BCC Minutes 05/20/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 20, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
ALSO PRESENT:
Hike HcNees, Interim County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney
Ron Nino, Current Planning
Robert Hulhere, Current Planning
Barbara Cacchione, Comprehensive Planning
Edward Finn, Public Works Operation Director
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
Tuesday, Hay 20th, 1997, meeting of the Board of Collier County
Commissioners. This morning, it's a pleasure for the invocation to
have Reverend Fred Thorn of the Golden Gate United Methodist Church
with us.
I'm going to ask Mr. Thorn to honor us with an invocation this
morning, followed by a pledge to the flag by Mr. HcNees. REVEREND THORN: Let's pray.
Father God, we thank you for this day that you have granted us,
the beauty of it, and the beauty of your love, and of your spirit
within us. We thank you for those who will be awarded certificates
today of appreciation for the medical service -- services that will be
set aside a week, Hay 18th to the 24th, for the others who will be
involved in the awards, and for the decisions that are to be made, we
ask your blessing to be with those who make them, give them some of
the wisdom of Solomon and help them to know all that they do they do
under your guidance.
We pray in your dear name as we think of you and think of your
love. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Reverend Thorn, for taking the time
this morning to be with us, we appreciate it, and showing a little
familiarity with the agenda there. I was impressed by that. Good morning, Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
We have but one change for you this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: That is the continuance of Item 8 (C)(1). That's
the discussion of the city/county beach parking agreement. We're
asking that you continue that until June 24th after the City can hold
a workshop that they have scheduled. They discussed this item
yesterday and came to no conclusions, and we're going to give them
another opportunity to talk about it before we bring it back to you
for decision.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the Board's information, I received a fax
from Dr. Woodruff and spoke to him this morning on that matter, and I
think that's the best course of action to take since our staffs are
still working together on the issue.
Any other changes, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: That would be it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'kie, do you have
anything?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have nothing today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Something under BCC Communications regarding
the House Bill 1319. We just need to maybe take some action on that,
if you could add that, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If we're going to take action, let's
put it under BCC Item 10 --
MR. HCNEES: Ten (B).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be 10 (B).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is House Bill 13197
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's Article 5 funding, I believe.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right, and they're asking for our support.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have one addition -- I'm sorry. Did you
have something, Commissioner Hac'kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I did.
I need to make a note for the record that I have a conflict as I
am on the consent agenda of plat, it's Item 16 (A)(6), so my vote will
include an abstention on that vote. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Thank you for using the word abstention.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A little slow this morning.
I do have one add-on, the discussion of the county manager
employment agreement in finality this morning, I'm pleased to say.
I assume that will be 10 (C), Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chairman, with that, I'll make a motion
we approve the agenda as amended and consent agenda. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(All commissioners say aye.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, it carries four to zero.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 24, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Commissioner Norris did notify me he would be about 15 minutes
late this morning, so we can expect him shortly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
approve the minutes of the April 24, 1997 special meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING DONNA GENE BARTON - EVERGLADES SCHOOL, RYAN
DOSEN - NAPLES HIGH SCHOOL AND APRIL HULLENS - BARRON COLLIER HIGH
SCHOOL AS RECIPIENTS OF THE AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're to 5 (A), proclamations.
Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure this
morning -- when I formerly served on the School Board, we always said
that these were some of the fun things that the Board got to do, and
it's equally so here, I believe.
This is a proclamation for Awards of Excellence, and if I could
have the following students please come forward; Ryan Dosen from
Naples High School.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll ask you to come on up front here and --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Donna Gene Barton from Everglades and April
Hullens from Barton Collier.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come up here.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Come on up here and stand in front of us and
turn around and face the cameras.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say, hi mom.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to read the proclamation, and then
we have a copy for each of you when we're finished. If any of the
three of you would like to say something, you're certainly welcome to
do so.
The proclamation reads, whereas, there are many ways in which
high school students demonstrate that they are serious, hard working
and concerned about the future of our community; and
Whereas, these qualities are especially well demonstrated in the
level of achievement displayed in environmental research projects they
accomplish; and
Whereas, this year Waste Management of Collier County has began
the Award for Excellence program to provide graduating high school
seniors with a $1,000 scholarship award for achievement on an
environmental science project; and
Whereas, the manager of Waste Management has announced the
recipients of the Award for Excellence.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Donna Gene Barton,
Everglades School; Ryan Dosen, Naples High School; April Hullens,
Barton Collier High School are recipients of the Award for Excellence.
Done and ordered this 20th day of Hay 1997, Timothy L. Hancock,
chairman.
I move this proclamation, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Berry will present you with the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Congratulations and thank you.
Donna, congratulations.
April, congratulations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I believe we have a presentation.
Mr. Bigelow, I turn it over to you.
MR. BIGELOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a short few words to say that, on behalf of Waste Management,
we appreciate you allowing us to be here with you today to recognize
these outstanding seniors.
Donna Gene, as we said earlier, is a native of Everglades City,
and she will be going to college somewhere in Tennessee, and she plans
to study math and law. The name of her project, I think of interest,
was the process and development of waste water treatment.
Ryan, on the other hand, attends the Naples High School. He's a
senior there. He plans to attend the University of Miami. He plans
to study audio and electrical engineering, and his project was water
quality testing of drinking water throughout Collier County and other
communities in Florida.
April Mullens, our senior from Barton Collier, is planning to
attend Edison Community College and then enrolling at the Gulf Coast
University, and she plans to enter the education field, and presently
works at the YMCA.
And we just thank you for allowing us to recognize these
outstanding seniors today.
While we're presenting their awards and their certificate and
their $1000 scholarship for the use for their education, I might just
say a few words about Awards for Excellence.
It is a program that Waste Management is -- has throughout
communities in the State of Florida to recognize and get more of our
young people involved in environmental and community projects, and our
hope is that this program will continue for years to come and that
we'll have, just literally, hundreds of seniors involved in
community-wide and environmental projects. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bigelow, on behalf of the Board, we'd like
to thank you and Waste Management for showing a level of interest,
concern and support for the outstanding students we have in Collier
County. I think this is a fine way this Board has to recognize the
youth we have in this community that we can all be proud of.
And to each of you, I wish you the best of luck. Congratulations,
and I think we owe you all a great round of applause.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: If I might add a note, I think there are
very proud parents that are here, and if we could just ask them to
stand, and I'd like to thank them because without their support, a lot
of these things don't happen.
So, if they would stand, we'd like to recognize them as well.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it's tough to top that, but our next --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the coolest award.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING HAY 18 - 24, 1997 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next proclamation is, I think, the reason
everyone wants to be chairman, is the opportunity to recognize these
individuals we have with us this morning.
If anyone's feeling ill, it's a good day because the room is
covered.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're safe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have, first, a proclamation that Ms. Filson
has somehow buried. There it is. A paper war going on at my desk.
Ms. Diane Flagg is here.
Diane, if I could ask you to come forward for the reading of this
proclamation first.
For those of you that are unaware, may have been sleeping over
the last few years, Diane runs our Emergency -- our EMS, Emergency
Services Department. I'd like to read the following proclamation.
Whereas, Emergency Medical Services is a vital and irreplaceable
public safety service; and
Whereas, the paramedics of the Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Department are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in
need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
Whereas, access to quality emergency medical care dramatically
improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden
illness or injury; and
Whereas, emergency medical services providers have traditionally
served as the safety net of America's health care system; and
Whereas, the paramedics of the Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Department engage in thousands of hours of specialized
training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills;
and
Whereas, members of this community benefit daily from the
knowledge and skills of these highly-trained individuals; and
Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the
accomplishments of the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department by designating Emergency Medical Services Week.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 18th
through 24th, 1997 be designated as Emergency Medical Services Week,
with a special emphasis on encouraging the people of Collier County to
observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies and
activities, and it wouldn't hurt to say thanks if you see one of these
men and women in the field.
Done and ordered this 20th day of HAy, 1997, Timothy Hancock,
chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(All commissioners say aye.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is also a pleasure this morning to ask
Captain Thomas White to come forward.
Captain White, it is your turn to be duly embarrassed, sir. If I
could ask you to stand here to my left.
Captain White has served Collier County as a paramedic for 10
years. His dedication and commitment to world-class patient care and
service have led his colleagues to appoint him and select him as the
1997 paramedic of the year, and among the fine men and women we have
in EHS, it is truly an honor to be selected as the top dog in that
organization.
Captain White, it is my pleasure this morning to present you with
a plaque in recognition of your achievement as Paramedic of the Year
for 1997.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And before continuing with the individual
recognition of many of our paramedics with the Phoenix awards, we have
two citizens in this community that have shown in an outstanding
manner that put them head and shoulders above what most of us would do
on a given day or a given time.
On February 1st, 1997 -- before I continue, let me ask Mr. Danny
Sanzeta, I'd like to ask you to come forward and be recognized.
Mr. Sanzeta is here also on behalf of Mr. Charlie DeLoach. You
may have remembered reading about these two fine men and something
they've done, and I'd like to go ahead and take the opportunity to
convey to you what occurred on that day.
On February 1st, Mr. Sanzeta of Marco Island and Mr. Charlie
DeLoach of Everglades City were involved in a fiery, four-vehicle
accident on US 41 East. Despite their serious injuries, the two are
credited with rescuing a Naples resident from a vehicle that exploded
shortly afterwards.
The EHS Department submitted their heroic deed to the National
American Trauma Society and they were awarded the National First
Responder Award in Washington, D.C. this past week. They are the
first Naples, Collier County residents to receive a national rescue
award and in recognition of their heroism and selfless act, I have a
plaque to present to both of them. Before doing that, I think what
Mr. Sanzeta and Mr. DeLoach did embodied the finest in the human
spirit, and we can't do enough to recognize the unselfish efforts of
these individuals.
Mr. Sanzeta, I know you're here on behalf of Mr. DeLoach also,
and I will --
Ms. Flagg, are we going to have Mr. DeLoach's plaque for him
here?
Okay, I'll present Mr. Sanzeta with his.
Mr. Sanzeta, on behalf of the Board of Commissioners and on
behalf of the individuals and citizens of this community, we stand in
recognition of your heroism today. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, if I may, I'll give you and the
community a brief background of the Phoenix awards, but first let me
recognize two members of our EHS advisory council.
Mr. Bob Laird, if you could stand, and also Dr. Fay Biles, if you
could stand.
These are members of the community that participate with the
Emergency Services Department in helping us better serve the
community.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: The Phoenix is a mythological bird that died and rose
to renew from his ashes, and it was adopted by the Emergency Medical
Services Department to recognize the paramedics who, through their
skills and knowledge, brought back the victims of sudden death, and
brought them back to life.
And I have a young man here, a Mr. Austin Elliott.
On September 14th --
Austin, you can come forward, honey.
On September 14th, 17-month-old Austin Elliott, who is now two,
was pulled from a pond of water not breathing and without a pulse.
Bystander CPR was begun and EMS paramedics responded to the scene and
initiated advanced life support. Today, young Austin and his family
will present a Phoenix Award to the EMS paramedics who saved his life.
