual standards in Collier County that enable TND projects, make them
more safe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's fine, but we don't have
those right now, so it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to put these
in when we don't have those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm caught in a position here because what Mr.
Reynolds is talking about is something that -- that is,
developmentwise, positive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you look at potential developments, it's
very positive, but on the other hand, we have a public, that if they
hear the word density bonus, they, you know, shriek because we are
adding people to the area. So, how to do what I think is a good idea
and not just get backlashed by the public for adding density is a
tough position to be in. I think a lot of us are feeling that.
Mr. Reynolds, are you -- is it your impression that the dwelling
-- the additional bonus units have to occur to make TND work or do you
think we can do it through LDC amendments?
MR. REYNOLDS: Maybe a suggestion. If you want to eliminate the
density bonus and this language right now and leave the TND concept in
place, and then let us work through and see if there is a way that we
can make it happen --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- through the LDC without a bonus. I would
rather you do that than just take the concept out, and then I think we
can spend a little bit more time on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to leave the concept in. I don't
have enough information yet to -- you know, we haven't had the benefit
of the research you've done about how necessary are those two density
bonuses, but I do not want to lose this concept. I think it's one of
the best innovations we've seen in awhile.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask just a
secondary question? I thought we went through the list of everyone
who had signed up to speak on anything in this document at this point,
and I just want to be clear on that so that we don't keep adding
people throughout the day every time we take up a new topic. Are there more speakers signed up?
MR. McNEES: We had -- Mr. Varnadoe had registered and then
chose, at that moment, not to speak based on the conversation at that
point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In fairness --
MR. McNEES: We had -- on that item, yes, we had reached all the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In fairness, I think Mr. Reynolds took all of
30 seconds --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, no, I'm just trying to stick with
the procedures.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's kind of difficult because I
think there are times we're going to come across items in here, and if
there is somebody in here -- I'm asking for my own benefit. If
there's someone in here that has some expertise in some of these
areas, I certainly do want to hear from them. In this particular
situation, I think this is beneficial, and I certainly agree with, as
we've ended up here, if we can remove that last sentence and that
particular statement, I think we are comfortable then with that
particular language that's been --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's do that then.
MS. CACCHIONE: If you don't mind, we might change the location
of this provision because it falls under density bonus. So, we'll
switch it to the urban description as a subdistrict.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's about three-quarters of a baby, so
that will work.
Ms. Cacchione, where to next?
MS. CACCHIONE: The next issue starts on page 37, and it has to
do with the activity centers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I understand from what we've heard from the
speakers today, everyone is in agreement with the activity centers as
they are presented here in staff CCPC recommendations. Do you have
any problem with that?
MS. CACCHIONE: The only thing we would like to do while -- while
this is up at DCA is look at three specific plans for three activity
centers. The first is 951 and Immokalee Road. The second is 1-75 and
951, and the third is Rattlesnake Hammock and 951.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the purpose of determining future master
planning efforts?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, because those all have different property
owners, and they could all take into account 160 acres of commercial
at each of those locations, and in fact, the planning commission added
250 acres to the one at 1-75 and 951. We think for planning purposes,
it's good to include all these acreages, and we want to get the
property owners involved, but we may need some additional parameters
before this gets adopted to put in on these three --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone have a problem '-
MS. CACCHIONE: -- and we'd like to have your permission to work
on that while this is up at DCA.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question; how -- the three you
selected are because they are multiple owners?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. There are six, I believe, in all, that
require specific plans or master plans. Four of them -- I think there
are seven altogether. I think four of them have single owner
properties. These three have multiple owners. 951 and Immokalee has
four owners. The Rattlesnake Hammock site has, I believe, nine
owners, and 1-75 has probably seven or eight.
So, we want to try to come together on a master planning effort,
but we don't want the perspective that activity center uses are
granted for that whole activity center at this point in time. We want
to be able to evaluate that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I appreciate that -- that we can't --
you know, that we have to take into account that there are several
owners there. I just don't want to treat one piece -- one activity
center differently from another one. I -- I would like to say that we
are going to master plan all and here are the first three we are going
to do. Let's start with that -- you know, prioritize that way.
MS. CACCHIONE: That is the case, in fact, because the others are
required to be master planned, but because they are single owners,
they are less of a top priority, I guess, as you would say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Such a good suggestion, we are already doing
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the next one which I believe is
the business park subdistrict.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think we covered the business park subdistrict,
and this is just a repeat of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next one --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the same thing or a repeat of this park
subdistrict.
Then we're to page 48 where we have staff agreement to delete a
reference to prohibition of new centralized water sewer. Anyone have
a problem with that?
MS. CACCHIONE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute.
MS. CACCHIONE: 39, we are going to delete that language which
allows 16 units per acre in those activity centers because, for now,
we are leaving those on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Another winning recommendation.
MS. CACCHIONE: Mixed use activity centers, again, this is
discussing the master planning effort, and there's no change there,
and we are in agreement with planning commission there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: Business park subdistrict on page 45, again,
that's a repeat because it falls in a number of different designations
and districts.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to be clear on what you
said on page 48.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 48?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's underlined here about new
centralized water and sewer?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I said that. Let's -- I was actually a couple
of pages ahead of Ms. Cacchione.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I'm just kind of looking for
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 48, we are going to delete that reference to
centralized water and sewer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was saying you couldn't have any, and we
just discussed that in an earlier provision, and I think to be
consistent, we can't necessarily include that.
MS. CACCHIONE: And on page 49, we'll delete any reference,
again, to the residential cjustering provision.
We will delete on page 50 in its entirety the language regarding
cjustering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: Again, on page 53, there's a reference to
cjustering and on page 54 in the conservation district, all that will
be deleted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: And I believe that is it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it? That's all?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so -- let the record reflect I
disagree with that item on page 48.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's consistent with your
disagreement earlier.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The future land use element has been reviewed
in its entirety. What we need at this time is a motion to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt the future
land use element with the changes that we have agreed upon in our
deliberations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is the southern Golden Gate stuff?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next.
MS. CACCHIONE: Next.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any
discussion? With Commissioner Constantine's one exception noted, call
the question, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's five o'clock, and we have to change
court reporters. We are going to take -- let's take about ten
minutes, okay?
(A recess was taken from 4:55 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good evening. I hate saying that at a BCC
meeting.
Now we're to the Future Land Use Element. Mr. McNees, I
understand we have some specific time constraints that may need to be
met in short order before getting to the South Golden Gate Estates
issue?
Item #13A2
PETITION CU-97-5, MR. MILES SCHOFIELD REPRESENTING CRAIG AND KARLA
SIEBERT FOR A BOAT HOUSE AT 291 SEABREEZE AVENUE IN CONNOR'S VANDERBILT
BEACH SUBDIVISION - CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 1997
MR. McNEES: We do have. We have one gentleman who has asked
that his petition be continued and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: God bless him.
MR. McNEES: -- I told him we would bring that up so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I talked him into it.
MR. McNEES: -- he'd know whether or not he should leave. That
would be Item 13(A)(2). He's asked that that be continued for two
weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a boathouse?
MR. McNEES: That's a conditional use for a boathouse.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If he wishes to continue it, does the
board have any objection to allowing the continuance?
Anyone else like to continue theirs?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No? Okay. Yes, Mr. McNees, next.
Item #12A1
RESOLUTION 97-222 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED 1996-97
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH NLA/~AGEHENT PLAN AMENDMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ADOPTED EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AND/OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD
DIRECTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS - ADOPTED
MR. McNEES: I know the Golden Gate Estates folks have waited a
long time, and we had told them they'd be up next for discussion under
the Growth Management Plan amendments. We have one staff member who
has to leave, I understand, very shortly, who has a couple of the
elements that he needs to cover. And if you'd indulge us allowing him
to do the CIE portion, and then we could go right to the Golden Gate
Estates portion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since it is a family matter, I think it'd be
appropriate to do that. The items should be fairly quick; is that
true, Mr. Litsinger?
Okay. If you'd please, again, state your name for the record and
walk us through those items.
MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger with the planning
department, and thank you for accommodating my parenting
responsibilities.
Mr. Olliff had asked that I cover the recreation open space
element for him and his parks director as they were otherwise engaged.
If you don't mind, I would quickly go over the parks and recreation
element.
Very briefly to summarize, it is primarily a housecleaning
measure to bring the text and the data and the maps of the parks and
recreation element up to reflect the current conditions. There are no
issues of specific consequence in the element, and the recommendation
of staff is to approve the parks and recreation element for
transmittal to DCA for review.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: CCPC moved up or recommended --
MR. LITSINGER: Approval with updating of the parks acreage
totals, which has been done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Public speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, that's the recreation open space
element. Moving right along.
MR. LITSINGER: Your capital improvements element consists of a
number of housekeeping changes and also one specific recommendation as
a result of the EAR and also the carry forward of your recommendations
from the annual update and inventory report on public facilities.
If you like I will hit the highlights of that. I'll give you
time to find it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where are we, Mr. Litsinger?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is in book number two. The very first
tab is your capital improvements element.
MR. LITSINGER: Capital improvements element. And I will be
referring to -- these pages our numbered -- to the CIE page numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And would they be subsequential by chance?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, they are.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only one set of numbers?
MR. LITSINGER: That I'm going to refer to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue.
MR. LITSINGER: First change which I would like to bring to your
attention would be under policy 1.1.5 which is your level of service
standards beginning on page CIE 4, continuing on page CIE 5 through 6.
Just for your information to bring you up to date, it involves an
amendment to your state roads level of service standards in the
urbanized area. In a couple of cases there, we have -- we are
amending the level of service standard to "D" on urbanized area. This
is to be consistent with the state lookup tables and as previously
been presented to you in the AUIR presentation, and you approved this
amendment. It is consistent with their road construction and the
statews road construction plans in the five-year period.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Consistent with previously board-approved
AUIR; is that correct?
MR. LITSINGER: Thatws correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I thought.
MR. LITSINGER: The next level of service standard which and also
approved and directed us in the AUIR was the amendment of the level of
service standard to 1.1 tons per capita which, here again, is a
downward trend reflecting our actual disposal rate into the lined cell
reflecting economies as a result of recycling and so forth. This was
also part of your AUIR and extends the useful life of that facility.
On page CIE 6 -- I'm going to just keep rolling unless you stop
me. On page CIE 6 under category B facilities, we have amended the
level of service standard for your library collection to 1.2 at your
direction. That will be an annual escalating level of service
standard to bring the county up to statewide standards, also which is
funded primarily by impact fees.
Also under level of service -- excuse me, Category B facilities
is the amended level of service standard for EMS units up to 6.8 in
order to maintain the six-minute response time, which was also
approved by the board at the AUIR primarily funded with EMS impact
fees for the capital --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can't we just say six-minute response time
instead of this decimal point --
MR. LITSINGER: You have to quantify it in terms of facilities --
units of a particular facility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I was just trying to simply bureaucracy.
I won't make that mistake.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Way too big a job. Can I ask -- do we
need to go these one by one if it's something we've already approved
in AUIR and nobody has any questions about them -- MR. LITSINGER: I'm almost finished.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Just trying to get you home.
MR. LITSINGER: That completes level of service standards.
Moving on to financial feasibility, page CIE 12, in fact, beyond
financial feasibility which is primarily housecleaning, involves the
removal of all references to the jail project pending policy decisions
on both funding and nature of the project as you had directed, which
can be added at any time.
To page CIE twelve. This is the lone, specific recommendation of
the EAR and the Citizens Advisory Committee policy 1.3.3 is amended to
read the county shall continue to insure that access to beaches,
shores, and waterways remain available to the public and will develop
a program to expand the availability of such access including funding
options for acquisition within one year of adoption of this Capital
Improvement Element.
Any questions on that particular one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we want to lock ourselves into making a
fund -- I mean, a plan for funding within one year.
MR. LITSINGER: To clarify a little bit on that, the original
language that had been promoted by your Citizens Advisory Committee
would have bound a funding option. And it was amended to identify
funding options within one year, which would be one year from this
October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a practical approach? Is that
extremely doable? Is it -- have we done something like this before?
MR. LITSINGER: As far as identifying funding options, would
probably be easier to accomplish than identifying the beach access
that can be acquired In other words, to answer your question, the
funding options are fairly germane.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, it seems to me we need to
identify where the money is coming from before we figure out where
we're going to obtain additional beach access, so I'll go with that.
MR. LITSINGER: That is the primar -- the remainder of the
changes. Your schedule of capital improvements reflects those
schedules that were approved in your AUIR process. Your revenues and
expense -- and expenses in the Capital Improvement Element are
balanced with available revenues. No new revenues are anticipated or
required to fund this Capital Improvement Element.
Forty-six percent of the capital improvements are funded with
impact fees. About 35 to 40 percent is funded by user fees. And only
about $11 million over a five-year period is anticipated from ad
valorem taxes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions?
MR. LITSINGER: Those are the highlights.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on the exciting tour of that
element?
Okay. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Miss Layne, where are we heading next?
MS. LAYNE: Good evening, Commissioners. Lee Layne for the
record. I -- we will start the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which
does include Goal 2.
But before we get into that, I'll go through the basic changes
that occurred in the Golden Gate plan itself. I think the major
change was on page 19 of the element itself which would be the
document after the staff report, which the board directed earlier --
well, it would have been last year at this point -- to add those
tracts of land near the Pine Ridge Road, 951 neighborhood center.
There was a rezoning that occurred there, and you asked staff --
directed staff to look at including the other parcels. We have done
that and included tracts 109 through 112. They are at Unit 26. I
think those were the major changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan
except for clarification with language changes and adding the
continuing policies rather than a date certain to go ahead with those.
I do have one clarification on page 25. The third bullet down,
it says site shall not be adjacent to essential services except for
libraries and museums and for those identified in 4(A) above. This is
related to conditional uses. The intent was not to allow a
conditional use to go next to a pumping station or something like
this; so we want to take that language out. Just end the sentence
after museums.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that apply to -- we had concerns
regarding the, in essence, nodes that were being created by having a
government facility such as a park. All of a sudden churches would
spring up as conditional uses around it. Not that I have a problem
with that, but there was a lot of public requests for a modification
there.
MS. LAYNE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was that the intent, to address that?
MS. LAYNE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Miss Layne on that
element?
MS. LAYNE: We're still on that element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. On that element of that element.
MS. LAYNE: That's basically Goal 1.
Now the much anticipated item, Goal 2. I believe it was handed
out in your packet last Friday. The Planning Commission directed
staff to work with property owners, environmentalists, and DCA to work
towards rather than deleting Goal 2 and all of its policies and
objectives to work towards trying to encourage DEP to reappraise those
properties in Southern Golden Gate Estates and to encourage quicker
buying of the properties.
We met with the property owners on April 10th and 16th, and
believe it or not, the majority of us -- I think there was one person
that did not agree. And that was -- he agreed with the concept of
what we were doing. He did not agree with taking out the requirements
that we had originally with DEP having to review the property owners
sending his property to the state, have them look at it and come back
with that time period.
Basically what we've come up with, the major changes to Goal 2 is
we're going to require DEP to submit --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Lee. Is there a page? Is
there somewhere I can be following what you're saying here?
MS. LAYNE: It's an interoffice memo. It should be right at the
beginning. If not I have some extra ones.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but which one? I don't guess I have
it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I come prepared.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Everyone has a copy of that memorandum,
so go ahead and proceed, Miss Layne.
MS. LAYNE: I can start with Goal 2 itself and go through the
changes that way or go through the major changes that we made to that.
Goal 2 we sort of clarified from the original. We took out developing
an interim strategy which is what those requirements were with going
through DEP. We took that language out. Basically objective 2.1,
policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You took those out? Excuse me.
MS. LAYNE: -- and 2.2 are basically the same. No, Commissioner
Berry, what we took out in Goal 2 was about developing the interim
strategy.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MS. LAYNE: These other objectives and policies are basically the
same.
COHHISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Layne, to really clarify that, the
interim strategy was what was originally placed in there with the
concept this would be an interim step, not a lifelong step. So that
was -- that was taken out because it is no longer interim.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So am I correct in that characterization?
