BCC Minutes 06/24/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara Berry
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: County Commission, if you will please
stand for the invocation by Pastor Jacobs from the Messiah Lutheran
Church and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor
Jacobs.
PASTOR JACOBS: We make our beginning in the name of the Father
and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. What a joyous privilege it is,
Lord, to come before you on behalf of our Collier County Board of
County Commissioners. You've established this government for a very
unique purpose, to rule and govern and guide and direct your people,
in order that they may live in harmony and in peace and in great
concord. The decisions which is placed on these people are great at
times, Lord, but we know that you will guide and direct them and bless
them in every deliberation. And we know that the decisions which they
make, even though we may not always be in full agreement, will realize
that they are best for the whole that will enable us as a county and
as a people to be what you want us to be and to live our lives with
our families and to enjoy all the blessings you pour down upon us each
and every day. And so we commend all the deliberations in this
meeting to your care knowing that you will guide and direct through
Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any agenda changes this
morning, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have a number of add items.
They are presented to you on the addendum sheet. Item A(2) is a
recommendation to approve the recording of plat -- to the final plat
of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, Phase 2B.
Item 8(A)(3) is recommendation to approve the recording of final
plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase 1B, Unit 2.
Item A -- 8(A)(4) is a recommendation to approve the recording of
final plat of Pelican Marsh, Unit 17.
Additional Item (A)(5) is recommendation to approve the recording
of final plat of Pelican Strand Replat 1A.
Additional Item 8(B)(5) is the request for board approval of a
developer contribution agreement with commercial development company
for a land donation for segment of the future east-west segment of
Livingston Road in North Naples.
I would also ask that you continue Item 13(A)(4), which is
Petition V-97-4 , Gail J. and Linda J. Hafner requesting an
after-the-fact variance for permitted storage shed converted into a
guest house without a building permit.
Additional notes. Item 12(C)(7) is scheduled to be heard at ten
o'clock. That's the Marco Island cable franchise.
And Item 10(A) is scheduled to be heard at 1 p.m.; that's the
resolution regarding the Army Corps of Engineers environmental impact
study.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is there an additional item
regarding a consultant on the impact fee? Is there a time certain for
that, or are we to determine that time?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We can determine the time for that. I was
thinking that in proximity to the ten o'clock time-certain item that
we had would probably be most convenient.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, then we'll just wait till
we approach that hour and see where we are timewise. Is that
sufficient?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I apologize. There's one additional item. I'd
like to ask the deletion of Item D(1) on page 3; that's the ambulance
service user fees. We would like a little more time to prepare that
for presentation to the board.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I hear a motion for the
approval of the agenda and consent agenda with the changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997, AND SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE
4, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve the minutes of the June 3, 1997, regular
meeting and the June 4, 1997, special meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 22-28, 1997 AS AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM
VOLUNTEER APPREICATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
This morning I'm pleased to read a proclamation. Is Mr. Harold
Thomas here?
Mr. Thomas, would you come up, please. Mr. Thomas is president
of the Collier County Cattlemen's Association, and he's also a
volunteer with the agricultural program.
Good morning, Mr. Thomas. If you'll come up here and turn
around, please, and face the camera.
The proclamation reads: Whereas, the extension agricultural
program volunteers are an integral part of Collier County government;
and
Whereas, Collier County agricultural programs offer opportunities
for growers and producers who wish to volunteer in a variety of
different ways, such as defining educational program directions; and
Whereas, during the past five years, agricultural program
volunteers have donated in excess of 8,000 hours to the cooperative
extension service in the community; and
Whereas, agricultural program volunteers support such worthwhile
efforts as the Collier County Agricultural Tour, the Farm City
Barbecue, and the Collier County Agricultural Fair; and
Whereas, without agricultural program volunteers the quality of
service to Collier County residents and their children would be
greatly reduced.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 22nd through the
28th, 1997, be designated as Agricultural Program Volunteer Week in
Collier County. And the gratitude and appreciation is -- is extended
to all the agricultural program volunteers who give of their time and
energies to Collier County government.