Paramedics, if you will come forward as Mr. Elliott reads your
name.
MR. ELLIOTT: I would like to call Tim McGeary, Bernice Jones.
MS. FLAGG: Next one. She was unable to make it.
MR. ELLIOTT: Captain Sue Lemay, Commander Paul Wilson.
MS. FLAGG: And he apparently is on call also. Unfortunately,
our business never stops.
Young Austin, thank you, and good luck to you.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: The next is a -- on April 30th, a three-member team
of EMS paramedics, Tim McGeary, John Smieca, and Marco Island
firefighter Ken Alford responded to a Mr. Daniel McLinden, who was
having a heart attack and minutes later died. Rapid intervention by
these paramedics resulted in bringing Mr. McLinden back to life.
Joined by EMS Captain Sue Lemay, Mr. McLinden was transported to
Naples Community Hospital and is here today to present the Phoenix
awards to his rescuers.
MR. MCLINDEN: Good morning. My name is Dan McLinden, Marco
Island resident for 21 years. My daughter, Huffy.
A cardiologist in Naples Hospital leaned over and said to me, I
have some news for you, he said, you died five times in 40 minutes. I
said, it's impossible. He said no, it isn't. The reason it is
possible is because of these people. The knowledge, the
professionalism, the care, the concern. I don't remember what
happened. My daughter will fill us in on that, but when I say thank
you, it comes from the bottom of my heart.
(Applause.)
MR. MCLINDEN: Mr. Tim McGeary, John Smieca, firefighter Ken
Alford and Captain Sue Lemay, please.
(Applause.)
MS. MCLINDEN: I just have something short to add.
How do you thank someone for saving your father's life? When I
saw that ambulance with my father on a stretcher, his heart wasn't
beating, but my heart broke. I ran towards him only to be told by Tim
for somebody to grab her and get her out of the way. Needless to say,
I was hysterical. He did that, though, without losing his train of
thought, and thank God he didn't.
You kept working, determined not to let him go. I kept
screaming, and you didn't even get distracted. You knew that my heart
was breaking, but more importantly, my dad needed all your attention
because his heart wasn't beating.
With a quick glance before you took him in the ambulance, only to
lose him a few more times, you knew you had to get him to the hospital
as soon as possible, and you just made sure that I was okay, and that
I could get up there.
My mother and I arrived at the hospital, and you got my dad in to
those people who needed to see him as quickly as possible. You were
truly professionals and then, all of a sudden, you became people to
me. You turned to a family whose hearts were just torn out of them,
and you gave us information, caring and comfort. You kept checking
back that day and the next day, filling us in on all the things that
the doctors weren't letting us know all about, but that you guys could
get the inside info on.
My dad is here today because of the perfect way that you
performed your job, and for that, I thank you, my mother thanks you,
my sister and brother and his three grandchildren that really love him
thank you.
We've got to go; we have to go to cardiac rehab.
(Applause.)
MR. MCLINDEN: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Should have worn the waterproof mascara today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I have the honor of presenting the
remaining Phoenix awards to many of the men and women of our Emergency
Medical Services Department, the stories you've heard today could
probably be retold time and time again as each of these individuals
comes forward to accept their Phoenix award, and I think this
community's recognition and gratitude for each of you can only be
understated because, as much as I said to a law enforcement group last
week, we leave our house every morning knowing that in the great time
of need, you'll be there for us, and that level of comfort is
invaluable. The services you perform, in addition to that, are truly
heroic.
I'd like to present the following Phoenix awards and ask you each
to come forward and stand up here and remain standing until we have
all the honorable men and women that are here today to share these
awards.
Lieutenant Mike Acosta, Jim Bialkowski.
For those of you that I butcher your name, I duly apologize.
Juvert Calero, Lieutenant Richard D'Orazio.
And Lieutenant D'Orazio has two of them coming.
Commander Steve Epright, Patrick Feron, Lieutenant Marty Ginter,
Enrique Gonzalez, Kenneth Haberkorn, Lieutenant Richard Humberger,
Dave Joseph, Captain Sue Lemay.
You're going to need a bigger wall, Sue.
Lieutenant Charlie Morningstar, Mark Fuller.
And Mark, apparently, had an active year, has four Phoenix awards
today.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Lieutenant Paul Passaretti, Marlo Pikul,
Leonard Pull, Lieutenant Kevin Potter.
I love the fact that it's getting crowded up here.
Catherine Warren, Lieutenant Eric Watson, I believe a former
paramedic of the year; Eva Weeks, who, when I was riding with the
Sheriff's Office, got an infant out of a car.
We won't tell them how, Eva. That's a whole other thing.
Lieutenant Scott Warner, Jeffrey Coat.
And Mr. Coat, Mr. Daffin is unable to be here, wanted to express
his gratitude just the same.
Firefighter Ray Lemacks.
Again, Mr. Daffin expresses his gratitude to you, sir.
Flight medic Frank Millot, flight medic, Ricky Garcia.
Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great honor to present to you
the recipients of the Phoenix Award and the pride of this community
from the Emergency Medical Services Department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Men and women, thank you. Congratulations.
I'd just as soon end the meeting now on that note.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel like I'm in a church.
Item #5B1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are on to Item 6 (A) next.
MR. HCNEES: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five (B)(1), Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have one service award this
morning, and we have an employee who's been with the County for five
years, currently serving in information technology, Mike Leeds.
(Applause.)
Item #5C1
CANINE SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAM OF SOUTH FLORIDA PRESENTATION BY RENEE
BARGET, DIRECTOR AND STEVE DONOVAN, TEAM MEMBER, TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONRES AND TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN APPRECIATION
FOR ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING VHF RADIO EQUIPMENT - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 5 (C)(1), under presentations, we have
from the Canine Search & Rescue Team of South Florida, a presentation
by Renee Barget, director, and Steve Donovan, team member, to the
Board this morning.
As I was walking in, I saw a fine specimen of an animal with a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Couple of attack beagles.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like you to tell the dog that Commissioner
Norris referred to him as a beagle.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This one is Norris.
MS. BARGET: Good morning. I'm Renee Barget with Canine Search &
Rescue of South Florida, Inc., and I have my dog with me today,
Freida. This is Steve Donovan, who's also a member of our team, with
his canine, Happy. Also with us is Terry Weaver and Batty Liebowitz.
We're here today to present the County Commissioners with a
plaque, and Diane Flagg with EHS, as a thank you for the retired radio
equipment that was donated to our unit just recently.
Radio equipment is very important to our search and rescue
services, and the amount of equipment we received, we can't thank you
enough. This makes a big difference in the way of searches for us.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
Ms. Flagg, could you come forward.
Could you do me a favor and bring the two animals out here so
everyone can see them? They're great looking dogs.
MR. DONOVAN: Not a beagle, though. He takes offense to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As well he should.
Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
MS. BARGET: Thank you very much.
MR. DONOVAN: Any kind of information you need --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DONOVAN: Thank you, if you pay the vet bills, okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those of you that were here during
Hurricane Andrew, it's these individuals and their efforts that in
that type of an event will mean so much more to this community than we
can envision today.
The information I've just been presented, I'll be asking that we,
as a public service element, put it on Channel 54 to let people know
more about what you do, about what services you offer, and any needs
you have that the community can help you with.
On behalf of the Board, thank you for your work.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right now I want a dog, but I'll get over it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get over it. You've got a kid, that's
enough.
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION BY THE STAFF AND NEW UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, HITCH FLINCHUH, REGARDING EXTENSION SERVICES WITH COLLIER
COUNTY - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 5 (C)(2), presentation by staff of the
University of Florida District Director, Hitch Flinchum, regarding
Extension Services within Collier County.
HS. PLANTON: Good morning, Commissioners. We're going to ask
that as soon as people safely exit, the lights be dimmed so that we
can see a slide presentation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please.
HS. PLANTON: Hy name is Denise Planton.
Well, I couldn't focus this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I went to glasses a couple weeks ago, but they
don't seem to be helping.
HS. PLANTON: No, they're --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's much better. Little more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give a hint what it's a picture of.
MS. PLANTON: It's a picture of a truck for people who are
technically astute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is the I.T. Department when we need
them?
HS. PLANTON: I'm going to remove this lens and try to re-insert
it and see if that's it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Backwards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then the picture will be about this big.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. PLANTON: There we go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. PLANTON: Ta-da.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
MS. PLANTON: Now you can tell. Am I on now comfortably? Great.
More than 50 years ago, service began in Collier County through
the Cooperative Extension Service. Shown here is Mr. Don Lander, our
first county director, who was housed in Everglades City. He's the
gentleman sitting in the truck, by the way.
Good morning, my name is Denise Planton. As your county
extension director for seven years, it's a pleasure to take this
opportunity to share with you, first, who's involved in extension
programs and what they think about it. Next, what the impact of our
current programs is, and finally, through Dr. Mitch Flinchum, our
district director, a few examples of extension programs in other
counties.
First, I'd like to introduce through testimonial, Mr. Bob
Linderberry, and this is a quote from him.
As past chairman of the Extension Advisory Council, I had the
opportunity to work with staff in the development of county programs.
This slide shows three of the major volunteer networks that serve the
people of Collier County in the areas of home horticulture, home
ownership and youth development. Collectively, these three networks
alone provided 10,000 hours of volunteer service last year, which is
equal to five full-time county employees. It has been my pleasure,
says Bob Linderberry, to volunteer 142 of those hours as a master
gardener.
The second testimonial is from Sam Colding. He says: I don't
think that there is any community project closer to my heart than 4-H
Youth. As county tax assessor, I had the opportunity to see Collier
grow and develop into what we have become today. I know the
importance of tending the growth process, and as a member of the 4-H
foundation, I have participated in raising private sector funds to
support the efforts of county staff and volunteers.
The next testimonial is from Bob Cook, better known as the Naples
fertilizer plant doctor.
Lush and tropical can barely describe the horticultural quality
and quantity that is ours in Collier County. I find the expertise and
support of County Extension faculty invaluable. They keep area
professionals updated on the ever-expanding knowledge required to keep
Collier green and assist in identifying and addressing potential
threats, such as diseases in palms and turf. That was Bob Cook.
This testimonial is from Joel Wintenhall.
The Collier County loan consortium partnership with your
Extension Service has exceeded expectations. As a charter member, I
was pleased to present you information in February regarding our
success. The partnership continues to grow stronger with additional
banks and additional funds committed making home ownership affordable
to working families in Collier. That was Joel Wintenhall.
This testimonial is from Kerry Vanmeter, a local beef cattle
rancher.
I have benefitted tremendously from the information and expertise
available from the University of Florida through my local extension
office. Ranching is a way of life for me and my young family.
Learning things like improving the health of my cattle and the proper
way to establish quality pasture and keep it free of exotic weeds have
helped me maintain a unique lifestyle in one of the most rapidly
growing areas in the United States. That was Kerry Vanmeter.
You probably all recognize this lady. This testimonial is from
Donna Fiala.