MS. LAYNE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may not choose the same words but --
MS. LAYNE: That's fairly close, Commissioner. Policy 2.2.1, we
put the language in there that the county shall direct any inquires
that may come in concerning Southern Golden Gate Estates and make
information available. So if someone comes in, we'll let them know
that this is possibly under a CARL program that's going to be
purchased. We'll put the requirements in that -- and you will see
later on -- requiring DEP to come up with a work plan and a date to be
purchased by; so we'll have that information available here at the
staff level so they don't have to go all the way up to the state to
find that information. We will designate a member of the community
development and environmental services division to act as liaison
between properties owners and DEP.
Objective 2.3, in order to further its goal, the DEP should
complete its purchase of Southern Golden Gate Estates project by
December 31st, year 2000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How would we enforce that objective?
MS. LAYNE: I think that's why we don't have a "shall." We can't
make a state agency do something. That's why we still have they
should do it. They have stated that they will come with a plan and
should be complete within three to five years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did they state that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see Glen Simpson from the Big Cypress
Basin has some answer there so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And maybe we can get that, but
do you have any recollection of when they stated that?
MS. LAYNE: It was brought up by Mr. Simpson before the Big
Cypress Basin Board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Simpson, are you registered to speak on
this item?
Okay. We'll have the opportunity to address Mr. Simpson on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I will because it seems to me this
isn't the first time I've heard that. I've heard that in 1994 and
1992 and 1988.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That easily could read that the DEP should
have already completed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It's a wonderful objective, but
there is absolutely no teeth to it, and it's just buying more time.
MS. LAYNE: But I will say that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Simpson, just a second. What we're
going to have to do is -- you know, all comments need to be made
either at a podium or out in the hall or from the dais. Let's try and
get through this and do it in an orderly way.
MS. LAYNE: I think if you'll let me get through the rest of the
policies, you'll see that we may -- we may have some teeth in this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll try not to interrupt you. Please --
please continue.
MS. LAYNE: We're saying they shall complete a reappraisal of the
lands in southern Golden Gate by December of this year, and that
should be based on the uniform standard of professional appraisal
practices without any limiting conditions, which is right now they
have put conditions where they don't even use surrounding properties
to get their appraisals. So we're saying they cannot use that
limitation any longer. They have to use whatever the requirements are
in this standard practices.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens in the event they don't
complete that by December, 19977
MS. LAYNE: Let me go ahead and get through and then you'll --
the last policy will get us to where I think your question is being
asked.
They have to prepare a work plan with interim goals and establish
performance time lines identifying their funds and resources required
to complete the land acquisition according to the above objective.
And if the work plan is not completed and acceptable to the Board of
County Commissioners by December 31st, 1997, this goal and all its
objectives and policies will be deleted during the first amendment
cycle of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. So what we're saying, if
they don't give us a work plan by the end of this year --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bets are off.
MS. LAYNE: That's basically it. That we will come back and we
will delete this because they are not coming forward with what they
have said they will do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In five years on the board, the worst
presentation I've seen in this room was by the woman who came here
from DEP.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gail Brett.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We won't mention her name.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think her name was Gail Brett.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gail Brett.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I haven't -- and I just handed out to
the board a photocopy of a clipping from the Golden Gate Gazette
recently that quotes Gail Brett from DEP, and it talks about how
22,000 of the 52,000 acres of the south blocks have been purchased.
Of course, that's after 12 years. And then it goes on to say two
paragraphs later -- and this is a quote. As far as Golden Gate
Estates is concerned it's on target. So after 12 years they've bought
40 percent of the land which means you need only wait another 18 years
to meet the target they've set.
I think one of the best things this board did, and certainly the
best demonstration of backbone we've ever done while I've been on the
board, is saying to DCA and DEP we have a problem here. This is all
wonderful. The idea of buying that back is wonderful. The idea of
renewing this to its original pristine condition is a wonderful one,
but nobody has any idea how it's going to happen or when it's going to
happen. And we can't just stand by and let private property owners be
victims, in this case, to government.
I'm a little frustrated that this comes back this way. What I
would prefer -- I think these were all great ideas. I think they
should do that by the end of this year, and they should conclude their
purchases within three years, but we've given them 12 years. We've
had promises over and over and unfulfilled. And what I would prefer
to do is continue with our said plan of removing Goal 2, offer DEP a
letter that outlines these specific areas and say if you meet these,
we will gladly reinstate Goal 2. But in talking about all the steps
and what will prohibit it, but if they haven't done that by the end of
this year, then we -- we're already ahead of the game. We don't have
to wait another six months and another six months, and all the people
who have private property out there don't have to be strung along
another couple years before this board takes action.
I think the action we're trying to get the state to take is a
good one, but the only way we get their attention up to right now is
when we said we're going to remove Goal 2. And I think we ought to go
ahead and do that and send them a letter saying, gosh, we realize this
is serious, and we don't want to see all kinds of development down
there any more than they do, but unless they can come up with a
specific appraisal by the end of this year and a specific plan on how
they're going to finance that by the end of three years, we're not
going to include this back in our CIE.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the time frame from submittal of these
to the time in which we receive back from the DCA their comments?
MS. CACCHIONE: One hundred and twenty days. Barbara Cacchione
for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- I don't disagree with what you
said, Commissioner Constantine. I think it's the course to take. My
concern in reading this is that -- and let me ask Hiss Layne. On
Objective 2.3, did we sit down at a table or over the phone discuss
with the representative of DEP that schedule to be completed by
December 31st the year 2000?
MS. LAYNE: No staff itself did not. This is -- this date came
up based on the meeting that we had with the environmentalists from
the area, the property owners, members from the basin board, and
staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Second question, and it'll probably be
the same answer. Regarding the appraisal and using uniform standard
of professional appraisal practices without limiting conditions, which
is those limiting conditions that they have created themselves and
then used to devalue the land --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- have they agreed in writing or in word to
appraising in that sense? MS. LAYNE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I guess it comes down to for me -- I know
we have public speakers on this item on both sides -- is that the
county has more or less been party to the irresponsible actions of the
DEP by not taking a stand earlier. Now, I don't believe we are
necessarily a legal party, because as I discussed with Hiss Cacchione
at break, you can build a single-family home there. Now, your chance
of getting power to it and FPL's chance of getting permits from the
state to run power is something out of the control of this board. We
do not deny building permits as a matter of rule in the south block,
but we have more or less not really kicked the state in the rear end
to let them know that this is a private property rights issue that
we're taking seriously. And this is the first time we've done it.
As far as I'm concerned, unless we get the DEP to sign off on
some of these conditions, there's no reason to do anything other than
eliminate the goal. I would love to put this in there if I had any
shred of feeling that these things were going to happen, but I just
don't have that. And if there's a representative of the state here to
tell me today it will happen, or if in the next four months there are
discussions with the state that guarantees some of these things, we
may be able to revisit it when it comes back from DCA.
MS. LAYNE: Well, I think that was the intent, Mr. Chairman.
Unless we send some language up replacing what we recommended
deleting, DEP would not see it. DEP is one of the review agencies for
our ORC report on the Growth Management Plan. They would have to see
this. They would see these time lines. They would have to make
comments on it one way or the other. If we don't send the language
up, then there's nothing for them to look at -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To respond to.
MS. LAYNE: -- and we're basically back where we started.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as I suggested a different way
of doing that may be to send a letter -- to remove 2 but send a letter
directly to DEP outlining what we expect in order to return this. But
what that does is puts the ball in their court rather than leaves it
up to us to keep following up and keep following up and hope that they
fulfill a promise. It will require them to take some action.
MS. LAYNE: I think that's basically why in the very last policy
2.3.3 they see these dates. If they don't complete it by December of
this year, which would be basically a month and-a-half after we have
adopted if these go in after we have done the final adoption of the
whole Growth Management Plan, then the next cycle it's out completely.
They have lost their time at bat.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But the next cycle is a year
from now, and then 120 days after that, and meanwhile all these folks
who own property out there sit for another two years. And so, again,
my suggestion is let's do all the action you've outlined here. Great
idea. Great schedules. But let's remove it and promise them we'll
put it back in if you meet these criteria, but then the ball is
squarely in their court.
MS. CACCHIONE: That is an approach that we could use. I think
part of the rationale -- again, Barbara Cacchione for the record --
for suggesting this approach is because we would like to get in a
position where we have the Department of Community Affairs hopefully
working with us, another state agency. What we are trying to do is
get relief for the property owners essentially, and this is an
affirmative statement of what the county will do and what they expect
and it would be a way for -- remembering that this is part of a
stipulated settlement agreement, it may be a way to address DCA's
concerns and maybe get DCA to come on board with the county hopefully.
And we still have the option of deleting it in October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
MS. CACCHIONE: I mean, we still will have that option to take it
out completely if you choose, and you have the option now to -- and we
can do it with a letter, but we think that this might work better in
terms of the federal -- I mean, the state government in terms of
getting a resolve for these property owners.
It's been a real difficult issue as you are well aware of, and
part of the concern is if they do reappraise and they don't take off
those conditions, they're going to be in the same boat. I mean, we've
heard statements that they may reappraise lower, and if we don't make
sure that it's clear to them how we want them to do something -- and
as you say we could do that in the letter as well -- it would just be
a way to get another state agency perhaps to work with us so that we
have more leverage to work with DEP.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate where you're trying to get,
and I understand what the theory is behind the action you propose;
however, I was going to say the same thing that Miss Cacchione said is
that if we -- if we put it in our Growth Management Plan, it's a much
stronger statement, in my opinion, than mailing them a letter. I
mean, we might try it as a resolution. That might have some more
import, too, but I think having it in our Growth Management Plan --
and I have no objection to saying that they shall -- what was that one
-- they shall complete its purchase of the project by December 31st,
2000. Put it right in our Growth Management Plan. I don't have any
objection to stiffening it up.
But I think, number one, it's a far more important document than
a letter and it -- it still -- I think the effect is the same.
They've been put on notice that we're serious about this. And the
second thing is the date deadline is the same either way. The actions
are reversed, but the date is the end of this year they have got to
show some progress or the whole thing is off.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you that the date
deadline is the same. The impact, unfortunately, on some of the
property owners differs a little there, because we wouldn't be able to
take this action until a year from now or later if they don't meet
their date deadline.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And far as it being -- I agree with
you that being a part of our Growth Management Plan is the most
effective way to get the message across. But what they're going to
see when they get the Growth Management Plan is that it's not there
any more, and I can't think of any better way to get their attention
than by taking it out altogether. That's going to get their attention
more than anything.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- my thought is right -- right
along the lines of what Commissioner Norris was saying-- scary as that
is, John -- but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He may be rethinking his position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's rethinking it as we speak. But --
but the -- where I would like to use the hammer is depending on the
response that we get -- the comp plan is going to require a response
because they're going to want to talk to us about a lot of other
things that will require them to respond within 120 days if we leave
it in with exactly what we want. If their -- if their comments come
back saying, well, nice idea but, you know, I don't think so, then
it's out in October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The final adoption, it's out. Then at the
final hearing -- is that October ladies? -- October we say changed
our mind then. We don't like your response to what we gave you. We
don't like your comments, so we eliminated Goal 2.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's understand the hierarchy here. We are a
board of county commissioners who's authority stops at the edges of
Collier County. We are dealing with a state agency. If I'm not
mistaken that office is across the hall. There -- there are certain
responsibilities I think we have every right to shoulder.
Our responsibility here is simply to say to the DEP you will do
X, Y and Z or we will modify the Growth Management Plan in this manner
at this time. I think we are accomplishing the same thing that you
are if we just throw in there the things that they have to do, that
DEP has to do. We have to have commitments from DEP to accomplish the
following things by this date or Goal 2 will be completely eliminated
from the Collier County Growth Management Plan in October.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think what that is, is it's -- we have --
we've said we're kind of ticked off. Now, we fire a warning shot
across the bow, and if they don't heed it, we sink it altogether. I
think that is a more systematic and stepped approach than the overall
elimination now saying, you know, we've taken our ball. If you play
nice with us, we'll bring it back. That's probably subject to, I
think, a little less reaction than -- than the systematic approach,
and in the end, it's October when we make that decision.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we agree to do as suggested here,
I'd like to suggest we also have a policy looking for DEP to spell out
exactly how -- the appraisals are fine, but how do they intend to pay
for that in those three years.
MS. LAYNE: That's under 2.3.2, Commissioner. That's the work
plan identifying acquisition funds --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does it have a time frame under 2.3.2?
MS. LAYNE: That's the work plan, which was by December 31st --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A work plan with measurable interim goals
and established performance time lines identifying acquisition funds
and resources.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It needs to be connected. Oh, it's connected
to 2.3.3.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Must be prepared by DEP. I just want
to make sure that is also -- it says Objection 2.3 but doesn't
reference -- I want to be very careful we reference time frame there.
MS. LAYNE: Well, you go down to 2.3. It says if the work plan,
as described in Policy 2.3.2, is not completed, then Goal 2 will be
deleted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we need to move that up.
MS. LAYNE: And these all referred to Objective 2.3.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we need to move that up to October then.
Because if we're talking about having the ability when this comes back
from DCA to determine that, no, you didn't do what we asked you to do,
and we're going to eliminate it, December 31st is too late because we
will have received the DCA response and acted on it.
MS. CACCHIONE: We could leave the language as it is, but you can
still adopt, not adopt, or adopt the changes. That's completely
within your flexibility to do when it comes back in October on any
part of the comp plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we need to be very specific about a
date of action on this to say if it's not done by October 1st -- I'm
looking for the date in which we need to --
MS. CACCHIONE: Right now we say December 31st knowing that this
policy can't even be in effect until October, so we felt --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they could -- excuse me for
interrupting, but the -- you know, the state doesn't have to wait for
this policy to be in effect to take -- to develop their work plan. So
we could tell them -- what will be -- October 15th is reasonably when
we'll be doing the final adoption of this?
MS. CACCHIONE: Hopefully sometime in October.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we should tell them by October 1st.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If 8 or 12 years doesn't work, I'm not sure
shortening it by two or three months is going to have a dramatic
effect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It'll make a big difference.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So let's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can make those October and we can
make 2.3.2 have the same time definite of October that the others
have. Then we ought to hear from the public, I suppose.
MS. LAYNE: Just the purchase date that would not change. That
would still be 2000.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The purchase date I think remains the same
because that would be --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for that acreage would be aggressive.
MS. LAYNE: 2.3.1 would be October '97, and 2.3.3 would be by
October 1, 1997.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Now, Objective 2.3 the word "should"
will be replaced with "shall."
MS. LAYNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That last sentence on Policy 2.3.3 of Golden
Gate Area Master Plan in 1998, is that going to be moved up?
MS. LAYNE: Well, that's kind of hard because you can -- you
don't adopt these goals till October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then why don't we make it read that
associated objectives and policies will be deleted during the first
available cycle of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, period.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I like that.
MS. LAYNE: Which is basically that same date. You're just not
putting that in there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, no it isn't.
MS. LAYNE: Because the next cycle after adoption will not be
till --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then let's take the word "cycle" out --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cycle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and include will be deleted --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- at the first available amendment date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What are we officially call '-
MS. LAYNE: They're still in the same --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. What do we officially call our action in
October of this year, Ms. Cacchione? That's what I'm looking for is
to reference that action.
MS. LAYNE: Well, you can say will be deleted during the final
adoption hearings of this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. That's what we want.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the best of all worlds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Preliminarily, are those the
recommendations of the board?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: At the end of the files.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we would never say we're not going to
listen to the public on this item but --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just puts an onus on the state to
meet some requirements and answer these peoples questions, and if they
don't do that by October, then this item -- this bill gets dropped.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we are including appointing a liaison to
monitor it from the county side; so by October we should have someone
with their -- you know, their hand in the process.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you love that, you don't have to
talk to us for a long time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees. Let's start calling speakers.
MR. McNEES: Thomas Moran followed by Clifford Fort.