Done and ordered this 24th day of June, 1997. Signed by Timothy
L. Hancock, Chairman.
I'd like to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
If you would like to say something, you're certainly welcome to.
Use a mike, please.
MR. THOMAS: I'd just like to say thanks for this proclamation,
and I would really like to thank the commission for taking the time
and effort to recognize agriculture for what it is. I think that
agricultural probably -- is probably one of the most important things
that we have in this county. A lot of people are not aware of it, but
agriculture equals the tourist industry every year as far as sales and
dollars and stuff, and I think it's very important. And one of the
things I'd like for us to consider is that as we in agriculture -- I
think there's a trend across the country that we're trying to get
maybe a little bit more dependent on some other countries like South
America. And I'd like for us to keep one thing in mind as we think
about regulation and stuff like that, that agriculture in this country
is very important to us and it almost gets a little bit scary to think
that maybe one day if we're too dependent on another country, that
they can set prices that we can't afford, and one day they might cut
us off, and we'll be totally dependent on someone, and we've left our
-- our main thing is that -- is to continue to grow our own food and
stuff like that. And I would like for us to think about that and not
get completely dependent on some of these other countries because
we're scared of regulations and pesticides and stuff like that that so
many people are aware of. And I think that agriculture has -- has
been willing to comply and use whatever is safe to the people in this
country. So, again, I'd like to thank the Commission for recognizing
agriculture for this week. Thank you.
(Applause.)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I recognize in the audience there's
another gentleman who is direc -- indirectly or directly involved with
agriculture, Mr. Hill, Kevin, who is involved with the cattle side, I
believe, of the agricultural industry. So, Kevin, we're pleased to
have you here this morning as well. Thank you.
Item #SA1
COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.605 - CAPITAL HOHES COHMERCIAL
EXCAVATION LOCATED ON LOTS 109 AND 110, UNIT 45, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES -
APPROVED
Okay. Hoving on, then, to, I believe, 8(A)(1), recommendation to
approve commercial excavation permit No. 59.605, Capital Homes
commercial excavation.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, Stan Chrzanowski
with development services. This petition on the face is a rather
simple one. It's an excavation permit application to dig a five-acre
lake on ten acres of land in the far estates. The staff comments you
got were fairly long, and it might be best if I just ask if you have
any questions about the petition because most of the issues -- the
engineering issues are simple. It's a standard excavation. A lot of
the issues will be legal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What impact fees -- it says to be
calculated later. When will they be calculated, and why is it later?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Before he obtains the actual excavation permit.
Because we don't know exactly how far he's going to be hauling the
fill.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments by board members?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further discussion? Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm okay.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.
Item #8A2
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB
PHASE TWO-B - APPROVED
Hoving on, then, to the public hearing -- oh, I'm sorry. Not so.
Final plat for Naples Heritage, 8(A)(2).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Standard plat? Standard plat? I
assume it's on the regular agenda just because --
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next -- the next four items are just standard
plats. They would have normally been on the consent agenda but being
turned in late and with the thought the board is not going to be
meeting --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Item 8(A)(2).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE IB, UNIT TWO -
APPROVED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hadam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Item 8(A)(3).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH, UNIT SEVENTEEN - APPROVED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Item 8(A)(4).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously. 8(A)(5).
Item #8A5
RESOLUTION 97-286 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN STRAND REPLAT 1A
- ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go ahead, Tim.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve Item 8(A)(5). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'd like to -- for the record --
abstain on this one.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have one abstention from
Commissioner Norris. All those in favor?
Motion carries three to one -- three to zero with one abstention.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Lost my head.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That habit is hard to break.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is hard to break.
Item #SB1
REVIEW HEARING FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEH IHPACT FEE
CALCULATION FOR CHANCELLOR PARK - APPROVED
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Item 8(B)(1), review hearing for
alternative water and wastewater system impact fee calculation for
Chancellor Park. Mr. Finn, are you on deck for this one?
MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Edward Finn, public works
operation director. Excuse me. Under your water and wastewater
impact fee ordinances, there's a provision to allow a petitioner to
submit an alternate impact fee calculation. Staff's requirement is to
bring that before the board in a review hearing format. Staff has
reviewed the proposal and if the board finds that they are willing to
entertain the alternative, staff recommends an alternate fee as
defined here within your executive impact fee, that is a pro rata
share of what the impact fee otherwise would be. The fee would be
$114,800 versus the normal fee of $331,520. Hr. Norquest representing
CareMatrix should be in attendance to speak on this matter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we're talking a $200,000
difference, we probably ought to hear what the difference in their
calculation is.
MR. FINN: I would concur.
MR. COX: Good morning.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. COX: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Ernest Cox.
I'm an attorney with the law firm of Gunster, Yoakley, Baldes-Fauli
and Stewart representing CareMatrix. With us this morning is Jim
Norquest of CareMatrix who can explain a little bit about the project
and how we've come up with the alternative impact fee calculation and
some of the information to support that. Also with us this morning is
Laura Ryan of the Wilson Miller engineering firm, and Laura is the
engineer who's actually done the study to support the alternative
impact fee calculation pursuant to the ordinance. We do also have
some additional information beyond the staff report that I know is
part of the record this morning that we thought might be helpful, and
we do have copies. Just to explain what we do have, we have an
architectural rendering of the site. We have a location map and an
abbreviated site plan that just shows the layout and also a section
out of the Florida Administrative Code, specifically, 10(B)(6) which
sets forth state guidelines for calculations of impact fees for adult
congregate living facilities that provide meals. We thought that
might be helpful. We'll give a very, very brief explanation of how we
come to these calculations and then be available for questions. Madam
Chairman, what is the best way to circulate these?
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Give them to Miss Filson right here.
MR. NORQUEST: My name is Jim Norquest. I represent CareMatrix
Corporation. We are going to be the developers of this facility.
Very briefly, this is -- CareMatrix develops senior housing. In this
particular case this facility will be an assisted living facility, and
it will be located in a new development just south of the hospital on
Immokalee Road called Southwest Florida Professional Health Park.
CareMatrix develops these facilities primarily in the northeast
but also we have quite a few in Florida. And it's pretty typical when
we come into a municipality that they don't know quite what to do with
us from a water and sewer standpoint, because while the use is
basically residential in nature, we don't require nearly as much water
and sewer capacity as a typical single-family or even multifamily
residence. And fortunately in the case of Collier County your
ordinances provide for an alternative impact fee calculation. And so
since I knew that our units didn't generate nearly as much water and
sewer demand as a typical unit, we took a look at the ordinance, we
asked our civil engineers, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek to, you know,
take a look at it. And also fortunately in this case we had faced a
very similar situation recently for another project we're doing --
excuse me -- in Bonita Springs, so we had done a detailed study there
which included facilities in Collier County where we went out and
actually looked at the water use rates for existing ACLFs, took a
year's worth of their actual use rates right off the public record,
and then just did some simple math to figure out what our per-unit
actual use rate was, and that was the basis for our study. If you
have more technical questions about our calculation, Laura Ryan is
here and she can, you know, give you as much detail as you need. In
fact, I'll ask her to step up to the microphone. And I'll answer any
questions if you have any general questions about our facility.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. My name is Laura Ryan. I'm with Wilson
Miller. I'm the engineer for the Chancellor Park project. And
basically -- I believe you have this in your agenda package. It's a
report that we did for Tract D2 at Bonita Bay. And in that study what
we did was we took a look at four similar facilities in the area, took
a look at the water usage for twelve months in a row and calculated an
average. And the highest average daily flow rate per unit was 85.3
gallons per day per unit, which is much less than what CareMatrix is
requesting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The four -- the four existing ACLFs
that you looked at, are those the only places you looked at, or did
you look at additional as well?
MS. RYAN: We tried to find the ones that were most like the
facility that we were working on. We looked at others, but those were
the four that we picked because those were the ones that were most
like the facility that we were --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was the water usage higher in the
others?