I am a believer when it comes to what Extension can do with a
group of concerned citizens interested in improving their community.
As a graduate of the Naples East Learn to Lead Program, my group
continues to work on developing a sense of pride by working towards a
community center that will give us a place to work on the problems
that confront us and celebrate our successes.
I'm now going to move into the impact of our program, and in
these slides, I'm going to discuss some of the types of programs that
we do in the area, on the left, and then move to the specialist
support that we receive from the University on the right of the slide.
Collier County taxpayers have more than 1.5 billion dollars
invested in their lawns and landscaping, according to the tax
assessor's records. Extension programs such as master gardener
volunteers, exotic removal projects and the Florida yards and
neighborhood program, as well as the weekly newspaper garden page,
help residents protect their investment. As important is the health
and safety procedures required while using pesticide and fertilizers.
Current information on the proper handling of pesticides is critical
for home gardeners and the County's 1,200 landscape licensees, since
the mishandling of these chemicals could result in the poisoning of
people and pets. Protection of our water supply through proper
application of fertilizer guards against such problems as Hangrove
die-backs, fish kills and algae blooms.
The University support in this area comes from the horticultural
sciences, entomology, water quality and quantity and solid waste
control.
Livestock and range management programs provide science-based
knowledge to a diverse audience interested in animal husbandry.
Participants range from beef cattle ranchers to pledger horse owners,
to backyard poultry enthusiasts. They learn new ways to improve
animal health, reduce fertilizer and pesticide use and control exotic
weeds.
Extension also recently helped establish a new cash crop in Saw
Palmetto fruit production. Sale of fruit on more than 100 thousand
acres of native range is now valued at more than 2.5 million. This
new source of additional employment extends wage earning for
agricultural workers in June and July. Keeping this 100 thousand
acres in native range preserves valuable habitat, maintains lands in
private hands and on the tax rolls. Specialist support for these
programs include animal science, agronomy, wildlife and range science,
Ag economics, weed and soil science.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Planton, I'm going to have to interrupt
you for a second. These are all areas we have had some exposure to.
I'm a little concerned we're receiving an advertisement for an
upcoming budget decision in your presentation. I assume Mr. Flinchum
is here to discuss the role of the University of Florida, how it can
be either changed, increased, expanded, or to introduce himself to us.
This is really a rehashing of current programs, and I just don't think
this is the appropriate place for that.
MS. PLANTON: Okay, I'll skip this slide and move immediately to
the next one, which is his.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. PLANTON: If I may introduce using this one. This slide is
meant to depict the relationship between the Board of County
Commissioners and the University of Florida, linked together to form
the County Extension Service to serve Collier residents and serving as
a solid foundation to help resolve problems affecting the people of
the county.
At this point, I'd like to introduce Dr. Hitch Flinchum, and
serve as his slide projector person.
DR. FLINCHUH: Thank you, Commissioners. I'll be brief.
I just want to reassure you that I am the district director now
here in District 5, and I am permanent. We do want to assure you that
we're trying to give you all the services based on
scientifically-based agriculture human and natural resource knowledge
that -- let's have the slide with the -- showing the partnership here.
I'd like to show you an estimate of the breakdown we have here in
Collier County. This is from total, actual and in-kind funding, so
you see we are certainly a three-way partner here with your county,
and the volunteers of our organization play a large, large part in
helping us to disseminate the information that is needed or presented
in this county.
Denise, the next one.
This allows you to see that we have an office in every county,
and we have 20 research stations. We have four research stations in
this district to help support all the county faculty, and it's from
this networking base that we can provide the services and the
opportunities to you for the people in your counties through the staff
in this county.
One of my perspectives as the director is to see many programs in
other counties that might be carried out in your county. This is one
that has been going on now in Palm Beach County for about a year
formally. It's an excellent program. It's called Palm Beach County
Growing Tours. It's an economic endeavor to bring more money to the
county through tours through the agricultural industries and the other
industries associated.
Some of the other programs in other counties, for example, Monroe
County, our faculty member there is being recognized in July
nationally for receiving recognition for an excellent program in
invasive exotics. This is something that you may also consider
important to your county.
There are numerous other programs that we could go on talking
about. Some of the Florida yards and neighborhood programs along the
East Coast, I helped establish, around the Indian River Lagoon, and we
pull funds from the Department of Environmental Protection, as well as
a national estuary program for that. So we are not only using money
that we get from the counties to do these services, we're trying
always to get other grant funds to carry out the programs for your
counties.
Those are just a few of some of the programs. The way we're here
to support, we're bringing the University of Florida expertise to your
doorstep. The way you use it is entirely up to you, and we hope that
you will take advantage of this partnership.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Flinchum.
Let me take the opportunity to do two things, first of all is to
recognize the significance of the Ag program at the University of
Florida. It's clearly the best in the state, not just a depository
for information, but provides benefit to our agricultural community.
The other thing is that, as you know, the Extension Service has
been around for a long time. As we come in and out of office, and our
predecessors will, the level of familiarity with how that relationship
can be grown and how it can be grown in such a way that it benefits
this county the most, is something that's probably the toughest to get
a hold of.
As we go through our budget deliberations this year, I personally
will be looking to you and maybe asking you to help us prioritize
where can we get the biggest bang for our buck in the Extension office
and help us with what things either are not offered that should be, or
are offered that that money could be diverted elsewhere to have a
greater impact. That's a critical review that I think our lack of
familiarity with the Extension office doesn't give us the chance to do
because there is so much going on, it's very hard to get your arms
around it.
DR. FLINCHUM: I will certainly make myself available to that;
that's part of my job. While I can't tell you what you need in your
county, we have to work together on these things, but if you define
needs, I can certainly help tell you how we might be able to fulfill
that need through the specialist support from our research stations
and the University campus.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Couldn't ask for more.
DR. FLINCHUM: Thank you for allowing me the time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Flinchum, thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, you did have one person registered on
this item if you want to hear that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not experience that we typically have
speakers on presentations. Am I recalling that incorrectly?
Let's call that individual under general comments. Presentation
is information for use of the Board. I don't see a reason to have a
public debate on it, but certainly under general comment, that can be
done.
Item 6 (A), analysis of changes to reserves for contingencies. I
don't see any follow-up on that. Okay.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 97-246, GRANTING SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO THE SHOPPES AT SANTA
BARBARA PUD, AT WHICH TIME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD TO TAKE PLACE -
ADOPTED
We'll go to 8 (A)(1), staff review and Ordinance 8962, Shoppes at
Santa Barbara.
Good morning, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners.
Ron Nino for the record.
The Shoppes at Santa Barbara is the PUD located in an activity
center at the northeast corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis
Boulevard. This PUD, in the opinion of staff, contains all of the
development commitments that we think are appropriate for this
project. We don't -- we can't think of any additional commitments.
If we had our druthers to look at this as a new petition, we can't
think of any additional commitments that we would ask this developer
to agree with.
This PUD defers to current standards of the land development code
with respect to landscaping and as much as it's silent on the issue of
architecture, but nonetheless, as a provision, it says we're silent,
the land development code prevails. Therefore, the only issues that,
in the opinion of staff, that might be outstanding, are lists of land
uses. The land uses are consistent generally with the C-4 zoning
classification.
We advise you this is an activity center; therefore, those land
uses are consistent with blue. We recommend a two-year extension to
this PUD. We think that it's contemporary in it's structure, and it
wouldn't look much different if it came back as a new PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly that all the
commitments made by the developer, and all he's asked for as far as
rug cuts or landscaping, all those things, are fine. I do have a
question, though.
That area has changed dramatically since 1989 -- in '89 the
Countryside was brand new, they were just rolling out the golf course
at the time and wasn't much else out there. As I look at the list of
C-4 uses, there are a number of things or uses that are under this PUD
that are consistent with C-4 uses. There are a number that I'm not
sure are appropriate with what is now an upper-middle class stretch of
community, and I wonder if you might not review auto part stores, car
washes, including storage installation, car installation-type things,
electrical supply stores, lawn mower stores, power mower stores,
fraternal and social clubs, self-service laundries, liquor stores,
night clubs, private clubs.
The vast majority of what is in here is fine. There are a number
like that, though, that I don't know are consistent with what has
grown up with that area in the last eight years.
MR. NINO: All of which uses are an integral part of a shopping
center type environment.
I thought you would have picked marinas, perhaps, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask a couple of questions on those car
washes.
Does that say that it has to be enclosed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe it does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's one that -- auto parts store anymore,
you know, there's --
MR. NINO: Another retail store.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, they're almost retail-oriented in the
way they look, so that one doesn't bother me.
What was the others? You mentioned electrical supply stores,
lawn mower, but that doesn't -- no outside storage is allowed here, is
it?
MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everything has to be contained within a
building?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fraternal organizations, private
clubs, nightclubs, self-service laundries.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, we've talked about bars and
nightclubs in the past. Maybe we need to decide where they can go
because we keep talking about them, but we have one example, is, what
is it, Ridgeport Pub, in the plaza there, it seems to fit pretty well
there, do okay there without a lot of problems. The businesses next
to it don't have a lot of damage or -- I mean there's not --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it doesn't create problems, so there are
some places it's better than others. You know, we may need -- if
we're going to restrict that, and I've been one to advocate that at
times, we may want some additional guidance on that because I've kind
of turned the corner on shopping centers that I think it's not a bad
idea to have them in there because their use times are very different
than the shopping center. B.T. Boomers is another example of one that
occurs in a shopping center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It depends on its proximity to residential
neighborhoods. I mean, there's a shopping center near me that I'm
very grateful doesn't have a bar and grill in it, you know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that's a good point,
because Ridgeport and B.T. Boomers have -- they're on long commercial
strips, and my concern is you look across the street from this
property, you have Countryside, you look the other way, you've got
three or four developments all going in. You've got Naples Heritage
going in. I just want to make it, as it's built -- and I think this
is part of the reason we do the sunsets is as everything builds up
around it, we ought to review and make sure it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have a proposal for us today, then?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just suggesting maybe a handful of
these uses should be removed or that we should send staff away to
research that, come back in a six-month period and see if we can come
to an agreement with the developer, owner, whatever.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're asking the petitioner to voluntarily
remove what you would consider the more noxious uses?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Ninety percent of these uses
are fine. There are just a handful that raise the question; the
nightclubs, private clubs, fraternal clubs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, that requires a full amendment
procedure, if I'm not mistaken, so that's one thing we kind of miss in
this process is we don't have the ability to administratively alter,
even if the petitioner agrees in a minor fashion, these PUDs, it goes
back through a full amendment procedure which, if we need to do,
great, but I just -- I guess I try and save that for the more material
changes, and I'm just wondering if these are significant enough, and
if they are, if they're significant enough to warrant a full
amendment --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd submit to them the neighboring
residents would refer to them as enough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other comments for staff?
Speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: Not registered. I believe you have a petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a representative of the owner?
MS. CAULEY: Good morning. I appreciate -- Barbara Cauley with
Wilson, Miller, here representing the owner of the property.