MR. MORAN: Hi. My name's Tom Moran. I bought that property in
'78 and been paying taxes on it all this time. If the state
government is across the hall from me, isn't there some way you could
shovel this over a little bit faster?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've been shoveling as fast as we can but --
MR. MORAN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a state -- it's a state organization and
that's, in my opinion, what you elect your state legislators for. We
have been the first stop, you know, on this, and I would just say that
all of you in this room can certainly contact your legislators and
inform them of just how angry you are with the DEP. And if you
haven't done so, it would be a good idea.
MR. MORAN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: At your earliest convenience.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Fort followed by Chris Straton.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Always remember you catch more flies with
honey than vinegar, though.
MR. FORT: For the record my name is Clifford Fort. I'm
coordinating director of Broken Wing ranches and I'm president of the
Southern Golden Gate Utilities Association. Well, the map's gone, but
I think you all know by now where we're located. We've been here for
the last seven years.
I think it's very interesting today because if you-all put your
money, I would have been the last person on the planet that you would
have ever seen showing up here with this green ribbon. And we worked
very hard as landowners with a variety of -- a number of the
environmental groups as well with forestry and with county staff. I
think you-all owe a lot to Hiss Cacchione, who helped chair that
meeting, and that's a real tough job. But we really came to some
agreements on language here. The good Lord knows that if there's ever
been a victim out there, it's been us, and we applaud your courage to
be sensitive to the plight we've had. I also have to applaud the
environmentalists' courage because they reached out and extended a
hand of friendship and concern to us, and we owe them a lot for that.
They have gone up to the federal level because you can't buy land if
you don't have money; so they put their money and their activity where
their mouth was. I couldn't believe that a workshop could work like
this, because I've learned not to trust certain agencies, and there
has been a real building block for trust here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Veiled threat. Just had to say it.
MR. FORT: Getting a headache again. But anyway we -- we wanted
low density out there to begin with. We wanted septic tanks. We
didn't want fancy sewers. By the way, for the record, here are the
permits for five and a half miles of utilities through the heart of
southern Golden Gate to Broken Wing ranches. What we feel is that the
language there puts a performance criterion on the DEP, and as
realists we know that if it gets into a lawsuit, we may be stuck with
the old plan for awhile. I think that there's a variety of ways to
get there.
I would endorse this language, and I think something you need to
kind of consider -- and it may be able to be worked out, and I think
the environmental groups are going to help us here, is that under the
CARL acquisition program, they can pay a hundred percent of appraised
value if there's some way down the record that we can figure out how
to make those appraisals public. Then you're going to have this thing
done and you're not going to be tearing your hair out. And you might
see some low density guys that believe in this FLUE proposal that I
presented to you seven years ago, which was an alternative to
high-density development, and we're looking forward to attempting to
continue working with the environmental groups, and I think they've
done a great job putting pressure on the DEP to make this thing right.
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Straton followed by Gina Gundeck.
MS. STRATON: Chris Straton, Commissioner Constantine, I think
youwll love this -- this arrangement. I think itws great because not
only will DCA be commenting but the water management district will be
commenting. The game commission comments. There are a lot of
agencies that want this sale to go through, and theywll all be seeing
what this community wants done, and -- and hopefully that will apply
even more pressure to DEP to get the job done through this particular
activity. So itws very shrewd. Itws a way that a lot of folks are
going to put the pressure on it, and I sure hope that it works. Thank
you.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Gundeck. On deck is Glen Simpson.
MS. GUNDECK: Gina Gundeck for the record. Just very briefly we
did work hard on the language. You all have been generous. We did
struggle over that should and shall, as I recall from our meeting. If
you choose shall, so be it. In addition to that the deadlines, we
tried to be a little generous in understanding the time frame. If you
wish to up that, I really hope that they can perform during that
deadline wcause I really would like to see the property purchased and
Goal 2 not removed. But if you choose that, then so be it. Thank
you.
MR. McNEES: Glen Simpson followed by Tina McDonald.
MR. SIMPSON: My name is Glen Simpson, and Iwm here on behalf of
the Big Cypress Basin Board today. Iwve been asked to speak
representing the board. Philosophically on a matter of principle,
Commissioner Constantine, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The
problem is is as was indicated Iwm afraid if that was the direction we
chose to get our point across, wewd wind up in a legal entanglement,
and we wouldnwt be able to provide the benefit to these people that
have been held up in going on with their lives for sometime. And I
think that what we tried to do is find the most cost effective and
expedient manner to get the message across and to get the support from
the State of Florida.
Commissioner Berry was at our Big Cypress Basin Board meeting and
got to enjoy the presentation of Ms. Brett and the following comments
that were made and questions that were asked. In nine -- four years
ago the Big Cypress Basin Board and the water management district
started funding a position for DEP to accelerate the acquisition of
the southern Golden Gate Estates area.
Three years ago we asked for a report on whether that was effect
or not, and for every year since then we have asked for a report on
how that has helped. What I found out was that helped do was use
those funds to provide the only part-time people working on the
acquisition project and DEP moved all of their staff to other
acquisition projects.
During the budget process last year we asked that a plan be
submitted to outline how this program was going to be successful. In
order for us to continue funding of that position, we asked that that
plan be submitted before the first of the year. It was not. We
funded the position for 90 days with the provision that they come back
to us in 60 days with a plan. They did not. At our basin board
meeting in March, we withheld any further funding for any positions of
DEP. We have the money in reserve in order to fund assistance for
accelerating the acquisition.
There has been a seismic reaction in Tallahassee and Washington
because we dare to stop and become obstacles in the process. Our
intent is not to become obstacles. Our intent is to accelerate it.
We want to see the people treated fairly. We want to see a reasonable
acquisition process put forth.
I have letter here that I will give copies -- I will give the
letter to your staff and they can give you copies -- that we sent to
Virginia Wetherall requesting that the plan be submitted. The plan's
got to include the funding for the project. To accomplish what
they've said in a three- to five-year period, it's going to take
somewhere around twenty million dollars a year. When I asked Ms.
Brett how much her budget was, she said four million. There's a
problem.
We support the acquisition of this project in a three- to
five-year time frame. We can't support continuing to keep people on
deck to have our staff considering what the effects would be of a
rehydration project with any further time line. There's no business
that would make the financial commitment in doing a preliminary study
that we've already done without any hope of having a project to build
in 20 years.
So we've put an end to it. We've taken a statement. We'd like
to encourage you to join us in taking -- making a statement. We've
done a little bit more than send a letter. We've stopped their
funding. And we expect to hear some kind of report within the next 30
days from them with a plan. We'll see what happens. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Tina McDonald to be followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. MCDONALD: Good afternoon. Tina McDonald for the record.
I'm here on behalf of my husband, Jim McDonald, who could not be here
today.
First of all, I would like to thank the commissioners for having
the backbone and standing up for us like you have. We have really
appreciated all of your efforts and help.
(Applause).
Secondly, I would like to thank all of the Audubon Society,
Florida Wildlife, Collier Nature Conservancy, the Department of
Forestry for all of the progress that they have done. It's been
tremendous. They have really helped us and we want to work together.
We're more than willing to cooperate to achieve a common goal.
We went to Tallahassee. We talked to the governor. We talked to
Mrs. Wetherall. We have yet to get any indication or reply, letter,
response, nothing, absolutely nothing from either of them.
What we are asking for today is that the board encourage the
legislature to adopt and endorse the revised language for the
acquisition program, the CARL acquisition program that will guarantee
us, as the willing seller, 100 percent of the fair and equitable
appraisal. We would like to suggest a committee similar to recent
workshops to review appraisals and insure landowners will be
compensated at a hundred percent value.
The DEP will get their state-certified appraiser. The people
would like to have an appraiser and then have the committee be the go
between and the arbitrator. I always get sometimes a second and third
opinion when it comes to doctors. I wouldn't dare have a thing done
unless I do; so that's where I'm coming from.
We need to be afforded the same opportunity as the DEP. We asked
that we may have the opportunity to acquire a state-certified
appraiser then have a committee work with two appraisers to establish
fair value. This measure would insure an expeditious conclusion for
all parties.
We've waited long enough. We appreciate all of the agencies that
have been working with us, and we would like to expedite this. We've
been holding out all this time, and we've been bounced around off of
walls and everything else, but we're ready now, because I think most
of the people are fed up. You can't fight city hall, but we want a
hundred percent of a fair appraisal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I encourage everyone to fight city hall, just
not the county.
MR. MCDONALD: And I realize it's not the county. Maybe I should
have said Tallahassee. Excuse me. Thank you so much for your time.
MR. HcNEES: Nancy Payton followed by A1 Perkins.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. And I'd
like to urge you to endorse and pass the amended Goal 2 language, join
us in putting pressure on DEP and that is the area that we need to
focus our pressure, not DCA, DEP.
And I refresh your memory that probably two weeks ago you
received a copy of a letter that the environmental community send to
Virginia Wetherall expressing concerns, supporting reappraisals,
offering suggestions on ways that a plan or items that should be
incorporated into a plan that would facilitate the buyout, make it
easier for various property owners. We haven't heard back yet but
we're ever hopeful that we will. We've had two meetings with Miss
Brett, and we hope to have more to flush out those programs. We've
been working with the Big Cypress Basin Board and with property
owners, and it's actually been a pleasure working on this, and we hope
that the commission by adopting the amended Goal 2 will be joining us
in seeking a speedy buyout of Southern Golden Gate Estates and a
restoration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Perkins followed by Retha Valera.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon or good evening, whichever it
happens to be. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups. Well, we apparently
-- some of us -- some people have thrown in the towel on this thing
looking for a decent appraisal so they can get on with their lives and
get paid a fair market value. In the original stipulated settlement
April 21, 1992 -- I want to read it to you.
Mr. Blanchard stated that Mrs. Brett, of the DNR at that time,
reported that they do have sufficient amount of funds to proceed with
the designated acquisition noting that they had the possibility of
using eminent domain if necessary.
Now, obviously that's 1992. Needless to say it didn't happen,
did it? So that's kind of a distortion of the truth.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When was that dated, Ai?
MR. PERKINS: 1992, and it is on April the 21st. Okay. And it's
page 000 -- page 84 of the records.
Some of this stuff in here that I'm concerned about is what they
don't say. Miller Boulevard extension for one. The improvement of
the road for two as an evacuation route. This is not being addressed
in this thing. It goes on to say minimal maintenance and including
traffic signals. Right-of-way mowing and road surfaces patching
grating will continue. Well, after we got a bunch of people killed
out there, they finally put back the signage. Everybody forgets all
this stuff when Don Myers and the other lady got killed in the car at
the corner of Miller Boulevard and Stuart because they withdrew the
signs.
I have no love for the DNR. And by the way I'm not getting paid
to be here. I am not a paid environmentalist. On the contrary, I
fight this stuff because if they played fair, this wouldn't be here
and we wouldn't be here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Kind of breaking that union there, aren't you,
Ai?
MR. PERKINS: I sure am. I sure am. One of the big things on
page 000, page 112, April the 21st, 1992: Land acquisition to
determine and negotiate whether DNR intends to purchase applicants'
property at fair market value.
Obviously they have no intent to purchase anything under a fair
market value or fair other than that because they put the cloud over
the -- the whole area years and years and years ago, and there's no
competition out there for the buying; so they pushed the prices right
on down. Now, I have with me deeds that I can show you were people
paid $7200 and turned right around just to get rid of it 21 years
later and sold it for 700 bucks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A1, come back to this.
MR. PERKINS: Coming back to this. Okay. All I can to you
fellows and you ladies, too, I don't know what you're going to do with
this thing. I just hope the fact that you're trying to protect the
people who are not here today because they're working or they're from
some other place and on their behalf look for it. Because a lot of
these people are not going to sell. They don't care what the price
is. They're not going to sell. It's just that simple.
Now, what do we do with it? If they don't sell, you going to
take and make it tough for anybody to build anything out there. And
while I'm at it, the DNR or DEP has bought property at 84th out there
which they're going to make a visitor center right off of Miller
Boulevard. How about that? Two hundred and forty-five thousand
dollars they paid for it.
Anyhow with that I think I have covered all the rest of it. The
Picayune State Park is there, access to it for the people from Marco
Island, Goodland and Naples, you can't get there from here. It's just
that simple.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, did you say Picayune State Forest?
MR. PERKINS: State forest, the Picayune State Forest.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: State forest, they don't really own
all that yet, do they?
MR. PERKINS: No, they don't own it. They -- it's just like
everybody else. It's like the Naples Daily Pravda, okay. They would
like you to believe anything and everything, okay. And, you know, I
don't like to call people liars, but if you take a good long look at a
whole lot of this stuff for the last -- I think we're well on our way
to 18 years on this nonsense, okay. And if you want to point a finger
at any one of the individuals, I have a videotape with them lying on
board. Thank you.
CONSTANTINE: It seems unusual you can have a state park on
private property.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Valera followed by David Guggenheim.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You get paid each time you say that?
MS. VALERA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here from Golden
Gate Estates Community Association. I'm also speaking on behalf --
I'm sorry -- Retha Valera -- and I'm here on behalf of Golden Gate
Estates Community Association and also I brought a letter for Golden
Gate Legal Committee which I will go ahead and give to you to pass
out.
I, too, wanted to express my gratitude. I'm very pleased. We
met with the environmentalists. I wish to thank, first of all, the
commission for showing backbone. I do want to thank the sta -- county
staff, Barbara Cacchione and Lee Layne in their efforts, the Audubon
Society, the Big Cypress Basin Board, Division of Forestry,
Conservancy, the Southern Golden Gate Utilities Association and the
property owners.
We had quite an interesting meeting of which, for the first time,
I felt like we had a common goal, and what I would like to express is
that this modified language for Goal 2 on the Golden Gate Master Plan,
we are supportive of this proposed language.
I would also like to comment. I would also like to agree with
what Clifford Fort expressed as far as the property owner having the
property reappraised. I would like to ask in addition also that that
property be appraised and that the property owner be given a hundred
percent of its appraised value.
We would also like to encourage the -- the Florida legislature or
our state representatives to also be supportive of this.
And, I guess, lastly the reason that the property owners are
taking this particular approach is because we -- we're convinced by
county staff that with removal of all of Goal 2, the property owners
will looking at potentially possibly litigation between the county and
DCA, and we were concerned that that would again put the property
owner in some type of limbo.
So, therefore, if you could go ahead and approve this proposed
language, we would be grateful for that. And if it is the
commissioners' opinion to possibly speed up the date or put an earlier
date, we would go along with that as well. Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Guggenheim, and your last registered speaker is
Hank Graham.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: For the record, David Guggenheim, president of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, happy Earth Day. I didn't realize
that Earth Day was the longest day of the year until today.
We would like to echo some of the previous sentiments and
respectfully urge you to retain Goal 2 and adopt the proposed
language. I -- I think that -- I want to be sensitive to what
Chairman Hancock mentioned earlier where he said any shred of feeling
that he can get to -- to give him some sort of assurance that things
are different now, and I'm going to take -- take a stab at providing
at least a shred along those lines.
For one thing, what we have before us in this document is
unprecedented consensus and solidarity among some very different
stakeholders here. We have the environmental community. We have the
landowners. We have county staff and various agencies all really at a
strong consensus on here. That to me is a shred.
Another shred is the outcome of my meeting on Friday in
Washington D.C. with Bill Leafy in Bruce Bobbit's office. Bill has
the job of allocating farm bill monies, and the news is very good.
The funding is there. There is very, very strong support for South
Golden Gate Estates in this process.
The string attached to that is that there needs to be strong
local support, and that's not only from the mouth of Bill Leafy, but I
think we've seen evidence of that recently at the WORDA meeting at the
Conservancy where we had the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
working group rank southwest Florida projects higher for those
restoration funds, and I don't think it was because of me getting up
in front of them. It had a lot to do with strong grass-roots efforts,
but especially the presence of two of our own commissioners,
Commissioners Berry and Mac'Kie, who were there to express that strong
local support.
I think that another shred in this equation is the fact that the
Conservancy is throwing its own resources at this issue. We have a
full-time person involved in land acquisition, and we're willing to up
that by two full-time equivalents to make sure that this process moves
forward, but more important we have joined forces with our fellow
environmental organizations here as well as various agencies including
DEP to sit around the table and try to move this process forward, in
other words, to shed light on this black box of an acquisition
process, understand the process and facilitate the process to improve
it.