I appreciate your concerns, Commissioner Constantine, however, I
also appreciate Mr. Hancock's comments that in order to take out a few
minor uses really to go through the entire PUD amendment process is a
rather expensive and onerous process. The development commitments in
here are on line with what the County would require. The -- the PUD
is in compliance, full compliance, with your growth management plan
and your LDC. We will be following architectural control standards as
required, and it's a very expensive process to go back through for,
you know, to remove car washes.
I think we could probably get assurance that that's not something
that is planned for that site. The site also is not surrounded by
residential development at this point. There is nothing to the north
and --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, whether it's development --
some of it is, and some of it is not, and whether it's developed or
not, it's very clear what is going to be there. We're trying to plan
here --
MS. CAULEY: Well, I believe there's --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my comment.
MS. CAULEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we're trying to plan is for the
future, not merely for what's there today. MS. CAULEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, Ms. Cauley said well, we'd
be glad to make a commitment, what's the way to legally bind them into
making that commitment short of going through the PUD process? MS. CAULEY: Can we do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I really don't -- I'm not aware -- maybe Ms. Student
has a comment, but I'm not aware of anything we can bind them to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A developer's agreement occurs to me, it's
only, what are they, five or 15 years or something, Marjorie?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's let the attorneys finish.
MS. STUDENT: It's been quite a long time since I looked at
developer's agreements and to alter the PUD document we would have to
go through the whole process our land code provides for that. I think
that there may be some other mechanism that we could look into which
would -- it wouldn't alter the PUD document itself, but could bind
them. I'm not sure what --
MR. WEIGEL: Back into the contract law aspects as opposed to
the land development code, PUD revision aspect is that I have some
concerns about having a binding agreement or commitment that would
come either by verbal indications on the record or even a contract
that we put forward because the PUD document is the operative document
for providing for the ability to develop a particular property, the
fezone and that which goes within the particular kind of fezone that a
PUD is, and I really would have significant concern about a separate
agreement attempting to be enforceable and when push comes to shove
when the PUD goes forward later.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my point, I guess. The Board
needs to decide if they agree or not, but if they do, we need to do it
right, not just say well, we'd be happy to make a commitment other
than through PUD.
MS. CAULEY: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll ask you to hold on for a second.
Commissioner Norris had something.
Did you want to ask a question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is my question, is what can we do
outside of a PUD amendment to do this, and if we have a letter or
developer's agreement of some sort, is that going to be binding on
heirs and assigns, because the property could be sold and that
agreement might go out the window?
MR. WEIGEL: The agreement could be written that way, but I
really don't see any particular consideration that comes into the
process here. Our review today and ultimate determination of the
Board based on the agenda before it is to extend for two years or not,
if they don't then certain things just occur or can occur by the
nature of the action we take today concerning the PUD ordinance
itself, but I really, again, have a concern, or I should say, I'm at a
loss to say with any kind of certainty that an agreement that's
reached, even if it's brought back to the Board and signed off by both
parties, has enforceability based on the fact that there is -- there
is no -- there would be an argument that there is no consideration by
the County on this item.
MS. CAULEY: I do have a question. I understand that there is
one out parcel that was not owned by this -- my client on this piece
of property, and I understand currently a car wash may be actually
being built there. I don't know if that's the case or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it might be planned for there '-
MS. CAULEY: There may be a planned car wash at that location
already with a gas station and a -- so I'm not sure that we're going
to be solving anything by -- by doing this is my concern here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is this is an unintended result
from a good idea, and we go back into these PUDs, and I think Mr.
Dewayne brought one back, tried to bring one back, because after
looking at the cost of going through the whole procedure to just
remove this, that, and the other, it caused him concern, and that's
when I started to look at it again.
I guess we have two options here. I don't disagree with
Commissioner Constantine, there are some uses in here that if this PUD
came before us today, probably wouldn't include in there, I think the
Board would feel fairly comfortable doing that and that's really what
we're being asked to do by residents of the community. Look at how
they match today's standards and today's quality questions that we are
forced to deal with.
We have to do one of two things here. We're either going to
require this to go through an amendment procedure for removal of
specific uses, and I think we need to be specific about those today,
or their potential is to table this item and direct the County
Attorney's office to develop -- there's got to be what I'll call a
friendly amendment position if the petitioner and the Board are
willing to agree on the amendment to a zoning document in a mutual
fashion, there should be no need to go back and reinvent the wheel,
and that seems reasonable to me, maybe it's counter to law, I don't
know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even if -- we could do something like that
even if it required time and it just went through on the consent
agenda over and over and over. I mean, that would be possible without
a long, involved process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm looking for the middle-of-the-road process
for these that meet the development standards but may have a point
here or there versus those that are way out of whack. Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, let me ask a question on this
specific one. I agree that we need to maybe get a procedure for these
in general.
On this specific one, Ms. Cauley mentioned there may be an
application for a car wash on this property currently. To your
knowledge, is there any application at all on this?
MR. HULHERE: Not to my knowledge, but I can't say that with any
level of certainty, I haven't looked, but I would be happy to do that.
I'm sorry, for the record, my name is Bob Hulhere.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My concern would then be if there was
something perhaps planned, and we don't take some definitive action
today, a delay or something, then an application could be filed '- MS. CAULEY: Excuse me, it's on property that's not on --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Cauley, I'm talking. Can you wait
until I'm through, please?
MS. CAULEY: Yes, sir, I can.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That way we would not have control, we
would lose control if we don't do something today, so my suggestion is
that we take some sort of definitive action today one way or another.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To clarify that, I believe, Ms. Cauley, your
client was saying that this -- that car wash is on property not under
ownership?
MS. CAULEY: Not in this PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, adjacent to nearby, or something like
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we can't plan our action on
something that might be planned.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree.
Mr. Hulhere, do you have --
MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to add that we do have two amendment
processes. Any PUD that requires a language change, which this would
by removing certain uses, any such change does have to go through the
PUD amendment process, but we do have a minor PUD process, and then
the full-blown PUD amendment, which gets through the entire review,
something that's fairly minor, and there is a different fee structure,
I believe a minor PUD amendment is a $1,300 fee.
We don't obviously, as I'm sure you're aware, the true cost is
not what the County is charging for a PUD amendment, but what's being
charged necessarily by a consultant. And I think that's where, you
know, Mr. Dewayne, when he brought his back, he was concerned, his
client was concerned that the cost of making a minor amendment to have
someone do that for them was so extensive, but, you know, we certainly
are not unwilling to expedite that review process for a very minor PUD
amendment. There's certain advertising time commitments that we have
to meet, but we're not going to send the document out for a full-blown
review to all of the different review agencies simply to remove a use
from it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's already been done by the sunset
process, if I'm not mistaken. We have already done a full review,
and we have on the record saying it's consistent with what we have
today --
MR. HULHERE: Right, very minor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and if there are exceptional uses, that
obviously seems a minor amendment. Commissioner Mac'kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just exactly on your point, Mr. Chairman,
is it's not fair to create a new process as we review a PUD under an
existing process, in my judgment. We've identified a problem. We
need to go back and come up with a solution to it, but it's not fair
to impose it in the middle of this process. You know, they've met the
guidelines that we've established, as our staff told us they've met
those guidelines, they're consistent with them. We may want to ask
staff to come up with something creative to give us an alternative
when we see these small items that we'd like to be able to change, but
midstream on the spot in today's hearing, I don't think that would be
appropriate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to disagree with you.
They've met development guidelines, our staff has said, and I agree
wholeheartedly, they are doing that, but the uses are what are in
question, and, again, as I said, I think that's an important part of
the whole Sunset provision is to review on what was approved in 1989,
the community has changed dramatically in eight years, those uses may
or may not be appropriate in 1997.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before you get to your list, Mr. Hulhere --
MR. HULHERE: I have another thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those can be dangerous.
MR. HULHERE: I shouldn't -- to be honest, Ms. Cacchione
suggested this so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if it bombs really bad, Barbara, you're the
one on the seat.
MR. HULHERE: But the suggestion is that we could, and we haven't
talked to the County Attorney, but I think this has been done in the
past, that a resolution could be approved directing and then staff
could then prepare the PUD amendment, the minor PUD amendment, to
remove some specific uses, some very minor uses. Of course, I would
suggest that the applicant would probably have to agree to that, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest for today that we not -- I
think that's reasonable but we've identified a problem. Let me
suggest for today that we just take a straight motion on this PUD to
either include changes or not include changes, see if it flies with
the majority of the Board, if it does, we'll direct staff to proceed
with the minor amendment process unless the applicant has, you know,
wishes to contest an element of the Board's direction. I don't see
any other way to go today, but I would suggest to staff that we work
with the County Attorney's office to determine what course can be
taken for these types of minor changes, and maybe we already have that
in place, maybe your point is correct, and the $1,300 fee is only a,
you know, a part of the overall cost if you are hiring consultants and
professionals in the field.
Commissioner Constantine, you've been visibly circling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. The Board's responsibility
under the Sunset amendment is two-part, one is to deal with
development guidelines, and that is transportation, ingress and
egress, landscaping, architectural standards and so on. The second is
-- the second part of that responsibility is to deal with the uses,
and clearly they are meeting the first of those two, the ingress and
egress off Davis and off Santa Barbara is still appropriate.
According to what Mr. Nino has told us, the landscaping and
architectural will be up-to-date whenever it's developed, but the
second half really is a concern.
There are a handful of uses in here that are not appropriate. I
will submit to you the following list, working my way backwards.
Under Item 15, private clubs; under Item 13, nightclubs; under Item
11, self-service laundry and liquor stores; under Item 6, fraternal
and social clubs; under Item 3, car washes; under Item 1, automobile
service stations, and that classification obviously 9.8 has to do with
repair and so on as opposed to simply fueling.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So under automobile service stations
you're saying it's okay if it's for fueling but not with repair?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under car washes, those are usually ancillary
to new service stations because they're enclosed, if we remove that,
are we removing that as an option?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if we're differentiating
in our code where they're enclosed or where they're not, I know that
some of the bay sprays is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can't here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what I had in mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would suggest maybe car washes unless fully
enclosed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question on liquor stores, the retail
sales of liquor typically is fairly an innocuous use, it's when
consumption is on premises I think you're trying to target; am I
correct?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So liquor stores, I don't think there's a
problem with, provided it's -- you hit on nightclubs and private clubs
with regard to bottle on-premises consumption.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right, I have no objection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I personally, like I said, I point to
Ridgeport as a way that can be done appropriately. I don't feel as
strongly about it in this location, but you know the area better than
I do.
Fraternal and social clubs, probably not going to have a Masonic
lodge on site anyway so I don't see that as a problem.
Are there questions or comments on any of these items?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've corrected automobile, we've
corrected car washes and we put back in liquor, we'll just have
private clubs, nightclubs, self-service laundry and the social clubs
removed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Car washes will be modified to --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You don't want a self-service laundry?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was wondering what that was.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I kind of question that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, the hours of operation on some of
those and the coin-operated machines and so forth, you know, it
depends on the area you're in, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's -- I guess we have something on the
table here.
Ms. Cauley, do you have anything to add at this point, other than
out of frustration?
MS. CAULEY: No, just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Laundry's off the list or on the list?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has been removed --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: On or off?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Off the cut list.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, self-service laundry has been
removed from the PUD in this motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
MS. CAULEY: And it's my understanding we're going to try to come
up with a process that will allow us to do this in a minor amendment
fashion?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I understand is we have two things
available to us. That is certainly an option because I think you have
six months to do the amendment, Mr. Nino, so if that can occur in that
time frame, great, otherwise it's a minor amendment process according
to Mr. Hulhere that you would go through.
MS. CAULEY: That the County staff would initiate for us? It was
my understanding that was an option? I'm sorry, I wasn't sure what
the final --
MR. NINO: I believe what you're saying is that the amendment
that comes back to you in six months will be handled under the minor
fee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, minor fee and minor process.
MR. NINO: The process is the same.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that we've done a lot of review
already.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason I fashioned the motion that
way is -- the objection is three or four of the uses we don't want to
cause government bureaucracy or government difficulty along the way.
Whatever the most efficient and least expensive way for us to achieve
that end is how I'd like to see this proceed.
MS. CAULEY: Can I suggest then, or ask, would we not have to do
a PUD to PUD, then, it would just be a structured PUD document where
we aren't trying to change anything else?
MR. NINO: I would think that it would be '-
MS. CAULEY: I'm trying to understand the process.
MR. NINO: a PDA otherwise '-
MS. CAULEY: A PDA.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's how the '-
MR. NINO: Once you're doing a PUD to PUD, we may as well update
all of the language.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not what's intended. Let's do this.
Do we have any other registered speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead, and I'll ask that this be
crafted in a form of a motion and get staff direction from that point.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Can I just ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I've looked over this list and where does
this list of things come from?
MR. NINO: This list, Chairman Berry, comes from our
predecessors' zoning, Ordinance 8022, where we alphabetically spelled
out the uses, however, this use is, for all practical purposes, the
same, but only in a different context using standard industrial code
classification references.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Essentially C-4.
MR. NINO: Essentially C-4.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay, I guess the reason I question it, when
I look at this list, the chances of having some of these things, first
off, some of the terminology is so outdated, in my mind, that there,
in a million years, I don't think you're going to have some of these
things.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's an issue of timing. When this PUD was
originally written, our zoning ordinance read like this.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Even back in 1989, Mr. Chairman, I doubt
very much that you're going to have a furrier shop. I mean, this is
what I'm reading here, and that's the reason why I wanted to know
where the list came from. Is this a standard list that comes from
someplace, possibly up North?
MR. NINO: It was the list that said where the C-4 uses in
Ordinance 8022 which expired or was repealed in 1990 when we adopted
the new land development code and changed the reference system to the
land development code.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Because it sounds --
MR. NINO: I'm sure you could pick up the standard industrial
classification manual and find the code for furtiers.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm sure you could, it just seems like
that in Southwest Florida, it's probably not the most appropriate, I
mean, that's not the only one, hat cleaning and blocking, I'm going to
rush right out and take advantage of that one. That, the market might
control some of these, and we don't need to do the bureaucracy --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm thinking.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's kind of what I'm coming from, and I
understand Commissioner Constantine, I'm not argue with him, that's
not my reason for bringing this up, but as you peruse this list, it
just seems like some of these things are, I mean, I can't -- I can't
believe in a million years that some of these people would do -- even
consider some of them, and I just wondered how they got here, if this
was something that was developed within the county or does this come
from a standard list, and you've answered that question, so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the standard list under S.I.C. code still
includes the obviously stupid and unattainable, but it's just hitting
better so it doesn't look so bad, quite frankly, it's still in there.
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But, anyway, S.I.C. code is a standard that
the whole nation can use so it can speak from one code to the other,
from one community to the other, so it's still in there, it's just
hitting a little better.
Commissioner Constantine, I believe you were on track to framing
a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we give
staff direction to use the six-month period to work with the
petitioner to bring this back in as simple and efficient a manner as
possible to simply remove fraternal and social clubs, self-service
laundries, nightclubs and private clubs, and to correct car washes and
automobile service stations in accordance with your comments earlier
in this conversation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second, any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four, one.
Thank you. Hopefully the next few items will go a little bit
quicker.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 97-247, ESTABLISHING A PERMIT FEE FOR SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS
LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PROVIDING FOR A SIGN REMOVAL
REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT - ADOPTED
Item 8 (A)(2), approving a resolution for establishing a permit
fee for special event informational signs located in public
rights-of-way.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Wayne Arnold, planning --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, did you feel a great need to make
a presentation this morning?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
COHMISSIONER HCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I'll call to question, all those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Thank you for bringing that
back, that's something we had dealt on a few occasions.
Item #8A3
CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF A REQUEST TO
ALLOW FOR ALATE FILING OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - APPROVED
Next item, Item 8 (A)(3), consideration by the Board to request
to allow late filing of a Comp Plan Amendment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is this
-- let me make sure I check a couple things with Ms. Cacchione.
This allows filing only, this doesn't in any way guarantee of
approval from the Board, but it clears up a bureaucratic process that
would otherwise slow down private business for 12 to 18 months.
MS. CACCHIONE: The filing -- for the record, my name is Barbara
Cacchione. The filing deadline is the fourth Friday in March. This
does not change the process, the amendment process, it would allow it
to fall into this cycle.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask my questions again.
If we do this it allows filing only; is that correct?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second question, this doesn't in any
way guarantee or indicate approval from this Board '- MS. CACCHIONE: No, it does not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or approval upon any level. And
third is, if we don't do this, then the private parties who are
applying have to wait between -- until next process -- MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which is a year away.
MS CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this privately funded, the fees were paid
by a private property owner?
MS. CACCHIONE: The fees will be paid by the private property
owner, we have not accepted the petition because it's up to the Board
to grant whether we should allow the filing or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, that was my concern. I thought we were
somehow putting ourselves in a position of filing this on behalf of a
property owner, and it's clearly a private property question for --
really, to, you know, assist at least initially one entity.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is one of those rare ones that
I'm almost 99 percent sure that Commissioner Hac'kie and I will be in
agreement that government should get out of the way and let private --
as long as private business is willing to pay for it, let them do
their own thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only question was, will there be any --
will it cost us anything in staff time?
MS. CACCHIONE: Just the normal staff time that is paid for
through the fee that the petitioner submits.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the fact that it's late doesn't add
any cost to that?
MS. CACCHIONE: It can still be worked into the cycle and we're
not going to have to start a second cycle for this one amendment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
MR. HCNEES: You have one registered speaker.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question here. I understand what
you're asking but why is it coming in conjunction with a request here
to do this? I think if you want to change this, it would be much
cleaner if you want to change the policy of having this particular
process allowable. I mean, you're telling me, if I understood you
correctly, what you're asking for is to let the Board or be able to
have this process go forward, in other words, be able to make a late
filing.
Am I correct?
MS. CACCHIONE: There is a resolution adopted by the Board that
provides for filing deadlines. This request came in after the
deadline and staff cannot grant that because of your resolution, so
we're bringing it to you for your decision as to whether we should
accept this petition and process it in this cycle.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Has this ever happened before?
MS. CACCHIONE: I was trying to recall that. I think it may have
happened one other time before, but I just -- I can't really remember
that well, to be honest with you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: What message does this send to other people
out there that -- I mean, could you conceivably have this go on
throughout the year?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think there would be a point in the process
where it would be too late, when we have our public hearing set up and
our public hearings for this process are not set up until October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we haven't lost any public hearing levels
by doing this?
MS. CACCHIONE: This will be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was my question.
MS. CACCHIONE: This will be the same exact process that every
amendment that was filed in the end of March will go through and
public hearings are set up in October, so where the impact would come
is if we get requests too late to be heard in the advertised public
hearing at that point we may have to --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, let's just assume what if there are
others out there who might have wanted to have done this same thing
but knowing that there has been a deadline, everybody knew, for the
most part people that are involved in this business know that there
are deadlines; am I correct?
MS. CACCHIONE: I would think so, but, you know, I can't -- I
don't know that everyone is actually aware of that deadline. If they
call and ask questions, we inform them that there are deadlines for
filing. But I couldn't swear that everybody would be aware that there
are deadlines.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm really uncomfortable with this only
because it has come about with a request that we're looking at here.
Now, I understand it still has to go through the process to come back
in front of us, that's not what I'm debating, but I just find this --
I would -- I guess I would -- I would feel much more comfortable if it
was straightforward, if somebody was coming to us and saying, you
know, would you consider a policy change in allowing the late filing,
but I'm troubled with this in coming in regard with this -- coming in
regard with this request, you know, I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have -- we do have the ability to allow
for a late filing, and that's what this request is being made within.
I had a very similar -- investigated similarly to what Commissioner
Constantine stated. I was looking at what is the County's role in
this, is this person being able to circumvent anything by making this
request, and what I received basically as I looked at it was, no,
they're not getting out of anything or less anything. Apparently some
action occurred that this property owner, you know, realized the need
for this past our filing date. I think itws a situation of if we say
no to this request, wewre basically saying youwre just going to have
to wait. Your question of, does it mean that the deadline is not
important, no, it doesnwt. I donwt see that at all because there is a
point in which it is too late and we have sacrificed some level of
review. This is different than something we initiate. If we, as a
Board, initiate it, itws a little different. This is a private
property owner, so I understand your concern, but the rules should be
held hard and fast, in my opinion, when they make sense.
When this particular request really has no material effect on our
ability to review or the publicws ability to comment, and all wewre
dealing with is a deadline we set through ordinance just to have a
course of action throughout the year, I donwt see material weakening
by this action.
Is that what your concern is that wewre basically obliterating a
deadline saying itws not important, you can ask any time?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I mean, all somebody has to do is come
up and pull some of the commissionersi chains and, you know, weill
consider it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Iim not sure anyonels chain has been pulled
here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know, but it gives -- you get this
feeling.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I had the same concern because this is a
powerful developer in this community and is this some sort of a fix
and all this kind of stuff. Itls real simple to me, my vote is based
on the answer to Barbarals question, and it would be the same question
every single time anybody had the sense to come in here and ask and
that is, is this going to cost us a nickel, is this going to cost us a
minute, is this going to do anything to slow down the process? If the
answers to those are no, Iill grant them every time theylre asked if
it doesnlt cost us a nickel to get out of the way of private
enterprise. If it costs us a penny, then Iim not going to support it,
but if private enterprise has an idea and we can get out of its way
without any extra effort, then I donlt care whols asking, Iim not
going to penalize him because hels an important developer either.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thatls not what -- that wasnlt my point in
this whole thing at all, Ms. Maclkie. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All I was concerned about was that we were
jeopardizing a rule we have in place here. I donlt care who the
individual is, it doesnlt make any difference to me. If the rules are
pretty clear, and I understand theylre very clear, I was concerned
about this. If this does not jeopardize the position and the rule in
the future, then I donlt have a big problem with this, but if there is
something where it makes it very flimsy, then Iim concerned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Cacchione, you indicated earlier
that if someone called and asked when the deadline was, you would tell
them.