And we would like to invite you formally to the next Big Cypress
Basin Board meeting which will be held here in this room May 23rd at 9
a.m. at which time we will be giving a joint presentation on that
acquisition process and specifically our understanding of it and how
we can improve that process.
In conclusion I would like to echo Nancy Payton's remarks. Let's
-- let's put the pressure on DEP. Let's make DEP accountable, but in
the meantime let's show strong support for the continued acquisition
and ultimate restoration of this very, very important ecological area.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Guggenheim, the responsibility or the
reaction of the Conservancy as well as everyone else we've heard, too,
today to all react to a common goal, albeit for different reasons, is
highly commendable. And I think on behalf of not just the people in
the south block and on behalf of this board, we certainly appreciate
your involvement toward that common goal.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Hank Graham and your now final speaker, Pat Clark.
MR. GRAHAM: Hank Graham, Division of Forestry, State of Florida.
I had, actually, decided not to speak based on well this thing was
going until Commissioner Constantine's comment about Division of
Forestry, the Picayune Strand State Forest not being a forest since
it's not all purchased; so I had to come up and defend our agency.
And you're right. I must concur with your statement. It is very
difficult to manage a state forest when we have a checkered-board
affair land ownership. And anything that can be done -- or the steps
you're taking. I have to commend -- the steps that have been taken
with the landowners, the environmentalists and the other agencies
involved are doing a good job at trying to move this forward. I think
that's the most important thing is to move this process, keep it going
in a forward momentum, and get this land purchased as quickly as
possible. That's what we're concerned with. I appreciate and
sympathize with the landowners by all means. I -- I am a very strong
believer in landowners' rights, but I'm also a proponent of protecting
environmentally sensitive lands. And with this it seems like we are
coming together, and we're heading in the right direction, and I think
this process with the -- again the steps you're taking, not dropping
Goal 2, keeping it with the amendments as suggested, I think, is the
right -- the right focus. Thanks lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have -- I'm sorry. I have one question
for you. The map that the state produces that shows Picayune State
Forest does not exclude privately-owned property. I've seen it. It's
just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- what -- the map shows the boundaries,
the -- the limits. You're right, it does not show because it's --
quite frankly, I'm not sure that we have a current ownership map.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's part of the problem is, if I'm out
there hunting and I see a building or if I'm out there traipsing
across land and I see a house, I'm under the impression that's in a
state forest. I'm not going to respect that individual's property in
all likelihood as I might if I were warned that there are private
properties within it. And I think that's the misleading part that
Commissioner Constantine keeps bring up, is that -- you know, when
it's all a state forest and colored all the same color on your maps,
but private property rights need to be respected in that area until
it's all acquired. I think that's really where we're coming from.
MR. GRAHAM: Well, absolutely. And that's something we're for.
In fact, we tried to take steps to bring state law enforcement people
out there, whether the game commission, Division of Forestry, or
Department of Agriculture. It's so difficult to enforce state laws
when, once again, we're not sure where those boundaries are. What is
private land? What is state land? And so we run into a real
difficult situation.
Well, as you know, the illegal hunting's been going on. If it is
illegal hunting, it's been going on in that area, trespassing, long
before we've, you know, come over to this area. I mean, it's a long,
continued problem, and until it's all purchased or it's done away
with, you know, that's not going to change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All though it could be improved if we had
a map. So, I mean, if you can hear a message -- I mean, a message
that I hear out of the majority of this board is if it would be
possible to develop and as of January 1st, 1995 -- I mean, pick a
date. It just -- what's the most current information you have and
give us a map. We'd love to have a map.
MR. GRAHAM: We do have a map. I think it's -- I'm going to say
a year, at least a year old. In that time there has been several
parcels of property purchased and so it's virtually impossible to have
a current map.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any chance you'd send a copy of that old
map to the county commission? I would love to see it. This comes up
often.
MR. GRAHAM: DEP provides it to us; so when --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Never mind.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: We have a map you may have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Again, I'm Pat Clark with the League of Women Voters,
and I left a letter with your manager for you to read. And in the
interest of saving time, you've heard all of the testimony. I want
you to know that the league strongly supports the modified version of
Goal 2 and all the language and the objectives and policies that
follow that are up for your consideration.
We recognize it recognizes the Southern Golden Gate as a
sensitive environmental area. We feel that the objectives and
policies are going to encourage the DEP to go forward with its land
reappraisal and also its land acquisition program. The league
supports this, and we hope you will support it, too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that our last speaker, Mr. HcNees?
HR. HcNEES: You have no more speakers on 12(A)(1).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. On this particular element, do we have
any additional speakers?
Okay. Let's go ahead and wrap this element up, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think we were in
general agreement just prior to the public speakers that if we --
looking at policy 2.3.1 change that to October and 2.3.2., look at --
again put in there October and change 2.3.3, that if those haven't
been met by those dates that that will still allow us to take the
action necessary to drop Goal 2 in our final action later in the month
of October.
MS. LAYNE: And objective 2.3, "should" is changed to "shall."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MS. LAYNE: And that one minor correction I had on page 25
deleting that language after museums.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a Motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously.
Thank you, folks, for all your patience so far.
The second was Commissioner Norris.
Okay. Now, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. McNees, how many registered
speakers do we have still remaining on other elements? MR. McNEES: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a good answer. Let's go ahead and, Ms.
Layne, why don't you walk us through and have the appropriate people
walk us through the balance of the amendments -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big steps.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- so that we can get through those and get on
to the public hearings for the day.
MS. LAYNE: The next element is the housing element, and that
will be presented by June Goodwin. I can let her make it or just
briefly -- this is basically a new element. Are you still here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that is in book one, ladies and gentlemen.
MS. GOODWIN: Good evening, Commissioners. And for the record,
I'm June Goodwin with your housing and urban improvement department.
I'm real excited about this particular element because it is for
the first time a joint housing element with the City of Naples. And
when you're looking at this particular element, you will note that the
housing element goal and all of the objectives pertain to the entire
county. The majority of all the policies pertain to the entire county
and are identified as joint city-county policies. However some
policies pertain to only one jurisdiction and, therefore, specifically
referenced as a City of Naples policy or a county policy.
Policies that are identified as county policies are not being
adopted by the City of Naples.
Policies identified as city policies are not being proposed for
adoption by the county. These policies are provided for additional
information.
Because it's late in the day, I'd like to just give you a brief
history of the cooperation between the City of Naples and Collier
County in regards to housing.
In 1993, the City of Naples and Collier County began an alliance
to address communitywide need for additional affordable housing. This
was done through a series of interlocal agreements where the two
governmental entities developed a coordinated approach to address the
housing needs of the very low, low, and moderate income residents
within Collier County.
Additionally, in 1993, the state housing initiative partnership,
also shown as SHIPP, in a local agreement provided for Collier County
to administer the SHIPP funding on behalf of the city and the county.
Later in 1995 the City of Naples approved a resolution that
reauthorized the SHIPP interlocal agreement process with Collier
County for three additional years.
Then in July of 1994, the city and the county adopted an
affordable housing interlocal agreement that reflected the review --
I'm trying to speed this up a little bit because I know it's late in
the day -- review that affordable housing is a communitywide concern
and established a goal of producing a certain number of affordable
units each year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How would you like it if I sped you up even
further?
MS. GOODWIN: Oh, I think that's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. And I'm going to do it with a question.
Because the only concern I have is that to make sure that we have the
geographic coverage in the housing element, in other words, that the
city doesn't use the balance of the county to buttress its housing
requirement, nor does the county dump on the city in this way. Has
that relationship got a geographic base so that there is a
distribution of housing throughout the county?
MS. GOODWIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
MS. GOODWIN: There's only one thing I would like to point out
that, that in the quality cities article from the Florida League of
Cities, there was a real positive article written regarding this joint
proposed element as being an element that's in the forefront of the
way housing should be addressed. So I think this is something that's
real positive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The concept partnership at times hasn't always
worked to the benefit of Collier County, and I want to make sure that
this one does.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is a little different. Is this
particular element a mandatory element, or is this optional?
MS. GOODWIN: This is a mandatory element under 9J5.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then would you go to page 15,
objective 7. It says any new mobile home parks will be restricted to
areas that -- is that a possessive or is that a plural?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That should be a plural.
MS. GOODWIN: I believe that should be a plural.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, it's printed here as a
possessive.
MS. GOODWIN: We'll correct that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just don't use them. That way I can't get
in trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to make a motion to approve this
element that way it's -- the way it's offered --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you ready to do it or you're doing it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hereby do it. Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second?
COHHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 4, 0.
MS. LAYNE: The next should be the transportation element, and
Gavin Jones will present that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does that include traffic circulation
and mass transit?
MS. LAYNE: That's traffic circulation, mass transit, and
aviation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All three, thank you.
MR. JONES: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Gavin
Jones with the Metropolitan Planning Organization. I'm here to answer
any questions or concerns with the amendments to the traffic
circulation element, the aviation element, or the mass transit
element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct that the traffic circulation
element is simply a reflection of AUIR and policies previously adopted
by the board?
MR. JONES: If you're familiar with the AUIR and the EAR
recommendations, you won't see any surprises in the amended element.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the traffic
circulation element. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are now to the mass transit
element.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's got that big commercial bus system
built right in there; right?
MR. JONES: It's in the fine print.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What are the nuts and bolts of this element,
Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: The only amendment really is the addition of
Objective 5, a study to evaluate the appropriateness of alternative
forms of public transportation in the county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Didn't -- didn't we do half of that study
one time?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we declined to do the second half.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was actually a mass transit study, phase
I.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. But it had this subject in it, I
believe.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Wasn't that with the HPO?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This was back, what, '94 maybe.
MR. JONES: Yeah. It was a two-part study by Cutter. The second
part would have been a transit development plan and turned into a
review of the Transportation Disadvantaged program.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Here's the problem. I've received
information, and after hearing about different communities, you know,
transportation elements and so forth. And there's little towns like
Hatper Woods, Michigan and other places that -- that have a more
tailored transit system than a bus system. And as I keep driving
around -- I'm sorry. This is going to be taken, I'm sure, out of
context when I say it, but I'm sick and tired of seeing community
transportation buses with nobody on them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, the amount of money we spend every
year on that, and then I keep hearing that the fares have to go up and
that they don't have capacity. And I have -- I counted. The last
three weeks I haven't seen a soul on them except the driver.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to tell you we're
working on an RFP for a -- to see -- open if up for providers on that
because you're right. The way it's done right now is completely
inefficient.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would like to do is is instead of
Objective 5, I would like to incorporate transitioning the community
transportation system into a subscription service. It's already
funded. The only thing we could do is increase fares, and that would
reduce funding. I'm just saying let's look at our existing resources
before we do another study on additional public trans --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could ask your indulgence.
Instead of doing that, maybe look and see what we can do but not
include it in here, because I think one of the things you're going to
find when we have proposals come in, we hadn't asked for proposals for
several years in our community transportation. And while TECH does a
heck of a job with kids, they did a lousy job with transportation.
And you had the buses going around empty. You had fares going up
because they're driving around buses empty. The way the state funding
and federal funding works on that, much of your funding comes from
last year's total mileage, and so rather than -- it discourages
efficient use of what you have. It encourages driving, picking
someone up, taking them to their location, and then going and picking
up the next person because you increase the mileage. And I think when
we get multiple responses back, we're going to have a much more
efficient service. You're likely to see smaller -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Vans.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, smaller transportation vehicles,
and it will either, a) free up some money, b) certainly lower the cost
to the user, but might open up some opportunities here just within
that RFP. And that RFP process is in the works right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm willing to eliminate Objective 5.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Norris had a comment.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just had -- before we do eliminate
No. 5 there, maybe we should ask ourselves what is the definition of a
study, because if we're going to get into spending $50,000 for
something that we already looked at and didn't like, maybe the
definition of a study is we're going to do as Commissioner Hancock
suggests and we're going to research what other communities are doing.
Both are in-house.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. But we could do that still.
We just don't have to give the state the stick. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you've always been a big
proponent of public transportation, Commissioner Norris, but, no, I
just we prefer we take a -- still look at it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just think a subscription service does a lot
better job of getting people from where they are to where they're
going and doesn't clog the roadways --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't disagree with you. I couldn't
agree with you more. I just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, what I hear -- what I'm hearing is at
least two commissioners saying lets remove Objective 5, and let's
direct staff to proceed with the RFP, and from that we may wish to
broaden staff's involvement to look at how that can be further applied
to not just Transportation Disadvantaged.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I really think when we get a
more efficient use back, it's going to free up some opportunities for
us to do some other things.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve without Objective 5.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None. Okay. Aviation element.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's put the Canadian accent on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not sure what that was. Okay. We are to
aviation subelement -- or element, excuse me.
Mr. Jones, I believe this is still lucky you under your
presentation.
MR. JONES: This element is fairly short. It mainly refers to
some -- some now existing master plans for the Immokalee, Everglades,
and Marco Island airports. Rather than trying to discuss them at
length, it just refers to the -- the adopted airport master plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, no speakers, Mr. HcNees?
Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Jones, thank you.
MS. LAYNE: Mr. Chairman -- Miss Layne, again -- on the
transportation, we'll need a final vote on that element.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in accordance with our discussions
earlier in the earlier three motions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that incorporates the mass tra --
or the transportation element inclusive?
MS. LAYNE: Yes, that includes all three subelements.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second by Commissioner Constantine. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we've already done the sanitary.
Next, Ms. Layne.
MS. LAYNE: The next is the intergovernmental coordination
element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, we don't like to do that.
MS. LAYNE: This is basically word for word of what was in EAR.
There was just one change. SSU has changed its name. We just need to
correct that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who changed their name?
MS. LAYNE: SSU is Florida Water --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought you said FSU.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Free shoes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone have any discussion on this
matter?
Mr. HcNees, any speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already moved to approve it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion by Commissioner Hac'Kie, second by
Commissioner Norris.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are moving right along.
MS. LAYNE: The next is the conservation coastal management
element, and Mr. Lorenz will handle that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Good evening. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director. This is -- there's roughly a hundred and thirty
changes to this element. If you wanted me to take some giant steps, I
can take some giant steps. It did approve -- it did go through the
CCPC for approval. Most of the changes are basically housekeeping to
remove -- our major housekeeping change is to remove all of the
objectives and policies in Goal 10, which basically provide level of
service standard for development of coastal area. These objectives
and policies have been duplicated in other areas of the Growth
Management Plan. So rather than have them here, we're recommending to
take them out of this particular element.
The other -- most of the other changes reflect either a
continuation of existing policies or recognition that we have already
adopted codes or ordinances and also housekeeping for agency name
changes or updating rule citations.
I would draw to your attention to objective 11.6.5 which is -- is
a policy that basically reflects some of the board's previous
resolutions concerning opposition of oil drilling in the Gulf of New
Mexico. This was a request by the City of Naples staff for our plan
to be consistent with the city's plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's consistent with proclamations we make
and resolutions we take every year to advance to the legislature?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yup.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: With that -- as I said it depends on how you want to
proceed with it. We can proceed with it page by page, or if you have
any questions, I'd be glad to cover it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Objective 4.1 on page CI-18, it states
that, We acknowledge recommendations with the South Florida Water
Management District lower west coast water supply plant regarding
local water resource strategies.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What exactly does acknowledging
recommendations mean? Because what I don't want to do is incorporate
-- incorporate by a reference a document not under this board's
control. That document changes and, therefore, are we then going to
be held to a standard contained in that document?
MR. LORENZ: My interpretation would simply be that -- that's
it's recognizing that the document exists and that we would consider
it for any types of future water supply planning that we have, but
we're not bound to the recommendations. In the discussion at the EAR,
there was wording that indicated that we would accept the
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am -- I want to strike that for the simple
reason that it is a resource available to us, but we hire professional
staff to make recommendations regarding water here. I don't want to
start mixing the two. I really don't.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know why it has to be here. Same
old, same old. I don't know why it has to be here, so I'll support
taking it out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: So we'll just end it after Collier County, period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. I just read through it, and there's a
couple things I take exception to, and I just don't want to
incorporate it until either those are gone or it's set in stone.