MS. CACCHIONE: Thatls correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They had every opportunity to find out
when the deadline is. If that same person called and asked if there
was a mechanism to get into the process despite being tardy, what
would you tell them?
MS. CACCHIONE: I would say that would be up to the Board of
County Commissioners and they --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But is there a mechanism? Yes, go to
the Board of County Commissioners. We're not creating a mechanism
here, there is a policy in place, and we're being asked to exercise
that. We can or we can turn it down, but we're not creating anything
new.
MS. CACCHIONE: I might also add that the resolution that governs
this is in process, we are in the process of amending it. I didn't --
we weren't going to amend it for this cycle because we had already
started the cycle, but the truth is, the date could be moved back some
in terms of the time frames for filing. We're thinking of moving that
date for filing back to June because it would allow a broader window
there, and since we do not have the public hearings till October,
which is based on our A.U.I.R. and the C.I.E., we have those time
frames pretty well set for that annual cycle so what I'm saying is we
probably could accept amendments up until June and not impact the
process, and that's the resolution that we have in the works right now
to bring to you, which we were going to bring to you for the next
cycle since this cycle had started.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You are working on something?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume that's why there's discretion
given to the Board is that if it's a couple weeks late, it probably
can still work for staff, if it's three months late, it's not working.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we've spent a lot of time on a
procedural question, really. I don't even -- didn't even get into
really the application because we're going to have the opportunity to
do that in the public hearing process, but it sounds like we're
dealing with procedure.
You said we had a registered speaker, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: We do, Mr. Chairman. Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, and we
request that you reject this request for two reasons. One, that there
is no demonstrated urgency for this type of industrial designation in
an agricultural and rural area; and, secondly, there is significant
acreage left within the urban boundary for various industrial
purposes. Therefore, we think that there is no urgency to do this.
We understand there is a process, and we appreciate the process. We
do side with Commissioner Berry in terms of there is a process and by
accepting this type of request, it does make deadlines lax and
somewhat casual. Therefore, we ask that you reject it and that it
enter into the normal cycle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I don't think the sky is falling by the
Board doing this, and I do take exception to your second comment. If
there were significant industrial inventory in the urban area, the
E.D.C. wouldn't have recommended that we expand it because business
owners cannot find quality industrial area in the urban area, so your
second statement is not supported in any way, shape or form by fact
from the E.D.C. or from our own staff on industrial lands. So I don't
know where that information came from.
MS. PAYTON: It came from staff. I had a meeting with staff when
I saw this on the agenda and discussed that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's why government doesn't build industrial
complexes.
MS. PAYTON: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's why government doesn't build industrial
complexes. We don't have enough inventory.
MS. PAYTON: They peak inventory. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note
again, and make it very clear for the record, that my concern was over
the procedure and not over this particular item because -- and plus, I
don't want to jeopardize a future hearing that we will have on this
and at that time, we will deal with the concerns that I believe Ms.
Payton spoke about; am I correct?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, and that's the point, I'm not going to
hold this up for that argument.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That argument will come down the road. This
is a procedural question, we do have the ability to do this. It's
already stated supported by staff, this is not harmful in any way to
the process.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Already motioned and I already
seconded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize, I forgot about that.
We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 97-248, SETTING JUNE 24, 1997, AT 9:00 A.H. IN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CHAMBERS, FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT ROLL (NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL) FOR THE NAPLES PARK
AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED
Item 8 (B)(1), I tell you what, we only have a few items left,
but let's go ahead and take five minutes and give a break to the court
reporter and reconvene quickly so we can get through the rest of the
agenda.
(A brief recess was taken whereupon proceedings resumed.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Going to call to order the Hay 20th meeting of
the Board of County Commissioners.
We are on Item 8 (B)(1) in public works. The Board is being
asked to adopt a resolution to set the date, time and place for the
public hearing on the preliminary assessment roll for the Naples Park
area drainage improvements.
Mr. Boldt, good morning.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning, storm management drainage.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Boldt.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion we approve the
resolution fixing the date of June 24, '97 at 9:00 a.m. here at the
Board chambers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that would be to recognize and set the
roll for the project that came in on schedule and under budget, if I'm
not mistaken.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be one.
MR. BOLDT: I need to add one item for the record. There was a
refinement of the cost and there was a slight change in the dollar
values you see in the resolution that is summarized real well on Page
3 of your executive summary. The construction cost $374,142 was
increased by $255, and the figure under the financing over 15 year
went up by $470. That was just a refinement the engineer did during
the last run. It just makes a real minor change in pennies, but as
noted, the project did come in on time under budget, and you're
invited tomorrow to a dedication at 10 o'clock in Naples Park on
Eighth Street and 109th, at which time, we're going to give
recognition to the team effort that made this thing successful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those of you who won't be there tomorrow,
I do want to recognize Mr. Boldt has really developed, I think, a
model for dealing with construction projects, he and Mr. HcNutt, the
way in which they did advance notice of property owners to be affected
on everything from their landscaping to -- it was just incredible, so
I think it was done in a model manner, and if you're wondering how you
dedicate a storm water management system, I'm going to have to ask you
to wait until tomorrow, but it will be interesting.
We do have a motion, did we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second, any speakers on this, Mr.
HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What a nice thing.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
Mr. Boldt, again, thank you, we'll look forward to seeing you
tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. at 99th Street and Church, is that it?
MR. BOLDT: Eighth Street and 109th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eighth Street and 109th.
Item #882
RESULTS OF RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION HSTU SURVEY - STAFF RECOHMENDATION
APPROVED
Okay, Item 8 (B)(2), Radio Road beautification.
MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Edward Finn, public
works operations director. I'm just here to report on this and get
some direction from the Board regarding any ordinance changes, if
necessary, and to prepare a budget. In general, the results were in
favor of the beautification effort. Approximately 63 percent of the
respondents were in favor of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I believe, wanted to
interrupt you for a something.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I believe we can probably cut
to the chase here. Over the past year, I've spoken with literally
every single homeowner association at least twice in regard to this.
They're beautifying Radio Road and then paying for it themselves. We
did the ballot to all the property owners who would be responsible for
paying. Sixty-three percent, they were in favor of project, 63 would
like to have an advisory board, which the initial resolution did not
include, but that's consistent with all our other beautification
districts, Lely, Golden Gate, Marco and so on, all have their own
little advisory board. The one that's not as clear is the option to
increase the millage to one for up to a three-year time frame while
the other two items have a clear mandate with nearly two out of three
votes, I think this one is tight enough that we might want to pass on
it and just go ahead and put the long-term project into effect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is what millage at what time frame?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Up to one-half mill, the entire
project would be completed probably over six years.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There would be an advisory board in place
as part of your proposal?
MR. FINN: Correct. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At some point, if the rate was slow enough,
they could always ask the Board and we can do a survey again to
determine whether or not an increase in millage once the process is
started so we aren't locked into that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That leaves the option open for them
if they wanted to increase it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm pleased to see the response of 40 percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not primaries in September.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They care more about beautification than who
sits in these chairs, isn't that a wonderful thing? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything else you wish to add, Mr.
Finn?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir. The direction we're seeking is to bring
back a budget for you in this budget cycle as well as to bring back
the necessary ordinance provisions to create an advisory board for
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. Any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call in question, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
Mr. Finn, thank you.
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 97-249, RATIFYING AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY
FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN THE RECRUITMENT AND
RELOCATION PROCESS FOR THE POSITION OF PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, AS
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - ADOPTED
We are to Item 8 (C) -- I'm sorry, 8 (E)(1) recommendation to
approve a resolution ratifying and improving the expenditure of county
funds for specific expenditures, quite wordy there, incurred in the
recruitment and relocation process for public works administrator, Mr.
-- I'll just ask, quite frankly, does any member of the Board have
difficulty with what's been presented them?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any
discussion?
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you need anything in particular?
MR. HCNEES: That's my item. Yes, that's my Item 8 (E)(1). I
just want to clarify on the record, staff made an interpretation that
your policy which states an employee is allowed one overnight
house-hunting trip that you feel like the interpretation that we are
making, which is that doesn't just mean one night, but one trip, which
could be multiple nights at the discretion of a manager, that you
ratify that as an appropriate interpretation and we'll proceed forward
with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't find a house in a day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's so many nice ones.
I think with a notation that this particular application was done
in a very reasonable fashion and was not in any way overboard, so I
think with that, yes, I would agree with that interpretation.
Do we have a motion and a second on that? Is there any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #9A
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE MARCO ISLAND
YHCA, INC., REGARDING FUNDING WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS TO
REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT EXCESS REVENUES BE REIMBURSED TO COLLIER
COUNTY - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're to Item 9 (A),
recommendation to amend the Collier County, Marco Island, YHCA
agreement regarding funding of tourist development taxes to remove
requirement for excess revenues to be reimbursed to the county. Ms. Ashton.
MS. ASHTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Heidi
Ashton, Assistant County Attorney.
This item is being requested by the YHCA. You previously
approved an agreement on February llth, 1997, and that's for $120,000,
and that is for the event, this is not just for the promotion and
advertising. The YHCA has indicated that this is a fund-raising event
for the YHCA therefore we're asking for a deletion of Section 13,
which deals with the reimbursement of grant funds if they show an
excess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I spoke to the event organizers on this and
made a clarification to them that Ms. Ashton had the opportunity to
review, and I believe correct, and that is that the grant is $120,0007
MS. ASHTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They must show expenditures that are in
coordination with their application of $120,000 or they have to return
the balance of that money. In other words, they can't only spend 90
of it and take the other 30 as money for the event. So they will have
to show receipts for appropriate expenditures to meet up to that
$120,000 or they will be required to refund that money. However,
proceeds of the event in excess of the cost to operate are not to be
reimbursed to Collier County.
Is that the crux of your request?
MS. ASHTON: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have a motion and a second, any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-250, EXTENDING THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION AD HOC TASK
FORCE THROUGH HAY 7, 1998, AND APPOINTING/REAPPOINTING MEMBERS -
ADOPTED
Item 10 (A), recommendation to extend the Lake Trafford Ad Hoc
Task Force through Hay 7, 1998, and re-appoint and appoint members.
Mr. HcNees, do we have a staff member on this item or is this
just being asked for Board direction?
MR. HCNEES: We don't have a staff member on the item, we do have
staff members represented on that task force. I believe, Commissioner
Berry had this item put on the agenda, but we do have staff involved
in this process and it has been ongoing, and we would certainly
recommend that you extend the term.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion approved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We did have a question, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection but I'm
just curious, can you explain what was the purpose of the extension?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: First off, it's going to be a mutli -- they
have come across the idea it is going to be a multi-year project. In
fact, they're probably going to be coming back next year and ask for
even another extension because it is going to be a multi-year rather
than a one-shot deal in one year.