Any other comments or changes in this section? Questions for Mr.
Lorenz?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve with that change.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie,
second by Commissioner Constantine. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Lorenz, thank you. It's a
pleasure spending the evening with you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speak for yourself.
MS. LAYNE: Lee Layne again for the record. The last element on
the agenda is the Immokalee area master plan. Again these are all
changes that were recommended in the EAR. We have several that came
about because of the Main Street project, so we've added information
concerning that. There were two map changes recommended. One was to
move the Neighborhood Center. The original Neighborhood Center was in
this location (indicating). It has been moved out to 29 at --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Layne.
MS. LAYNE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think somebody would like to interrupt you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, okay, Miss Layne what we to do is
to walk us through the gambit at this point so we can make sure we've
dotted our I's and crossed our T's.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we -- all the
changes and all the elements and subelements that we've already
adopted.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second that.
MS. LAYNE: Now we need a more specific motion than that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We need a more specific motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're going to ask Miss Layne to help us
with that. How 'bout that. Okay.
MS. LAYNE: That the board transmit the proposed Growth
Management Plan as presented or with changes to the Department of
Community Affairs for review and comment for consistency with Section
163 Florida statutes and Rule 9J5 of the Florida Administrative Code
resulting in a ORC report and adopt the transmittal resolution and
that the board further announce that final adoption hearings will take
place in approximately five to six months.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. That's what I meant to say.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's pretty much what he said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what we're looking for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Norris, second
by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Miss Layne, Miss Cacchione, Mr.
Arnold, and everyone else who worked on this, thank you very much.
We'll see you back in 120 days.
MS. LAYNE: Thank you, Commissioners, for your patience.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, now to the afternoon portion of our
agenda. And that was Item 12(A)(1).
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-16 RE PETITION PUD-96-3(1), R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING SAL ANGILERI AND RACE TRAC
PETROLEUM REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANGILERI PUD BY ADDING
GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES TO AREA "C" OF THE PUD
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER, ON
TRACT 61, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED
Next is under 12(B) zoning amendments, Number 1, Petition
PUD-96-3(1). I saw the break symbol going on over here.
How long have you been -- you came in at five? Okay. Well, why
don't we go ahead and take five minutes now, and give you a little bit
of a break, and then we'll come back with Item 12(B)(1).
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Going to call to order the BCC meeting. We're
about half way through the day's agenda.
As I understand, Mr. HcNees, we have how many speakers on this
item?
MR. HcNEES: Sixteen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sixteen. That's only an hour and-a-half
worth. Why don't we go ahead and get started with staff presentation
on Petition PUD-96-3(1).
Mr. Milk, good evening.
MR. MILK: Good evening. For the record my name is Bryan Milk. I
am presenting Petition PUD-96-3(1), Angelari PUD.
The purpose of this amendment is to add gasoline service stations
and convenience stores to area C of the PUD. Area C of the PUD has
road frontage currently along Pine Ridge Road. Access is provided by
an ingress-egress easement which currently aligns with the median cut
at Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill.
Area C is 1.7 in size and currently allows for automobile parts
stores, professional offices, all of the permitted principal uses in
Area B and fast-food restaurants.
Area B is contiguous to Kramer Drive. Kramer Drive is the
frontage road which provides vehicular access to the site and to the
remainder of the activity center to the east. The principal permitted
uses in Area B include professional offices, medical offices, banks,
hotel/motels, real estate agencies, and beauty salons. In area A
adjacent to Livingston Woods Lane, it's approximately .6 acres in size
and acts as a water retention area and open space.
The petitioner has provided a 20-foot landscape buffer to
adjacent to Livingston Woods Road, which provides an architecturally
designed wall eight foot in height. On the northern side of the wall,
they proposed tree plantings every 15 linear feet and a single row of
shrubbery also on the northern end of the fence towards Livingston
Woods Lane. Behind the 20-foot buffer is the water management area
where they also propose to plant an additional 15 silver maples.
Currently the development regulations of the PUD provide for a
maximum height limitation of 30 feet. The exception is for hotels and
hotels which is limited to two stories. The setbacks provided for in
the PUD limit the setback from Livingston Woods Lane to 90 feet, and
it's 25 foot setback to Pine Ridge Road.
Pine Ridge Road currently is operational at level of service B
with approximately 36,000 trips. It's a four-lane arterial roadway,
and it is due to be six-lane proposed by the year 2001. And with the
anticipated current development around there, it's anticipated that
that will be moved up probably by 1998, 1999.
The subject property in 1983 was located in a commercial mode on
the comprehensive plan and map.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before you go too far, everything
you have described to this point was what we approved last October or
September?
MR. MILK: That's exactly correct. I just wanted to kind of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry wasn't a part of that
discussion.
MR. MILK: That's correct. And the details of the buffer and the
heights and some of the restrictions and land use, I thought I'd
summarize that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So every -- all of the architectural,
everything that we put out there that was agreed upon is back in this
same thing. The only addition is the use of gas station.
MR. MILK: The addition is the gas station and convenience store
or a convenience store with gas pumps in Area C which fronts Pine
Ridge Road in that 1.7 acre tract.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, when the original ap -- or original
project came in and had this in it, there was a 3-2 vote, but it
needed 4 affirmative votes to be approved. MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That 3-2 vote was based on a lot of
performance criteria specific to a gas station and convenience store
or flip them however you wish. Have we been able to review that
performance criteria in relation to that operation to determine
whether or not it is all included in this proposal?
MR. MILK: This proposal does two things. It complies with the
architectural and site design guidelines approved by this board in
November of '96. It actually goes further and stipulates some of the
colors and that all the buildings, signage, landscaping shall be
architecturally designed as a unified plan. There shall be no pole
lighting. Everything has to be lamp posts, 20 feet in the front, 12
in the rear.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All of which was outlined in last
fall. Is there anything -- what is different than what was proposed
what had a 3-2 vote against it and was ultimately withdrawn by Mr.
Anderson?
MR. MILK: Other than tweaking in the PUD document, everything is
the same basically.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for one thing that we -- that we
were worried about the proliferation of gas stations at this
intersection, and since then we've sent two PUDs with gas stations in
them back for rewrites.
MR. MILK: All right. Let me just tell you the status of that,
too. The sunsetting is an issue that came up and we're currently
working with the Pine Ridge Center PUD, Pine Ridge Center West PUD,
and the Gateway PUD, all in this activity center, Gateway being
immediately to the west and Pine Ridge Centers immediately to the
southwest.
The Gateway PUD is currently in for review. I have spoken with
Mr. Longo and the other owner of Pine Ridge Center West. Neno Spagna
is going to re -- provide two new PUDs for those projects in the very
new future. Their deadline is June the 15th, 1997. So we're going to
look at those PUDs for format, intensity, uses, transition buffers,
and a lot of the things we looked at in the Angelari PUD.
But to answer your question, Commissioner, this item was denied
because it required the 4-1 vote. The commissioner then asked for a
-- to withdraw the gas station and the convenience store. The board
at that point took another vote and they vote unanimously 5 to 0 with
the approval with the exception of the gas and convenience stores.
Since then on April 3rd, the Planning Commission heard this
particular item, and they voted 5 to 2 to recommend denial of those
uses being put back into Area C of the PUD.
I do have a letter in the record from the Falls The Falls are
the adjacent owners due north of the subject site that have no
opposition to this. On the other hand, Kena Yoke from the Livingston
Woods area represents a majority of the landholders. She spoke in
opposition as did two other individuals during that April 3rd meeting.
If I can answer any other questions, I'd be happy to do so this,
again, is within the activity center. Staff did find it consistent
with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Future Land Use
Element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before going to the petitioner, are there
questions of staff at this point?
Seeing none, the petitioner -- is it Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record my
name is Bruce Anderson representing the property owners, Sal Angelari,
Zenny Grutch, and Wendall Kramer. Mr. Kramer and Mr. Grutch are both
here today and Racetrac Petroleum which is a contract purchaser for
parcel C of this PUD.
In addition to the two PUDs, Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge
Center West, that have gone through the PUD sunset review process and
are being required to come back in for amendments, at which time
you'll have an opportunity to review the service station uses there,
the Naples Gateway PUD has voluntarily filed for a PUD amendment, and
that will be coming before you sometime in the next few months as
well. So all of the unimproved PUDs within this activity center that
permit a service station are coming before you in the next few months.
And I want you to know that after the hearings and vote last
September, I encouraged Racetrac to take a look at these other PUDs to
put their service station on because they wouldn't require a zoning
change and they didn't have the very extensive and expensive
requirements for landscaping, buffering, and architectural
requirements that this PUD has. Racetrac looked at these other sites,
but they came back to the Angelari property for one principal reason,
the location and safe access in proximity to the interstate.
Now, these other three phantom service station sites are simply
too far away from the interstate exit ramp and nor will these sites
have a traffic signal. As I said this property was chosen because of
safe returning movements coming from the interstate because you won't
have to cross four lanes and soon to be six lanes of traffic in order
to fill up your gas tank if you're coming from the north or the east,
and then cross those traffic lanes again after you've filled up your
gas tank.
The northwest quadrant of this activity center needs a service
station. And you have a bona fide end user requesting approval, not a
phantom service station that may never exist. And as previously noted
under your access management plan, there's going to be a stop light at
the corner of this property. We have worked out agreements with the
property owners to the east and the west to provide them access across
our property so that everybody in this activity center quadrant will
not have to have their own driveway onto Pine Ridge Road. Your
comprehensive plan encourages controlled access, and we have done
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On that point would you be -- would that be a
public right-of-way or private-access easement?
MR. ANDERSON: It's a private-access easement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But you are, by fact of this request,
guaranteeing that to the adjacent property owners?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. In fact, we've recorded
an easement. It's more than just this document.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please continue. I'm sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: It's all right. Just for the benefit of one of
the commissioners that was not here when this was heard before, the
normal setback requirement is 25 feet for a service station or any
commercial use. We provide 90 feet, more than triple. We have
provided a rendering of the wall that will be constructed along the
north property line and also the service station. Those will be
attached to and become a part of the PUD.
And I would like to, you know, tout this project a little bit
that we were a little bit ahead of the curve. We volunteered
architectural controls before the county began requiring it. And I'd
also point out that the PUD limits the number of principal structures
that can be constructed to only three.
I would note that the distance between the property line where
the service station is going and the nearest property in Livingston
Woods Estate is 445 feet, and the people who are at that location at
the 445 feet have written a letter that they have no objection to the
service station.
The bottom line is we comply with and in most instances exceed
every requirement that the county has adopted in the comp plan and the
Land Development Code. A service station or a convenience store are
permitted uses in the C-2 zoning district. It's one of the two least
intensive zoning districts in Collier County. C-5 is the most
intensive. This PUD property is located at an interstate exit, and
has been designated for commercial uses to serve the traveling public
such as a service station for 14 years and under two different
comprehensive plans.
In closing I'd just like to pass out to you and enter into the
record a list of exhibits, and I would draw your attention to the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Over there, Mr. Hoover.
MR. ANDERSON: I have a chart in there that details the many,
many ways that we meet or exceed your current county requirements, and
I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. And I thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of the petitioner?
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Anderson, just quickly, how does
this differ from the proposal that was initially rejected by the
board.
MR. ANDERSON: The motion that was failed to be approved, because
this was not a denial, was a -- the differences are the requirement
for the compliance with the county's new architectural controls, which
was not on the books at that time, and also the external changes with
regard to the other PUDs that allowed service stations that are coming
back before you for review. Other than that, there are no changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I had moved away from the microphone, settled down
to listen, and recognized that this not the merit legislative
proceeding, but that the speakers should be sworn in; so if Mr. Milk
and all who would speak and also Mr. Anderson could be sworn in, the
group swearing in by the reporter would be appropriate at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. This would include the testimony that's
already been given, and what I will ask is anyone who is either a
representative of or a registered speaker in this matter, I ask you to
stand and raise your right hand, please.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, let's go to public speakers.
MR. McNEES: The first would be Eddie Irizarry followed by Ann
McCarthy.
MR. IRIZARRY: Is the map here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh. Why don't we put that back up if it's
needed for reference, and also the second that's listed, if you'd go
ahead and come forward and then stand behind the podium, that way we
can keep things moving as we get the opportunity to hear your
comments.
MR. IRIZARRY: My name is Eddie Irizarry. I live at 6741
Livingston Woods Lane. I live right here (indicating) next to the
Falls, and I'm very much against the gas station just because of the
-- I'm thinking about the gas seeping into the ground and
contaminating the water. And as everybody else, all my neighbors have
spoken before, I'm just backing them up and just very much against it.
I don't want a gas station in front of my house, and that's it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Ann McCarthy followed by Bob Riley.
MS. MCCARTHY: My name is Ann McCarthy. I'm here to ask you to
uphold the denial that you gave us last November that we as residents
do not have to put up with the additional traffic, the congestion, the
undesirable features of a gas station within the perimeter of our lot.
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Riley followed by Sandra Fehr.
MR. RILEY: Commissioners, Bob Riley for the record. I live at
6470 Bottlebrush Lane, and previously I have been up here also
requesting the same thing. As the gentleman was saying, they want
access to 75, and that's exactly what it's about. Bring cars off the
interstate to fill them back up, shoot them back out on the highway.
The Growth Management Plan, I think, should have a little bit more
mindset as to how it's going to benefit Collier County, just not
financially in dollars but aesthetics as well. Traveling up and down
the interstate, stop in at a few of the Racetrac gas stations. I
have, and I'm not particularly fond of what I've seen, being a cash
only business, and it just hasn't really impressed me, but I've been
against it from the start whether it be Racetrac or anybody else.
Poor Duval Evans, he's right across the street. He's still
trying to eke out a living, and now we want to put somebody right
across the street from him and tell him to keep on digging, Duval.
It's just not going to get any easier.
But, please, put up some -- put up some building. Put in some
dentist office, some doctors' offices. We need more doctors offices
in Naples. But, please, refuse the gas station. Nothing has changed.
Everything is still the same. You can build a wall a hundred feet
high. People are going to walk around it. We donwt want the people
in our neighborhood. I live close enough to it. I can see lights. I
can hear noises. We already have to contend with people in the
adjoining neighbors and empty lots, chasing them out continuously. We
just donwt want the element. It doesnwt belong in the neighborhood.
Itws been refused before. Unless something comes before you that
really makes some sense to change it, I have havenwt heard it yet, and
Iwm paying my tax dollars. Please. Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Sandra Fehr followed by Joe Bonness.
MS. FAIR: Good evening. My name is Sandra Fehr. I live at 6911
Livingston Woods Lane.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Fehr. Would you pull that
microphone down a little bit? Thank you.
MS. FAIR: I live next door to the Falls, and I wasnwt offered
city water, and if I was I wouldnwt accept it anyhow because I feel
that this is wrong. I thought that after it was denied that I
wouldnwt have to be back here and speak again. I do have two sick
children at home, and I came all the way here to talk and ask you
please deny this petition again. I donwt like the idea of living near
a gas station, and I feel that itws not compatible with the
residential area behind it, and I hope that you will deny this
petition. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question? Was
somebody offered city water?
MS. FEHR: Well, I heard, you know, from other people that -- it
was from the mouth of Mrs. Falls that she did say she was offered city
water, which they would put through to her property, seeing itws close
by, and Iwm next door, and I wasnwt offered it, and if I was offered
it, I would not accept it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Before we disparage the Falls -- they
arenwt here. Did you talk to Mrs. and Mrs. Falls about that issue?
MS. FEHR: No, not personally.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Iim not saying it didnlt happen. I
just --
MS. FEHR: But, yeah, when I heard this I was very worried and I
thought, well, you know, this was denied originally and what my -- one
of my main grievances is, if you approve this one, therels going to be
another one. The gentleman just right there, his was denied. And if
this one is approved, then heill want a gas station, and I know that
the Golden Gate PUD wants a gas station; so youlre going to have at
least three in front of my house, and I donlt really like that idea
and I hope you will -- well, I thought that your -- canlt think at the
moment -- I hope Iim not going to offend you, but your duties as
commissioners is to protect my property as being a taxpayer and that
you will deny this -- I just donlt like the idea of having X amount of
gas stations in front of my property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Bonness followed by Rick Cashin.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I donlt see Mr. Bonness. Move onto the
speaker after Mr. Bonness.