Mr. Fred Thomas had hoped that he would be here, he called me
yesterday and said that he was unable to be here, but wanted to
explain to the Commission the multi-year project, and that was part of
the reason for the extension.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor. Is
there a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Mr. HcNees, anything to add?
MR. HCNEES: The only thing I would add is you recently, I
believe it was last week, approved some applications for permitting,
for dredging, and that sort of work at Lake Trafford, and this is
consistent with that direction you've already given just keeping this
task force in place to follow through on the project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, thank you.
Have motion and a second, any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10B
SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL #1319 - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT LETTER OF
SUPPORT
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're to add-on Item 10 (B).
Commissioner Berry, regarding Article 5 funding and cost at the
State level.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This just came as, I believe all of us got a
copy of this, and it's just said that they needed our blessing for
House Rule 1319, and wanted our support because it's important that
the governor signs this particular bill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I must have gotten a copy of it if we
all --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just got it yesterday, Pam, so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was from Florida Association of Counties,
we have a Article 5 task force, an F.A.C., which is pursuing -- Dade
County brought to light probably the largest Article 5 shortfall. The
State was funding its Article 5 responsibilities, we would not be
using local tax dollars to do it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No doubt. This is the court's, basically.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's one element of it, but it runs all the
way through our law enforcement division and so forth. It's basically
saying -- asking the State to step up to the plate as it should have
in the first place rather than making law and passing the cost on to
the local communities.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: F.A.C. has really done a good job on this.
How effective they'll be is limited, I'm sure, by the fact that we're
asking the State to create a new funding source for something they
will have to pay for. The likelihood of that happening, I think, is
nominal, but we need to support it just the same, in my opinion. So,
we're looking for Board direction to support the F.A.C. position on
this and ask Mr. Weigel to draft a letter doing just that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Communique.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Communique, is that French for letter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a joke.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make that a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion, is there a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Ms. Hac'kie.
Motion and second, all those in favor signify
Almost lost it just on the communique there,
Item #10C
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY MANAGER'S CONTRACT - CONTRACT APPROVED AS AMENDED;
COUNTY MANAGER TO BEGIN EMPLOYMENT ON JUNE 9, 1997
Item 10 (C). I'm pleased to announce to the Board today that
with one change I have had discussions with Mr. Fernandez and we have
come to agreement on the employment contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I took it as the good sign when I saw
him in the room.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, the fact that he's here probably means
he's not here to tell us he rejected the contract out of hand.
What I want to do is, and I'll pass these out to you, I have one
for the court reporter also, the change is minor, it has no physical
impact on the county whatsoever, but I thought meshed quite nicely
with some other changes the Board made. It's on page two of nine in
the contract where the Board made a substantial change to what I
discussed with Mr. Fernandez regarding severance on the eventuality
that the contract will be allowed to expire without termination
proceedings. We had a 90-day notice in there. The elimination of the
severance upon expiration of the contract was of concern. I think Mr.
Fernandez presented a reasonable scenario to me and the fact that
Commissioner Hac'kie, we are doing the review at the midpoint of the
contract, six months prior to the expiration, we discussed and came up
with a mutual change to increase that notice to 180 days instead of 90
on allowing the contract to expire, and, again, there would be no
severance paid at that time, but I thought that was reasonable, that
at the time of review, would be a good time to tell him we're not
going to renew the contract instead of waiting 30 days and potentially
altering that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the only -- if I can read this and
understand it, that the change is at the six month -- at the last --
the review period, the six month review, at the last year, in the
fourth year, we would say we're either going to not renew or we're
going to renegotiate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What if we say we're going to renegotiate
-- then he will or won't get severance if we are unsuccessful in our
renegotiation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Consistent with what the Board determined last
time, if it's inside of that 90-day window instead of that six-month
window, then the severance would kick in. So that has not changed,
that is consistent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Need a motion to approve the contract?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I need a motion to amend the
contract to, on paragraph B, to read 180 days instead of 90.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I'll ask that that change be done
as soon as possible.
And Mr. Fernandez, if I could put you on the spot and ask you to
step up to the podium here. This was not anticipated nor warned, but
I wanted to confirm a couple of things with you since you took the
time to be with us today.
We had originally discussed a June 1 start date, and with this
change in the contract, I'd just like to give you the opportunity to
formally address the Board in the acceptance of the contract.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd like to formally accept the contract. I'd
like to ask, though, if it's possible for a little more time. June
1st is going to be difficult for me to make arrangements for temporary
housing, even. My wife and I have discussed this.
She said, Bob, please ask for another week or two if you could.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten days is kind of tough.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So, just to be a little more practical, if you
could give me a couple of weeks there, it would help me make some
arrangements to come to town and find some temporary housing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the second Monday in June? I want to
start you off in a full workweek so you don't get a weekend too soon.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ninth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would that be acceptable to you,
June 9th as a start date?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's better than June 1st, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the Board also willing to amend the
contract to show the effective date is June 9th, 19977
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think it sufficient to have
consensus direction. Is there any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do we need a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: No. One question, though. Being a four-year
contract, shall it run from June 9th of '97 to June -- through June
9th of 20017
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir, let's do that for clarity's sake.
Mr. Fernandez, with those changes is there anything else you wish
to add, because Mr. Weigel will have that contract ready for your
signature today if you so choose.
MR. FERNANDEZ: One other point we talked about over the phone, I
think has been resolved, and that is the language that talks about the
accrued annual leave.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We asked Mr. Weigel to look at that to make
sure it's where -- if we received less than 90 days' notice, he would
not receive --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- vacation benefits. Mr. Fernandez
questioned whether or not that is statutorily allowable, whether we
cannot pay those benefits, Mr. Weigel, where he had asked, I believe,
to have that researched.
Do we have an answer to that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, my answer is that the contract also is subject
to applicable law and if the law changes -- I'm not aware that that
is -- that there is an inability to contract for that, being in a
contracted position, but if the law is, either now or during the
course of the agreement that such cannot exist, I would expect that we
would follow the law.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to ask for a formal review
of that element --
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to make sure that we are, in fact,
complying with a law.
As I discussed with you, Mr. Fernandez, if it says that we are,
then that element of the contract would remain the same, if it says
we're not, we would modify the contract immediately to reflect
consistency.
MR. WEIGEL: To conform with the law.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, just don't leave and it will be
rendered moved.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's what I'm hoping, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do want to express to everyone that
throughout our discussions, Mr. Fernandez was impressed with the Board
being concerned about the longevity of the county manager and I think
he mirrors -- his experience mirrors what we are looking for in
someone who is not just looking for a good-paying job, but a place to
call home for an extended period of time. We look forward to this
being a long and mutually beneficial relationship for this Board and
all county employees. So on behalf of the Board, thank you for taking
the time to be here today, and if I could ask you just to communicate
with Mr. Weigel on when that contract will be ready and any questions
you might have through him, I'll make myself available today also. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, thank you. Collective exhale.
We are to -- we are to public comment on general topics.
Now, why are all of the members of the media leaving the room?
Do we have public comment today, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 97-21, AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES FOR
CATEGORY B FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATIONS TO ALLOW
EXPENDITURES FOR FISHING PIERS; AND PROVIDING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE
COUNTY RETAIN FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing none, we will go to advertised
public hearings. Item 12 (C)(1), recommendation that the BCC adopt an
ordinance amending 92-60 relating to tourist development tax for
Category B. funds.
Ms. Ashton, hello again.
MS. ASHTON: Hello. At the pleasure of the Board, I can outline
the changes. I also have two changes to the guidelines that I have
attached here, executive summary. Shall I start outlining the
changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We read the packet, why don't you just
tell us -- I mean, I can see for myself --
MS. ASHTON: Okay, two changes to the package --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We all got together over pizza and
read the package.
MS. ASHTON: -- one is on Page 5 of this agenda, we're dealing
with the ordinance. There's some language concerning Category D.
which is an additional category for fishing pier expenses. It says
funds shall accrue at the rate of three percent of net revenue if
budgeted. We're asking to delete that. We determined that it's not
necessary and creates some confusion.
The other change is in the guidelines. Applicants are required
to evaluate and monitor the tourism impact of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is this, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: This is gonna be on Page 11, the last section. This
is under the guidelines. It deals with reporting requirements. The
applicants who are awarded funding -- it says Categories B and B-2
will be required to evaluate and monitor the tourism impact of the
advertising and promotion or the event.
We're deleting the requirement for Category C-i, which is the
general advertising and promotion category from evaluating and
monitoring the event. They do provide annual reports to the T.B.C.
and we're satisfied with that requirement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This doesn't allow for a creation of
parking spaces on fishing piers, does it? MS. ASHTON: Not yet.
And the other change is that this report will be due you within
90 days after the date of the event, it will have to be submitted to
the county manager and then a presentation will be made to the Tourist
Development Tax Council at the next available meeting.
Those are the only two changes, and I would like to remind the
Board that the guidelines that we're adopting are being adopted by
ordinance so it will require an ordinance amendment to change the
guidelines, and I can answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Ms. Ashton?
Seeing none, do we have any speakers?
MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second, any discussion? All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Ms. Ashton, thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: For clarification for the record, Ms. Ashton did
mention that in that new Paragraph D, in the ordinance, the potential
for the removal of the particular sentence regarding a 3 percent
budgeted amount, and do I understand your motion and approval is
taking that as a recommendation that it shall be deleted from the
ordinance?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That, and in addition, adding the
requirement that the report be provided within 90 days, so this is one
deletion and one addition that were included in my motion. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are those acceptable?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. Thanks for clarifying.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-251, RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION CU-97-1, ARTHUR C.
QUINNELL REPRESENTING PETER H. ANDERSON REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE
OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR NEW AND USED BOAT AND AUTO SALES FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1995 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST - ADOPTED WITH REVISED
PROPOSAL
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 13 (A)(1) under public
hearings, reconsideration of Petition CU-97-1.
Mr. Weigel, does this require swearing in?
MR. WEIGEL: It does, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I would like to ask all members of the
public, petitioner, and staff who are here to speak on this item to
please stand and raise your right hand.
(Speaks sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Hello, again Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record, Planning Services. Petition
CU-97-1 is a petition for conditional use for a --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, mind if I make your life real easy?
MR. NINO: I sure do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Staff recommended approval, and this was
before us previously. The Board had some concerns. The purpose of
this rehearing, I believe, is to address those specific concerns. I
assume staff's position is the same?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had asked that the Board consider --
reconsider this application without any promises of whether or not we
might approve it, just to give the opportunity for the petitioner to
bring us something significantly better than what was originally
proposed. It's the outside boat yard, I'm worried about that and how
it might affect the redevelopment potential of Davis Boulevard
Triangle. Looks like they've got some nice, pretty green stuff and
maybe a fence or two --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's ask the petitioner to go ahead and
outline the changes that this proposal has that have not been
presented to the Board previously and determine from there if the
Board wishes to take action to either not just reconsider but to
either approve or deny.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dudley Goodlette with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson representing the petitioner, Mr. Anderson, in this matter, and
I have distributed to each of you a landscaping planting plan, which
is what is -- I have also attached to the Board. Yours is not colored
in the pretty green colors, Commission Mac'kie, but it's the same
basic information.