MR. McNEES: She said Ms. Cashin is gone.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. McNEES: Garrett Beyrent followed by Karen Sandrick.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Beyrent has waived his speaking.
MR. McNEES: Miss Sandrick followed by Sue Riley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Miss Riley then. And following Miss
Riley?
MR. HcNEES: Would be Barbara Rudnicki.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. RUDNICKI: Good evening. My name is Sue Riley, and I live on
Bottlebrush Lane. I've been there seven years. I have lived in
Naples for 26, and I have seen many changes. I would hope that in the
changes in what we want to do on Pine Ridge Road that we would keep in
mind that that is the main entranceway into Naples, and we do have an
opportunity to keep it consistent with what is in the neighborhood.
We have families. We have residents there. Hopefully, we will see a
medical center go in. Perfect opportunity to offer medical office
spaces. There's some very nice ones going up in north Naples on 41,
and I would hope that maybe we could keep something like that in mind
so that we keep that property in the values that it should be and not
worry about people coming off of 75. I think we can help all of
Naples by offering a better use for that property. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Hiss Rudnicki followed by Kena Yoke.
MS. RUDNICKI: For the record I'm Barbara Rudnicki. I live at
6800 Bottlebrush Lane. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I spoke six
months ago about the concern that we have regarding crime, the
increase in crime in the area. That is still a concern. As a matter
of fact, in our Livingston Woods area itself, the crime is continuing
to rise. Significant grand theft, breaking in, burglary are all
occurring in our area just in Livingston Woods. What I have given to
be distributed to you is in graphic form the crime statistics that are
very similar to the ones I presented last time except they are in a
different form. I think they make a little bit more sense.
There's sheet called crime statistics and a sheet called noncrime
statistics. These are all incidents from the sheriff's department.
Crime statistics get a number and are more severe than noncrime
statistics.
I have two time comparisons, 1995, January through August; and
1996, January through August. What is not noted, and you may want to
note on those charts, is that the Mobil gas station opened in February
of 1995 and the Chevron gas station opened on December 1st, 1995. And
you can see the significant increase in crime on the corridor of Pine
Ridge Road between Logan and Airport from 1995 to 1996.
It's a concern to me. I have now installed an alarm system in my
house because I am literally becoming afraid. I don't want to be
afraid living in my house. I don't want my neighbors to be afraid.
That's what happens when buildings such as gas stations and -- that
are open -- any building that is open 24 hours that encourages people
to come, that gives them had a place to hang out, especially those who
don't have the best intentions in mind. My biggest fear for myself is
my property value and my personal safety. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Rudnicki, do you have any -- how do
you tie -- what did you use to tie gas stations to the increase in
crime?
MS. RUDNICKI: I didn't. I didn't. I'm only giving the
statistics of the crime and noting the dates that the gas stations
were put in; that's all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The inference, perhaps, being that
interstate traffic -- I'm wondering the same thing.
MS. RUDNICKI: Interstate traffic increases. Yes, interstate
traffic increases.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you find any nexus here, or is there
any way that you -- anything that you use to say these gas stations
caused this crime?
MS. RUDNICKI: No, sir. No, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. RUDNICKI: Just that's the dates that things have occurred,
and I'm just kind of drawing them together. I don't mean to infer
that they're there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. RUDNICKI: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Kena Yoke followed by Tom Bartis.
MS. YOKE: For the record, Kena Yoke. I, too, have a handout.
You will find -- I will go over this handout with you. On the back of
this handout is the original petition that was submitted. There's 86
signatures other than the Falls on this petition that are against this
project.
Having been here all day, I've had the opportunity to listen to
the commission comment on several things including revisions to the
Land Development Code. Bruce said something kind of -- phantom
approvals. How many people in this town do you know spend money to
get phantom approvals? Don't think it happens. You know, they make a
plan, do the best that they can, and then hope to the future to sell
it, build it out, do something.
This map is a copy of this map colored in. The green are gas
stations that are phantomly approved. The red is the gas station that
was previously denied for lack of access, and the yellow is today's
project.
Earlier, Mr. Hancock, you said -- I need to get one more thing.
Hold on. I gave away all of my printouts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay.
MS. YOKE: It's been a long day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can have this one back; I know what I
said.
MS. YOKE: Okay, great. Earlier today you asked 20 years from
now what do you want to see? We want to see the gateway to Naples,
not gasoline alley. The Angelari PUD has done a great job. If you
look at the colored architectural renderings, it's beautiful. That's
what we want. Previously on July 16th, this was not supposed to come
back with a gas station. Mr. Constantine offered several reasons for
its denial. We moved -- Mr. Hancock moved to approve the PUD when we
gave staff direction to amend the Growth Management Plan. It's been
nine months. We're still waiting for those amendments. We talked on
-- you talked on March 18th, did any projects that come today for
sunset review or back up for review have to comply to today's
standards?
The answer was yes. At the end of that meeting, the board closed
by indicating that they should give staff specific direction to amend
the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code to limit the
proliferation of any such use in the interchange activity centers.
We're worried about transition. They can have gas stations. We
admit there is a need for gas stations, but I can also say I come in
and out of that neighborhood everyday, and I've never seen anybody on
the north side of Pine Ridge Road with a gas can going, God, I can't
get to a gas station from here. There is no need for a gas station at
that site. There are five gas stations within walking distance if
they had to get gas.
We need the Growth Management Plan to allow for a transitional
area. There is no area in Collier County where you will have a
potential of eight gas stations adjacent to a low-density residential
neighborhood.
Use this area as approved last September as a transition area.
Move medical office into this area and transition into the need across
the street. If there's a light there, that's good. Let them turn at
the light and go across the street and get gas. Let them go north to
-- a little bit further west to Pine Ridge Road. There's gas stations
right there. There's two right on the corner. We don't need one in
this area.
You're having trouble with your activity centers now. They
aren't being built the way you wanted them. We're having trouble with
the interchange activity centers right now. They're being built out
with gas stations.
We're asking that you please deny this request as it was
submitted to the Planning Commission and recommended for denial.
We're asking that you continue that denial today and leave this PUD as
approved without the gas station uses.
MR. McNEES: Tom Bartis followed by John Bartis.
MR. TOM BARTIS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am
beginning to feel insulted by Mr. Anderson because he always neglects
the fact that I live just north of the proposed development. I live
at 6641 Livingston Woods Lane, right next door to Linda and Don Falls.
I have been against this since it began.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Can you give your name for the
record, please?
MR. TOM BARTIS: Sure. Tom Bartis, B-a-r-t-i-s.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue.
TOM BARTIS: I have been against this from the beginning because
I don't think it's the proper thing to have as a gateway to our city
here in Naples. And I can't understand why the Falls would approve
such a thing when I can't imagine that this would appreciate anybody's
property, nor make it any more beautiful. Certainly it's not going to
do anything but detract from the whole area. It doesn't fit in. It
doesn't fit into what is in the neighborhood, and I am against it, and
I would ask you, all of you, to remember that the Planning Commission
and the planner have recommended that this be denied. Nothing has
changed. It's the same thing that was brought before them and it was
brought before you before. Nothing has been changed. And if anyone
thinks that silver maples grow in Naples, they really should go see a
botanist because they don't grow here; so let's look at this thing a
little more realistically. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: John Bartis.
TOM BARTIS: He won't be here. He had to leave.
MR. McNEES: Ellie Madigan followed by John Gulotta.
MS. MADIGAN: Mr. Bonness has showed up by the way. This is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait, wait, wait, wait. When you're speaking,
we need you on a microphone -- so why don't hand those -- we need your
comments on the record, please.
MS. MADIGAN: Just saving time, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. We just want to make sure we
get everything.
MS. MADIGAN: Trying to move on. I have handed out -- Ellie
Madigan, and I live on Bottlebrush Lane. Has everybody gotten --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees -- is that idea she would hand them
to you, you would hand them to us.
MS. MADIGAN: Trying to ignore what I have to say.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is a long day.
MS. MADIGAN: Yes, it is. Okay. I would like to -- even though
Kena has put the larger map up here, I do want to just go over this
just a little bit.
The green areas are PUDs approved, undeveloped, allowing at least
one gas station. Why I say that is some of these, they are allowed a
gas station. If they chose they could put more than one gas station.
It doesn't seem feasible, but they could do that.
The blue area is where there are presently gas stations, and the
yellow is the proposed site we're talking about or the site we're
talking about, the PUD. And the red is the gas station that was
turned down a couple years ago because of access.
Now, I have highlighted or outlined, you will notice, the
Vineyards PUD. That is approximately 30 acres of -- 30 acres of land
including outparcels. That is a DRI that will not be sunsetted. It
is vested. And they can put at least one or two more gas stations
there. That is set. I mean, I'm not saying they are going to put a
gas station, but I am saying they can.
So looking at this plan, when we say there is a potential for
four to five more gas stations on this corner in this activity center,
it is correct. And as of today-- I mean, we're talking about
sunsetting the PUDs, but as of today, none of the PUDs have been
revised to exclude a gas station. So we have to look at the facts
that are here today. And we are looking at the potential for five
more gas stations.
And I'd like to also -- and I'd like to read this so that I'm
absolutely accurate. But at our September 24th meeting, Commissioner
Mac'Kie asked Miss Student about the sunsetting of the PUDs because
the sunsetting of the PUDs was brought up of taking away gas stations,
and I would like to -- I would like to quote exactly what she said.
And also to answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, I feel that where
there's already existing zoning, we will have more difficult problem
taking away a land use, if you will.
So what I'm saying is the uses are there, and we are talking
possibly phantom gas stations, but the facts are we have five on the
books at least today, three there now.
Also, real quick -- is that my buzzer?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
MS. MADIGAN: I just wanted to point out that this is to
accommodate the traveling public. There are three gas stations right
now for Exit 16, Pine Ridge. There are six gas stations advertised at
Exit 15. Between the two exits we have presently nine gas stations.
I think we are accommodating the traveling public very well in the
southern part of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That unfortunately is your buzzer.
MS. MADIGAN: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: John Gulotta followed by Duval Evans, and your last
registered speaker is Joe Bonness.
MR. EVANS: Good afternoon. I know it's awfully late, and I
know you-all are really tired. My name is Duval Evans, and I am the
owner of the Chevron station and convenience store out on Pine Ridge
Road.
The idea of just thinking about five more gas stations going in
just scares the living daylights out of me when I'm having a hard time
making a go of it as it is with the three right out there close to me.
The Mobil station there he kind of more or less represents Mr. Love,
Ellis Love. He just purchased it. He's from Scotland. He couldn't
come up and speak because he was a afraid he'd have a little trouble
you commissioners understanding what he had to stay, but he is scared
to death, also.
Crime was mentioned here just a few moments ago. Yes, we do have
crime. We had just an incident last night. We did get it stopped. I
wasn't there, but my manager got it stopped, a man and a woman
fighting outside and also some inside. We do have drive-offs that
takes off in a hurry. Sometimes they take off with the nozzle in
their gas tank, and that's about $90 it costs me. And when they're
getting out of there, they do excessive speed.
I feel like -- this was denied once before. I mean the -- the
store and gasoline was denied at one time and which you have been told
that, and I'm not going to take that much more of your time, but I
hope that you people will deny this gas station and convenience store,
because it's hard enough making a living out there now, and as we know
there's going to be traffic easing up on Vanderbilt Beach Road that's
going to take some of our business away from us, and I definitely hope
that you go along with the people that has been here today talking
against it, and I hope you people will do the same. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Bonness.
MR. BONNESS: Joe Bonness. I'm a resident of Livingston Woods.
Glad to get back here in time for the meeting. I almost missed it as,
I guess, quite a few of my other neighbors weren't able to make it
back, just, you know, too long of a day. They couldn't make it here.
I'm going to be very short.
The problem that I see with this is primarily compatibility,
trying to put in 24 hour use of a gas station right along side of a
low density residential. It isn't done any place else in the county.
The only place that we do have anything that's even close to this
would be like the 7-Eleven by Pine Ridge. It's separated by a
five-acre lake.
Sam's Warehouse, it's not 24 hours, and it's separated by
architectural means quite a bit from the residential around it. It
doesn't happen any place else in the county. This would be something
that's added into the county that doesn't happen any place else.
This is a major evacuation route. Do we want to have this type
of business that's going to be operating very intensely during a heavy
evacuation? We're going to really clog up this intersection which is
our -- probably our main evacuation route out of Naples. How intense
do we want this to be? Right now we just keep seeing some stop lights
being popped up right and left through that route. Where there used
to be only two or three, now we've got seven lights, and it's getting
worse. How intense do we want to have this? I'd say businesses and
offices that are -- office businesses that are working during the day
are compatible with the neighborhood. I would leave it at. Please
deny the gas station. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: No more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Before I close the public hearing, are
there any other questions of either staff which we can go to or the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just wanted to -- I haven't seen a
map that shows a site outlay, a site plan. But if there is one on
page 8 of our -- our executive summary here.
MR. ANDERSON: And there's a colored one in the exhibit booklet,
sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, that buffer against the
Livingston Woods, how deep is that?
MR. ANDERSON: That is 80 feet.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Eighty feet. And then what's past that?
MR. ANDERSON: Then another 10 foot of setback and then a motel
-- motel sit-down restaurant --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I meant going the other way.
MR. ANDERSON: What, this way? Oh, 60 feet of right-of-way,
Livingston Woods Lane.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Livingston Woods Lane. Where's the wall?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, the wall is along the property line. I'm
sorry. Eight-foot wall along the property line.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The wall, then we've got 80 feet of buffer.
Then what goes in that parcel?
MR. ANDERSON: Here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: That could go be a hotel or a motel --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Limited to two stories.
MR. ANDERSON: -- sit-down restaurant. Right. It's limited to
two stories; that's correct. Office uses. Essentially those, not a
service station.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would the restaurant be limited to use for
the hotel?
MR. ANDERSON: Or it could be a stand-alone, but it cannot be
fast food back there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And then you have the private easement
access that goes to the other properties that -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And then you have the gas station.
MR. ANDERSON: Then you have the gas station.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the transition that the people have been
asking for is contained within your proposal?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I see that a little different.
We had this discussion last fall and that is where we talked about
transitional areas. Directly to the south, if you turn the map, would
give you a view of north-south, but directly to the south is an
intense use with gas stations on the south side of Pine Ridge. We
have stores, and I think we have fast food down there and everything.
To the north you have virtually the lightest residential use
possible with the state zoning one every two and a quarter. And I
think what they're looking for is a transitional use throughout the
PUD, not simply on one portion of the PUD. And I don't think that's
asking for too much. You have a very, very heavy intense use on the
south side. You have a very, very light residential use on the north
side, and in between you ought to have something that falls in between
those two categories.
And I don't know that a gas station would be considered somewhere
in between. That's pretty much identical to what's on the south side,
and I think while they've divied this into two different parts, it's
still one PUD. So I appreciate the point you're trying to make with
the transitional there, but I think that was one of our points when it
was not approved last fall was there was the question of consistency
and transitional use.
Now, there were a couple of others -- and that along with two
others fell under 2.7.3.2.5 of the LDC, and there are a couple of
questions there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You knew that off the top of your head?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we've been working with that
darn thing for six hours now. The one -- one of the questions in
there is, is it possible to find other adequate sites, and clearly it
is. There are five or six other sites right around this specific area
that either have or are zoned to have fuel stations, and so there are
certainly adequate other sites for that possibility.
Also, under that same part of our Land Development Code is the
question of is this fulfilling a need or a want of the neighborhood,
the community. And clearly it's not the desire of the immediate
community to have that there.
The other portion of the LDC, 2.7.2.5 -- and we need to point out
there is absolutely -- right now there is absolutely nothing to the
east of this PUD. There is nothing to the west of this PUD, and there
is estate-zoned property, one every two and a quarter to the north.
So on three sides you have got nothing. If we approve a fueling
station here, we are setting a precedent for what will go on the north
side.
And Bruce was talking about the phantom service stations and next
to jerky turkey, my favorite quote of the day is phantom stations.
Frankly, if they were forever to stay phantom stations -- I don't know
if that's necessarily bad, but I don't think the owners of those PUDs
would probably tell us -- would probably agree with that phantom label
and certainly I doubt that they'd tell us that it will never be
developed. They asked for that for a particular reason.
The board dealt with this exact issue seven months ago and
declined. Since that time twice we have given staff direction to give
us some choices on what we do with gas stations at the interchange
activity areas. We didn't like where we were headed with that. We've
asked them to go back and give some specifics on how we deal with
that, so we don't run into this problem over and over again. There's
already half a dozen in the area.
I just think this idea is ill-advised at worst; but in the
best-case scenario, it's premature. We've asked our staff -- because
of the questions raised in this PUD seven months ago, we asked our
staff to go and do some particular research dealing with the
appropriateness of this use in this type area. And it was actually
this case that triggered it. So I think it would be premature for us
to turn around now and say to staff, well, we know you're doing that,
but let's go ahead and put it in this location anyway.
I think asking them, not once, but twice, we've acknowledged
there's a problem there. And I joke about jerky turkey, but I think
we run the risk of looking that way. We made a decision seven months
ago. Now we're considering changing that decision. The neighbors
certainly don't appreciate that. We've given staff a particular
direction. Now we're considering short circuiting that direction.
Collier County Planning Commission turned this down. We did once
before. And I just ask you to do the same again, and at the very
least let our staff conclude the issue that we've asked them to look
at, which is this very issue, and come back with some recommendations
before we approve something that is contrary to what we have asked
them to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess the result may have been the same, but
I would think the board's action slightly differently, that the
majority of the board voted to approve the site with a gas station in
it. But, you know, we needed four out of five, not just three. So it
was not officially denied. It was just simply not approved. There
was a majority of the board that agreed that it was not completely
incompatible particularly with the site constraints; so, you know, I
think it depends on how you look at this as to whether or not this
board collectively took action to deny it or to refuse, and that
simply didn't happen.
There were some things that we talked about then that I don't
have absolute recollection on, and I would like to ask staff. Hours
of operation for this site for the gas station, have they be limited
in any way, shape, or form?
MR. MILK: No, they haven't. They have not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We required that there be no outside speakers
where you hear that fill up on No. 7, you're ready garbage, that you
hear across the street.
MR. MILK: That is implemented in the PUD document, correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the issue of groundwater contamination
with double-walled tanks was addressed at length and has been included
by referencing the information we have here, there it will be
double-walled tanks meeting Department of Environmental Protection
standards?
MR. MILK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is an example of a gas station --
fueling station that operates right in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. It's the Mobil station on Anchor Rode Drive and U.S. 41
in the City of Naples. I know it because I drive by it every day. My
sister-in-law lives right behind it.
I think it's a question when you talk about compatibility of
operation, and the question of aesthetics was brought up, that those
things can be addressed. Use alone is not the only consideration in a
compatibility argument. Particularly when an intervening parcel is
required to have a lesser intensive use for transition, I think the
case has been made. I voted and think I even made a motion to approve
this, and that motion did not succeed for lack of having four
affirmative votes. And I agree. I think we need to be consistent.
And so I have every intention of being consistent with that action.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in response to a couple things.
You said one Anchor Rode Drive -- my wife's office is ironically right
behind that station, and that's because there is a transitional use
between the Mobil station and the residential area. There is strictly
office area other than -- so, again, I'm just suggesting between
fueling stations on the south side and this area there should be a
transitional area.
But secondly -- and we can talk semantics. It doesn't matter.
It was a 3 to 2 majority, but it's denied. You need four to get
approved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- the board denied it, because that
was not the action taken. It was not a board denial.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it was a denial because you need
four to approve, but, you're right, the majority didn't vote that way,
but that's semantics.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I seconded the motion previously to
approve it with the gas station so I continue to support it, but two
points. One is, again, to go back to the Anchor Rode Drive example, it
is almost exactly like this one, because we do have a large tract,
this entire Area B, that is not permitted for gas station. Just like
your wife's office is the transition behind the Mobil station,
similarly this motel, restaurant, whatever site is not a gas station,
and would serve as that transition between the gas station and the
residential neighborhood.
As I recall it, the issues that members of the board had -- and,
frankly, my own hesitation at the time was based on the fact that
there were 19,000 potential gas stations in the area. We have -- now
the door is open to decide how many gas stations there are going to be
in that area as we review the sunsetted PUDs.
And, frankly, being the good republican capitalists that we all
are, you know, this is the guy who is here first with the money and is
here first to put up the -- to build the gas station. I don't think
we should continue to drag it out when the proliferation concern has
gone away.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question as to
how this guy's here first if the other PUDs had previously been
approved like five or six years ago?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's here with the contract. It's a hard
contract. As much as this board hates talking, and we hate those
speculators, whoever the hell they are, this is real guy. He's really
here. He's really going to build it. So that makes him here first. No
more speculation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, I mean, we don't have any
control over that. Theoretically if we approve this, and the contract
falls through tomorrow, this PUD still stands.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, but we could make a stipulation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, but we could.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are existing PUDs there. And
maybe I hear you saying, well, we're going to withdraw those gas
stations or we're going to take that away from people when they come
back for sunset, but again, I know you said, Commissioner Hancock, and
I appreciate this we're trying to be consistent, but I don't
understand if we approve this, how that is consistent with our
direction to staff to go away, look at this issue, come back with some
specific recommendations for us, and yet we're voting to make a change
on it. I would think we would want to to get those answers back
first.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All done in the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it may or may not change you your
mind, but I just would think we would have those answers back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve the petition.
MS. STUDENT: May I -- may I just state for the record --
Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney -- if the motion maker
would please state specific reasonings for the motion, whatever it may
be, for purposes of the record. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On March 18 of this year, we brought
that up and reiterated that direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if I'm not mistaken, the action we took
today requires master planning of all activity centers including
interchange activity centers. Now, that's the vehicle with which we
look at the individual parcel uses and the access constraints within
activity centers, which is exactly what that was intended to do. I
had isolated it to fueling stations, but when we take a comprehensive
look, it's not just fueling stations but what else? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go for it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, maybe thrown into that if that's not
appropriate there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But do we want to make this decision
before we get those answers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Will you close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In just a second. And again if -- I don't
think it's the cart before the horse, in my opinion, because this is
not seven out of eight being approved here. If this thing is built,
we're talking about -- I think it was four then existing. The one on
the other side of the interstate has no physical impact on the
Livingston Woods subdivision -- the Vineyards -- but -- so we're
really talking about one or two sites that have a direct impact on
this neighborhood, and then that's why I am evaluating it. I just '-
I'm not comfortable saying, you know, we took a shot at it, we didn't
get what we wanted, so you guys can't do anything with your land until
we figure that out. I'm still looking at this as a simple
compatibility issue.
I think they both can run concurrently in the long term if we
can't find a better plan, but I am not going to hold one up
necessarily for the other personally.
We have a request to close the public hearing, so I'll close the
public hearing.
Is there a motion or further discussion on this matter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move that we approve the request
specifically noting that great attention has been given to
compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood and that's in the stated
goal of this board, both from the landscaping buffer, from the
setbacks, from the -- along with the transitional use between the
front parcel area C use and the adjacent area B.
Based on that I move approval, and I apologize for my impatience
a moment ago.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Is there discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1. Petition is approved.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 97-17 AND RESOLUTION CWS-97-2/HWS 97-2/GWD 97-2 ESTABLISHING
THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is Item 12(C)(1), a request to adopt
ordinance and resolutions on utility standards and procedures.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here's a long awaited change.
MR. CLEHONS: Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Tim
Clements, wastewater director. Item 12(C)(1) before you today is here
to adopt an ordinance and resolutions establishing the Collier County
utilities standards and procedures and repealing some of the
previously approved ordinances and resolutions dealing with this same
issue.
Before we go any further, I have been asked to get the board's
approval and to have the board not only approve this ordinance before
you but to also authorize staff to correct any typographical or
scrivener's errors that may be found.
Further, there are two sections of the ordinance we discovered at
the last minute, Section 7.2 dealing with FDEP certification of
completion of construction forms, and Section 10.4, which deals with
the requirements for the level of detail and record drawings, which
are incomplete as shown in the ordinance you have.
The utility subcommittee that we worked with had provided
language on Section 7.2, and with respect to that, John Asher of
Coastal Engineering had provided to Shirley Jean McEachern before she
left the county attorneyws office by memo on April 10, 1997, the
recommended language.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We just found out Shirley Jean left.
MR. CLEMONS: You-all didn't know she left?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. CLEMONS: That's only like our forth attorney on this
ordinance right now so we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do me a favor, let's just pass this thing
before we lose --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. CLEMONS: Well, I need to make sure that we can get this
language in there that John had in there because that's what we had as
a committee worked on, and also on Section 10.4, we just want to adopt
the new 10.4 with the language from the original ordinance. It will
go -- be inserted after the second set in 10.4.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Clemons, in a nutshell and just layman's
terms, what is this accomplishing?
MR. CLEMONS: What this does is it provides the standards for
engineering design and construction for your utility system, both
water and wastewater. And we've spent a lot of time, and there are
members of the subcommittee here from -- we have worked with the
engineering community and the building community to make sure
everybody's happy and that we can all give you an ordinance that's
workable to provide you a good system, and that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many years in the process?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait, wait just a second. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the average increase in cost to
single-family homeowners, whatever average size is, twenty-four
hundred square feet?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's average?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just -- whatever it happens to
be. My wife thinks it's 4,200 square feet.
MR. CLEHONS: I'm looking at the engineers and the contractors
here, and I think they'd tell you none. There's not that many changes
in this. This is really a lot of clean up from things.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great answer. No further explanation
needed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: You do have. I dare say they're probably all here
in favor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let's just assume as I look
down the board that we're leaning toward approval.
Do we have any speakers that want to talk us out of that?
I see no one coming forward.
With that I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion that we approve this
ordinance with the addition of the language that Mr. Clemons wanted
to --
MR. CLEHONS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- make as an addition, and also to
authorize the staff to make the scrivener's errors that must be
plentiful or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
MR. CLEMONS: Well, we did catch some, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you accept the amendments offered by
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll accept those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can accept those.
MR. CLEMONS: And after five years, we really thank you a lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: After a motion by Commissioner Constantine the
easy way, and a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'll call the
question.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none --
MR. CLEMONS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's only befitting after five years you had
to wait until almost eight o'clock at night to get it done.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 97-18 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 92-102 WHICH CREATED
THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM - ADOPTED
We're up to Item 12(C)(2), an ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance 92-102, the Collier County public guardianship program.
This was a request as signed by Mr. Middlebrook. There he is. Good evening, Mark.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mr. Chairman, I'm Mark Middlebrook. I'm the
senior deputy court administrator for the 20th circuit.
We have a public guardianship ordinance here in Collier County.
There's been some change in the state law that now allows us to have,
instead of assistant public guardian who assists basically somebody
out of Fort Myers, we're now going to be able to appoint our own
public guardian here in Collier County.
This program was funded through some fees on -- some filing fees
with the clerk's office, and those fees are matched by Collier County
themselves. We are merely asking that you approve these changes, and
I am sure you can read, and I'm sure you don't want me to read them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Middlebrook, it says the county will
match the funds from general revenue. Would this be a new fiscal --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir. You've done that since 1992.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the actual fiscal impact here is no net
increase to the general fund?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions for Mr. Middlebrook?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Can I just ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You certainly may.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not familiar with this. Can you just
tell me briefly what this is.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. If there are people who are
incapacitated such as brought into the hospital, they have no family,
no means of support, they have less than $30,000 in assets, there's a
state statute that provides a public guardian be appointed to find
this person some sort of convalescent home or retirement home,
establish a bank account, contact social security, and so on for
people that can't fend for themselves. And that's what this is
addressing.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't think I had to close the public
hearing. Well, we'll do it anyway.
Now we have a motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie, second by
Commissioner Berry.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Middlebrook, thank you very much.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-223 RE PETITION CU-97-6, MR. RAY PETERSON OF GARLAND AND
GARLAND, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE '1' OF THE RSF-3 ZONING
DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 239 DOLPHIN COVE COURT - ADOPTED
We're up to Item 13(A)(1), CU-97-6, Mr. Ray Peterson of Garland
and Garland.
I see -- is Mr. Peterson here?
MR. PETERSON: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One person who doesn't work for the county in
the audience, it ought to be you. I'm kidding.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Swear in?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Bellows, if you intend to speak, would you
raise your right hand, please?
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, good evening.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows presenting
Petition CU-97-6. This is for a conditional use "1" of the RSF-3
zoning district which is for a boathouse. The property is located at
-- on Dolphin Cove Court in Lot 10.
Petitioner proposes to construct a boat dock -- a boathouse with
a roof that's 12 by 40 feet long. The dock facility received a boat
dock extension in 1992. The boathouse will be approximately 14 feet
tall from the top of the deck.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on
April 3rd and recommended approval by a 7 to 0 vote. No letters or
correspondence for or against this petition have been received. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have no objection from the adjacent
property owner who I notice has his own boathouse?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot of them in the neighborhood look
quite similar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does this extend out to -- as I see this --
does this extend out to an open body of water? MR. BELLOWS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's not in a narrow canal?
MR. BELLOWS: It's not in a narrow canal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not going to block anyone's view to your
knowledge?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And does it comply with the standards -- the
staff is currently developing, but the Board has not yet adopted for
boathouses?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. It is in compliance with those
standards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Are there any questions for staff?
Mr. Peterson.
MR. PETERSON: I really don't have anything to add. I think
everything was covered.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that we will close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case, I will make a motion to
approve CU-97-6.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5, 0.
Mr. Peterson, tell them that you sweated it out all day and they
owe you double the money.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
Item 13(A)(2) was continued at the request of the petitioner.
Item #11A
BOARD ENDORSEHENT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR
FUNDING FROM THE STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANTS PROGRAM - APPROVED
WITH CONDITION
The last time we had not resolved the agenda item 16(A)(3) which
dealt with the sheriff's office.
I was wondering if you were ever going to show up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He went home and dinner first.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And he didn't bring any back for us. That's
two points off.
I had presented -- I had presented on this item a couple of
questions, and the main one being that there was some discrepancy
between the staff report and the presentation we had a little bit
earlier on are there vacancies currently that people would be absorbed
into?
MR. ROBERTS: I saw a tape of an earlier discussion --
COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir?
MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, for the record my name is Chris Roberts. I
am sergeant in the sheriff's office, and I currently supervise the
domestic violence investigators.
If I may just -- just go right ahead and answer a couple of your
questions that I think you had. One, this a new grant. It's not a
grant that we currently have that we're seeking to apply for here. It
would provide funds for an 18-month period to fund two investigator's
positions who would be assigned to the domestic violence unit and to
purchase Mosaic-20 software, which I don't know if you had time to
look through there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Filing software?
MR. ROBERTS: Right for domestic violence, but it could also be
utilized for public threats such as people that send letters to public
figures and so on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know how to sell an item, don't you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any bombs?
MR. ROBERTS: The -- I think there was some discussion about
overtime, and basically what we're doing now is we're providing the
same services. We only have three investigators in the unit. We're
already providing the same basic level of service here, but it's
costing us money in overtime, and, you know, of course, taking its
wear and tear on the investigators, you know, to have to work the
overtime.
And what we're looking at here is basically a win/win. For this
18-month period we're going to pick up the burden of that overtime
through this grant funding to relief the taxpayers of that burden, and
at the end of that 18-month period, you know -- it's my understanding
as I read through the thing, there's no -- you're not -- by agreeing
to let us apply for this grant, you're not authorizing the sheriff to
add two tax-dollar-funded positions later on. That's something that
be brought back up in the front of the board in regular budget request
if that was -- if we lost the grant funding after the 18 months or
whatever. That's something that would more than likely be continued
past that 18-month period based on, you know, the current public
opinion and everything of domestic violence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask you, are there currently vacancies
in the investigator's division?
MR. ROBERTS: No, sir, there no are no vacancies now. These
would have to be -- or these would be additional positions, basically.