Let me perhaps just start out where we left off at the last
hearing, although I was not representing the petitioner at that time.
I have reviewed the tape of that proceeding and what I thought I would
-- would best use your time today answering the questions that arose
at the last hearing, specifically with respect to the landscaping.
All of this landscaping does comply with your -- the current
provisions of your landscaping code, of your comprehensive development
code. In that regard, there are about 837 plants that are provided
for or trees on the site plan. The entire property is surrounded with
the, I guess, it's the --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cocoa palm? Looks like the Cocoa palm and
Juniper hedge.
MR. GOODLETTE: Right, the Cocoa palm which is the 500 and
some-odd number of plants that you will see, and that is including the
gravel area to the north of the property, which is part of the
drainage system. You'll also see, the other question that arose at
the last hearing, Commissioner Hancock, was with respect to the
entrance and the 15 feet of landscaping buffer on the street side.
That is now provided to the full 15 feet. There is still plenty of
space for accessing the boats on to the property. There is a -- this
will fully comply with your signage requirements in your comprehensive
development code, and frankly unless you have some specific questions,
we'll be happy to address them, either Mr. Quinnell, who also
represents the petitioner, or Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are various concerns by Board members,
I'll start with mine.
Part of the request was actually a reduction in the buffer on the
front side, which, as you look at this roadway, something like either
whether it's a used car or boat lot, there is a lot of pavement and
the presence of landscaping up front serves to soften that
tremendously. It looks like what you've done is probably to the
greatest reasonable extent you can accomplish on the front of this
building and had this been presented, it would have addressed my
concern on that respect.
MR. GOODLETTE: That has been approved by F.D.O.T. as well, I
might add.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Norris had a concern on
site also. I'm trying to remember, and commissioner Mac'kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, why don't we go ahead and start there?
MR. GOODLETTE: One item that I did discuss with Commissioner
Norris, if I may, and that is the peak, the blue peak of the building
is going to be eliminated in its entirety so that the roof will be the
existing roof structure, less and except the peak, the blue peak, it
will look --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who was the architect that started that thing,
because, God, that's ugly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
it's a Dairy Queen.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Good.
Somebody --
Every time I see one of those, I think
Do you have an elevation?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And for those of you not in the trade, that
would be a picture of the front of the building.
MR. GOODLETTE: That's what it will look like going forward,
Commissioner, specifically in response to your inquiry about
eliminating the -- or redesigning the roof, let me put it that way.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I --
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of questions. One is
about the location of -- its outside storage for boats would be a
permitted use. Where on the site would the boats be stored? I see
that there is a fence on there, and what I want is for you to tell me
they're going to be behind the fence.
MR. GOODLETTE: I'll ask Mr. Quinnell to point that out since he
is --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. QUINNELL: Commissioner Mac'kie, and the rest of the
commissioners, my name is Art Quinnell, for the record. The fence is
now existing at this point and at this point. All boats are stored
behind it. Right here, we have provided for a handicapped parking
spot and a couple or three parking spots here for patrons of the
business. The remainder of the parking is also behind the fence.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The material of the fence I would hope
could be something opaque and not a chain link kind of fence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Commissioner Mac'kie, I addressed
that with Mr. Goodlette and I had a reversal of thought on that, and
that is remember the Sheriff's Office sub-type principles.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Crime prevention through environmental design.
What happens is, if you can't see through that fence, people can get
back there and start doing damage to inventory. So, I think the
Sheriff's Office would at least like to have a window of sight through
there and that's when I looked at the plan and saw that the landscape
on either side softened it, but I, like you, would like to see a nicer
looking fence, but the question is, what's the trade off. Are you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there something beside the cyclone
fence because that's something that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You could do an aluminum gate type fence as
opposed to chain link, it would look a heck of a lot better, but still
be able to see through. I mean, there are other options.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some other option -- I'll just tell you
that we've had the two meetings so far with the Davis Triangle
Redevelopment and one of the issues that's come up consistently is how
ugly the chain link fencing is around some pawn shops and that kind of
stuff. So that's specifically an item that I hope to see addressed
through the redevelopment of the Davis Triangle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, you look as though you want to
chime in on this.
MR. MULHERE: I do. Thank you.
We are going to address -- we are going to take a look at chain
link fencing and where they're appropriate and where they're not in
conjunction with the architectural standards with our review during
the next land development code amendment cycle. The difficulty, and
this is part of what we need to look at, part of the difficulty is
what can easily be rolled across a drive aisle, for example, to shut
that off for security purposes, and then that's the issue, and there
are probably some very limited applications. For the most part, this
fence would be screened by landscaping, but not obviously when the
business is not open and the gate is closed for security purposes, and
that's really what presents somewhat of a problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be as simple as asking the petitioner
to agree to an alternative fence material on the openings there that
was more aesthetically pleasing than chain link.
MR. QUINNELL : That's acceptable to the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can expect something like, you know, a
colored aluminum or something along those lines other than chain link,
and that probably a swing gate would work well going with that
material.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, as long as that's clear enough on
the record, that's just real important.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any ideas as to material that you
would be willing to commit to or -- I just want to make sure we don't
end up with chain link with the little slats in it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, you need to be able to see through it.
MR. MULHERE: Either aluminum or plastic, Mr. Quinnell, that
would be fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Some of the recycled stuff is pretty good,
too, it's just real expensive.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That would be acceptable.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to commend the property owner
for going back and looking at this property and seeing what you can do
to make it better for the community. I appreciate it. I think you've
done that. I'm pleased.
MR. QUINNELL: Thank you, Commissioner.
Any other questions, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for the petitioner? Seeing
none, do we have any speakers on this?
MR. MCNEES: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the revised proposal.
Is that how we do this, parliamentary?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's appropriate. I assume that
includes the commitment by the petitioner on the fencing material?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It includes that, it includes the site
plan, that I'll give my copy for the record, and it also includes this
elevation, this colored elevation. We had a second.
Commissioner Constantine, is that you?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second, any discussion? All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Goodlette, thank you very
much.
Mr. Nino, thank you.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
We are to BCC Communications.
Commissioner Mac'kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have none.
Mr. Weigel, anything from your shop?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: We are unanimous.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fantastic.
Ms. Filson, can we go home?
We're adjourned. Thank you.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry
and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Norris out), that the following
items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted, with
the exception of Item #16A6 which carried 3/0 (Commissioner
Norris out and Commissioner Hac'Kie abstained): *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 97-237 AUTHORIZING A 50e WAIVER/50e DEFERRAL OF ROAD,
LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES SYSTEM AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A
THREE BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY LINDA J. RODGERS IN COLLIER COUNTY;
SAID IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST
Item #16A2
BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $13,000.00, TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO
COVER MICROFILMING COSTS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-238 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUEENS PARK AT LAGO
VERDE, PHASE EIGHT"
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 97-239 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN BAY UNIT
SEVENTEEN"
Item #16A5
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE DREDGING OF LAKE TRAFFORD AS PART OF THE
OVERALL LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION PROJECT
Item #16A6
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CHARLESTON SQUARE"
Item #16A7
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN STRAND REPLAT" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR THE REMOVAL AND/OR RECYCLING
OF AGRICULTURAL PLASTIC STOCKPILED AT THE IHMOKALEE LANDFILL
Item #1682
AWARD BID NO. 96-2578, "ALL PURPOSE UTILITY TRACTOR" TO CREEL FORD
TRACTOR COMPANY, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $38,500.00 - INCREASE PURCHASE ORDER
NO. 603829, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $2,000.00, TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR
TERMINATION OF THE TRACTOR RENTAL FROM GLADE & GROVE SUPPLY
Item #1683
EMERGENCY DECLARED WITH RESPECT TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SABAL PALM
ROAD CULVERTS; AUTHORIZATION FOR AN INCREASE IN THE C.R. 951 CONTRACT
WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. (COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 95-2320) IN AN A_MOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $227,607.20 FOR SAME - SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY COUNTY ATTORNEY
AND PURCHASING
Item #1684
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER WHBP-FT97-2, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$17,400.00, FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
Item #1685
FINAL RANKING OF CONSULTANTS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
CAMP DRESSER & HCKEE FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR THE NCRWTP 8-HGD EXPANSION PROJECT, RFP #97-2625, IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $596,980.00
Item #16C1
CONCESSION AGREEHENT WITH FISH FINDERS, INC., D/B/A/ COCOHATCHEE RIVER
MARINA, INC. FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF A MARINA RELATIVE TO
THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER COUNTY PARK FACILITY
Item #16D1
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS
Item #16D2
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16D3
TERMINATION OF CONTRACT #96-2608, SPRINKLER PARTS AND RELATED ITEMS AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REBID
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 97-240 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT 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 #16D5
RESOLUTION 97-241 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT 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 #16D6
EXECUTION OF THE NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16D7
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER #WHBP-FT-97-6, UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF THE UPDATE OF THE NON-AD
VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR TAX YEAR 1996/1997, IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $7,000.00 AND APPROVE APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D8
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER #WHBP-FT-97-5, UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF THE UPDATE OF THE NON-AD
VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR TAX YEAR 1996/1997, IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$7,000.00 AND APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D9
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER #WHBP-FT-97-4, UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. FOR UPDATING THE FIVE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE
EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES ASSESSMENT ROLLS, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $10,000.00 AND
APPROVE ALL APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D10
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING EHERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE TAX COLLECTOR'S
BUILDING AN APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR
CAMPUS AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,420.00
Item #16El
RESOLUTIONS 97-242 AND 97-243, GRANTING GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATES
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION TO FLORIDA
WATER SERVICES CORPORATION FOR MARCO ISLAND WATER AND WASTEWATER
SERVICE; RESOLUTIONS 97-244 AND 97-245 GRANTING GRANDFATHER
CERTIFICATES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION
TO FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION FOR MARCO SHORES WATER AND
WASTEWATER SERVICE
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1992 Real Property
No. Dated
218 05/15/97
1993 Real Property
254-255 05/15/97
1994 Real Property
219 05/06/97
221-222 05/15/97
1995 Real Property
275 05/05/97
277-278 05/15/97
1996 Real Property
75 12/06/96
137-140 05/05-05/06/97
145-147 05/13/97
149-150 05/15/97
1996 Tangible Personal Property
71 04/17/97
73 05/15/97
Item #1662
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL
EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENT AND THE FEDERAL ANNUAL CERTIFICATION REPORT
FORMS
Item #16H2
ENDORSEHENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTHENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF
JUSTICE PROGRAMS GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST POLICIES AWARD NUMBER
97-WE-VX-0022 AND APPROVAL OF THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
There being no further business for the good of the County· the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:15 a.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
presented or as corrected
· as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY TRACI L. BRANTNER