There's no vacancies in the domestic violence unit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can the grant funds be used to fund overtime?
MR. ROBERTS: No, sir, they have to be for positions, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is that when I hear -- when I hear
a year or two years or three years, I think it's something that may
continue. When I hear 18 months, I hear seed money and get out,
because what they're doing is they're then coming up in the middle of
the funding year, so what are you going to do for the rest of the
year? Are you going to continue to fund the position until you come
up to the next budget cycle?
MR. ROBERTS: Right. I discussed that as well with Jean Meyer.
She couldn't make it back here for the meeting, but basically, like I
say, you're not agreeing to fund those positions after this grant runs
out. The sheriff, you know, of course, in his discretion at that time
would have the option of using both the positions, not necessarily
investigator positions, but open road patrol deputy positions that we
always have a couple open to fill these positions or to discontinue
the program and move the people that are hired for these positions out
into those vacant positions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was an important factor for me is
that I didn't want us to hire some -- hire a couple of people in the
sheriff's department, then if this money runs out and the Board of
County Commissioners says we're sorry, we warned you we might not
extend it, that we now are forced with firing, you know -- faced with
firing these guys.
What they explained to me is that they would be over-qualified
for road patrol and, therefore, would not be fired, they would be
shifted into other positions within the agency as he refers to it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I can just see the P.R. nightmare,
oh, the board doesn't care about domestic violence. Or we've had
these people -- it's been --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what they're going to say if you
don't approve this grant.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Either way, either way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do it now or do it later.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I mean, I just don't -- I don't
see the board -- I don't think at any point we have discontinued, and
that's the whole reason you brought this up a few weeks ago, and you
pulled it off today is I don't think at any point we have discontinued
something that we have funded or accepted the grant money for, so I
don't know that we should expect ourselves to do that two years from
now.
CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: I'm going to place a condition on this,
because you're right, we're going to get beat up one way or the other
on this.
What happens is over time -- Mr. Roberts, this isn't your doing,
but over time positions are created through grant funds, and the next
thing you know we get a budget and it says well, we're only asking for
four percent more than last year, and what's hidden in that is that
some position has been transferred from grant funded to ad valorem
funded. There's not any new positions, but there's a ton more money
required. And we just keep getting sucked into that, you know, like a
bunch of, you know -- well, anyway --
What I am going to do is if the sheriff's office is going to
apply for this grant, and if we approve that grant, I want to place a
condition on it that should the grant funds run out, that the
sheriff's representative will appear before this commission requesting
a budget amendment specifically for either the funding or reallocation
of those individuals.
What we're doing is we're going to take this and we're not going
to let it slide under the carpet any more. We're going to make them
come back to us for a budget amendment, because I don't want to be
paying the sheriff's office for people on the road and people doing
their job. I don't want to be paying the sheriff's office for
vacancies. So if there are a bunch of vacancies out there that's
going to give me the opportunity to be aware of that and see where --
how these people are going to continue to be funded.
So the only way you're going to get my support on this is if the
grant funds are terminated, that a representative from the sheriff's
office will appear before this board requesting a budget amendment to
-- to fulfill the funding requirement for those positions or to
eliminate them. I want -- I want a tag on this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to that effect.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. And if that's not
agreeable to sheriff, then -- then I think it goes out saying we're
probably not going to sign up on the grant.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I am going to oppose it only because I don't
think there's a way to follow up on it, and I think the intent is very
good, but I think it's going to be very hard for us to know or
remember 18 months from now or in a budget session two years from now
what these positions are and will depend solely on our memories, and I
just see that as a difficult place to be.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or on the sheriff's integrity that he will
comply with the condition if he agrees to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to mention the domestic violence unit is
pretty small, and when they come in this year for budget and there's
additional personnel, we're going to know why and we're probably going
to ask why, because it's a department. I remember when we formed that
department I said if we're going to do this, I don't want to create a
future monster. If you're going to out and find out you've got more
work than you can deal with and actually have doubled and tripled your
size, and I was assured by Judge Wilson that that would not occur.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am sure it will be a four to one
vote. The intent is excellent. I just don't know if we will have the
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Roberts is aware of our request and he
will make the sheriff aware, and we hope it will be funded.
We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(The panel members responded.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(The panel members responded.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a three two vote, but it still passes.
(Commissioner Constantine and Norris opposed)
MR. ROBERTS: What exactly do I need to do?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What you need as far as the grant, I am
not entirely sure, Mr. McNees, because the board has to sign up on the
grant; is that correct?
MR. ROBERTS: It's an application for the grant, you know. We
haven't the received grant yet.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need a written -- I would suggest that
we get a letter from the sheriff agreeing to this condition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Once the county manager's office or I or both
receive a letter from the sheriff indicating that he will comply with
what we have requested, we will then sign off on the grant as
appropriate.
MR. HcNEES: And we will have the budget office put some sort of
a tickler to remind us at 18 months to find out what's happening.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I am going to try to start doing this.
It may become harder initially, but then it's going to become second
nature, that these kind of things -- we have got to keep track of this
a bit better because there's this insidious growth. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A life of its own.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as long as we have got this
gentleman here, one of my pet peeves is I think the idea of raising
public awareness is good, but I hope we don't spend a whole lot more
money on street signs, road signs having to do with domestic violence.
MR. ROBERTS: This is -- this is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know this particular grant isn't for
that. I am just talking overall, because we do have a problem in the
county, and it needs to be addressed, and if we have different money
shortages, I would much rather see that go into investigators or
hands-on action rather than a sign saying we're not going to tolerate
that on the street.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to go home and get drunk and beat
my girlfriend, but since I saw that sign ....
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, now I'm not.
MR. ROBERTS: If I could -- if you would just repeat what I need
to get.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe you can get with the manager. Mr.
HcNees would be glad to get you that information. Thank you for being
here, Mr. Roberts. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, did you have something.
MR. WEIGEL: I was just going to say he could request a copy of
the minutes and/or an audio tape of this if he wanted to be able to
write it down himself and reread it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Sure. Okay. Mr. HcNees will help
direct him in that.
Item #14A
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT THE WILDERNESS ISSUE REGARDING THE HOTEL
SITE AND BRING BACK A REPORT ON HAY 6, 1997
We are to the section of BCC communications. Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a number of things that are quite
lengthy, therefore, I think I will wait until our next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One brief point, and the only reason
I'm bringing it us is it's time sensitive.
The Wilderness issue in the city, home owners -- and they have
probably already talked to you about that -- have brought up the
question, there are --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not my district.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They haven't brought it up to me, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, they may have spoken to somebody
here. I don't know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The original PUD that was approved by
the county calls for some particular action by the county before
anything can happen in the commercial sections of those. They have
some legal questions that their attorneys are doing. Because it's a
county issue, they have inquired as to whether or not we want to look
at that.
I wondered if we might ask the County Attorney at least just to
take a peek at that, talk to us week in some detail on it and maybe --
or two weeks from now when we get together and decide if we want to
participate in any way or not, and we may not. I am not suggesting
that this is a decision one way or the other, but at least have him
look and see is there a legitimate issue for the county here or not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I frankly can't imagine why there would be
when we have a piece of land that -- you're talking about the
Wilderness -- the hotel site that's been annexed into the city. We
might have -- I guess the only question could be are we going to
contest the annexation in some way, because if it's a city zoning
issue now and a neighborhood-specific fight, I think those are two
perfect examples of things we ought to stay out of.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Weigel may very well come back
and tell us that, but I just wondered if we could look, and I don't
know. I'm not that familiar with -- we haven't had too many
annexation things. I'm not that familiar with how that deletes or
negates requirements that may have been in the PUD, and if he could
look at that and just give us a brief report and we can say okay,
we'll keep hands off.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A good example of where that can apply is if
Pelican Bay were to incorporate, where and the county has certain
requirements in the Clam Bay system, they would then be inside a city
of Pelican Bay, so we have an interest. I think that's what you're
asking is was the zoning -- did the zoning attach something to the
county in some way that we need to investigate?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously if it doesn't, we don't want
to get involved, but if it does I just think we ought to be aware.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just, you know, not that we make
decisions based on the press, but I don't -- I don't want the press --
I have already been, you know -- been asked about this. They're going
to try to stir this into county potentially is going to sue the city.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want it to be clear that that's not what
you're saying.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The paper is trying to breed in animosity
between two bodies of government?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't happen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A representative from the paper asked
me that specific thing tonight and said well, what are you requesting?
And I said all I am requesting is that the board look at our attorney
and say gosh, is this appropriate or not?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will withhold our hate mail to the city.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just wanted to make that clear.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION REGARDING POLICING OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM PICKUP TRUCKS
IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
COMHISSIONER BERRY: You asked me if I had any information or
communication, and I lied.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry lied, headlines.
Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commission Berry jerky turkey.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right. It's all true.
I had received some concerns from some of my constituency out in
the estates, and they were concerned about pickup trucks of a
construction nature going down roads and items flying out of the back
of these trucks, i.e. paint cans.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Roberts works for the sheriff's office. I
think they're the ones that should enforce that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Paint cans, all kinds of paper debris, etc.,
etc.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Death penalty.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I decided that -- the push was that maybe we
should establish an ordinance, and I saw that as very cumbersome and
who's going to enforce it, etc., etc.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have one.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: All right. It's very hard to enforce.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it is.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: So what I did is I called Mr. Ward with CBIA
and asked him if he would convey a concern to the contractors and
subcontractors about this rather than get into all kinds of hassle,
and he did, and he even sent out a note, which I thought was kind of
clever. It is a picture of a truck with all kinds of debris falling
out of it, and he's asking them to kind of police their own ranks, but
I appreciate -- I think that's a case of being supportive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because the next step is outlawing
construction trucks.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, I don't want to get into that, but I
just wanted compliment that office in at least addressing this problem
and not making it another headache, perhaps, for the sheriff's
department to run around, you know, trying to pick up people when
paint cans come flying out or papers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this your styrofoam cup, buddy? Okay.
Spread'em.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're losing it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm gone. Do you know what I'm just going to
skip this over.
Item #14C
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENTED UPDATE REGARDING ISSUE OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
AND POTENTIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Hr. Weigel, anything from you?
HR. WEIGEL: Yes, two quick things.
10(C) today, the reconsideration item that the board approved 5,
0. Under the ordinance for reconsideration provides that it should
come back to the board at a specific date or it defaults to the fourth
meeting following, and with a hiatus, we don't want to default to the
fourth meeting.
I spoke with Dudley Goodlette on behalf of the petitioner. He
would like either the Hay 13 or the Hay 20th meeting. If you give a
nod either direction, then he will advertise -- readvertise for the
appropriate meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to give the discretion to the
county manager to put it on the appropriate agenda. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that, you know, because we're going to be
stacked up one way or the another. If we're real easy one meeting,
let's move it to another.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. And the last thing is you may have
noted or heard about animals, lots of dogs in the house and yard that
are being taken care of under the able animal control people.
Our office has assisted. We got involved in assisting and
preparing an information for the court so a warrant could issue, but
subsequent to that, state law kicks in, and chapter 828 provides for
the animal control person as an agent of the county to go forward to
file in court the appropriate -- it's a petition or really a complaint
to have the court make determinations about animals found in distress,
cruel treatment. The court may order to provide for the care and
humane disposition of the animals and order the owner to pay costs.
These are kind of normal things. They have, in fact, been done
over the years. But I thought with this rather large example before
you that this would be the one area where the County Attorney office
or staff don't come to you before, on behalf of the county, we would
be filing as a plaintiff rather than in a prosecutorial stance.
So I wanted to let you know that we are prepared to file in the
prosecutorial stance with this particular, allegedly egresses
situation and would ask that you understand that from time to time the
County Attorney may be asked by animal control to do these things. We
will review the facts very carefully. Review the statute as exists at
that time for application, and would always in a very judicious
fashion go forward, but not have to bring a formal board item, which
the delay could be a problem in the future. If you have no problem,
we will be filing on this one and would do so as a careful -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any board member want to register any
objection to that course of action.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: I wouldn't dare.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's been lovely, ladies and, gentlemen.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good-bye, everybody.
Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
AWARD BID #97-2645 FOR THE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION FROM
CLAM BAY TO NATIVE CREATIONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,000.00
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR BRIARWOOD, UNIT 4 - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR BOUGAINVILLAS, PHASE II - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "IVY POINTE" - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF
CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR FALLING WATERS BEACH
RESORT - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A6
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR VILLAGE WALK, PHASE 5-B - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT NINE" - SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "AUTUMN WOODS " - SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted
Item #1682
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ACCEPTANCE OF THE LITTER CONTROL AND
PREVENTION GRANT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE SOLID WASTE
DIRECTOR'S SIGNATURE
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING THE AUDITED FY 1996-97
CARRY FORWARD AND APPROVAL TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM RESERVES FOR ROAD
HSTD FUND 103
Item #1684 - Moved to Item #882
Item #1685
APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2642 WITH MASTERS GROUP,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,444.00, FOR CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING
Item #1686
APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK,
INC. FT 96-5, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $45,000.00, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO COUNTY-WIDE UNDERGROUND UTILITY HAPPING
Item #1687 - This item has been deleted
Item #1688
RESOLUTION 97-204 RE MAINTENANCE AGREEHENT FOR THOMASSON DRIVE BIKE
PATH FROM BAYSHORE DRIVE TO BAYVIEW PARK; RESOLUTION 97-205 RE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR OAKS BOULEVARD SIDEWALK FROM VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD TO IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846); RESOLUTION 97-206 RE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SIDEWALK FROM 25TH STREET SW TO
WILSON BOULEVARD AND RESOLUTION 97-207 RE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR
COUNTY ROAD 29 PAVED SHOULDERS FROM U.S. 41 TO EVERGLADES CITY BETWEEN
THE FDOT AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Item #16B9
AWARD A CONTRACT TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FACILITY, BID NO. 97-2644, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,444,000.00
Item #16B10
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; AND CONTRACT AWARDED TO BONITA GRANDE SAND
COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,250.00, TO PROVIDE BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND
FOR THE MARCO ISLAND T-GROIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Item #16Bll - Withdrawn
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 97-208 GIVING ASSURANCE THAT THE T-GROIN PROJECT ALONG
HIDEAWAY BEACH WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEP PERMIT
Item #16C1
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $53,000.00, TO PROVIDE
FUNDING TO RENOVATE THE INTERIOR OF THE GOLDEN GATE BRANCH LIBRARY
Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C5
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 97-209 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 97-210 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 97-211 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 97-212 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 97-213 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 97-214 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 97-215 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D8
AWARD BID #97-2653, SHALL LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT AND SHALL ENGINE
EQUIPMENT PARTS AND SERVICE TO VARIOUS DEALERS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D9
TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO PURCHASE CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.175/LB OR
$117.50/TON FROM PB&S CHEMICAL COMPANY UNTIL SEPT. 30, 1997
Item #16D10 - This item has been deleted
Item #16Dll
ACCEPTANCE OF A MODIFICATION TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS
AND ASSISTANCE (EHPA) BASE GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DCA AND COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 97-216 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D13
RESOLUTION 97-217 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D14
RESOLUTION 97-218 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D15 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D16 - this item has been deleted
Item #16D17
AUTHORIZATION OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL
PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK TO RECORD SAME
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS
Item #16D18
AUTHORIZATION OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FILED AGAINST REAL
PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK TO RECORD SAME
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
APPROVE THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16H2
NOTIFICATION OF THE RECEIPT OF MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE 1996
ACCOUNTING OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS AND THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE
CLERK OF COURTS
Item #16H3 - Moved to Item #11A
Item #16H4
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE INTEREST REVENUE EARNED IN
FUND 115
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 97-219 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROPERTIES AND OWNERS OF CERTAIN PARCELS THAT
ARE DELINQUENT IN PAYING THEIR PAVING ASSESSMENTS
Item #1612
RESOLUTION 97-220, CWS-97-1, HWS-97-1 AND GWD-97-1 DIRECTING THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON DELINQUENT WATERAND/OR
SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY TRACI L. BRANTNER, DAWN M. BREEHNE AND DEBRA PETERSON