MS. RYAN: We didn't investigate it enough. We tried to look
at --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the information you do have,
would it appear that the water and sewer usage was higher in the other
ones that you chose not to use in your calculation? MS. RYAN: I don't have that information.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does anyone on the team have that
information?
MS. RYAN: We looked basically at the number of units and the
number of beds and then went from there.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris, any questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not any questions. Do we have any public
speakers on this item?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear our staff's
impression, Mr. Finn. The reason I asked the question if it's not
obvious is it -- you know, it's easy to go out and choose -- if you
cherry pick -- pick and choose the -- those which are most
advantageous to your argument. That may or may not have happened
here, but I need your impressions.
MR. FINN: I'll be happy to do so. Thank you, sir. In large part
staff has written in the executive summary that we can support an
alternate fee if the board sees fit to do so. The board's ordinance
provides for an alternate fee. It is my opinion that that is provided
for cases where the usage of a facility is substantially different
than a typical ERC. A typical ERC, an equivalent residential or an
equivalent dwelling unit, by our ordinance is defined as typically a
usage of 350 gallons a day. Under our ordinance these assisted care
facilities would be charged the same as a single-family home. What
the petitioner has done is they have provided evidence that these
units use less water than a typical single-family home on our utility
system, and based on that staff feels that it is not unreasonable to
entertain the alternate fee as described here which is based on about
a hundred and fifteen gallons a day; that's typical usage. That is
also supported by Florida Administrative Code 10(B)(6) which provides
for certain standards for typical uses, and that is the standard for a
-- this type of facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Finn, are you comfortable that the
calculations they've done are an accurate portrayal of what amount of
water and sewer services they could expect to use? MR. FINN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question.
MR. FINN: Hay I further say that Item 10 on page 3 of your
agenda package provides for a follow-up review of the actual usage and
an adjustment upward if that usage were to exceed what's proposed by
the petitioner, and if the petitioner is willing to agree to those
terms, staff is willing to make certain recommendations based on the
board supporting an alternate fee.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is, we've had so many ACLFs
comes in for approval of late and so many constructed. It seems like,
you know, every time you drive down the street, there's another one.
How many of those have come in for alternate impact fee calculations?
MR. FINN: We have had very few alternate impact fee calculations
over the last several years. Typically staff has been reluctant to
recommend alternatives.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In this case -- how does this case
distinguish itself, then, from all of those other ACLFs out there?
MR. FINN: The other ACLFs have not submitted alternate fee
calculations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They didn't ask?
MR. FINN: They did not ask. That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The option is available but not
required.
(Chairman Hancock joined the proceedings.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And when does that window close?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my next question.
MR. FINN: That closes upon receipt of the permit without
requesting an alternate fee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Upon receipt of building permit?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which if I'm not mistaken two on Airport Road
that came in recently, both have pulled building permits?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if I might. We've looked at
this type of request in the past before. We've not agreed with the
proposals in the past, and I don't see anything here that's
substantially different from any other request that we have looked at
and denied; so I'll make a motion to deny this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to disagree with you because
the purpose of impact fees is whatever your impact on the system is is
what you should pay, and it should be a fair share or amount. And if
our staff agrees -- and Mr. Finn has been very definitive that their
projections are most likely accurate, and we have the option if they
prove not to be accurate to go back and correct it after the fact; so
I don't think we can ask somebody to pay more than their fair share,
and I'm concerned if that's what we're doing by keeping this same high
level. The reason the ordinance exists that allows them to figure it
out on their own and come back with an alternative is because there
may be some places that don't use as much as the average or the
categories --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's fine. We've seen
probably over the last couple of years a dozen ALF (sic) proposals
come through, all of which have paid the standard impact fee rate, so
to make a special exception for this one I don't think I can support
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In order to attempt to be a part of the vote
on this, since I missed a portion of the hearing, I'd like to ask a
couple of, probably, remedial questions if you'll bear with me. And I
apologize for being late. I went to a kids basketball camp to speak
to them, and it got moved out to 951, so it wasn't anticipated in my
schedule. This particular ACLF, does it have a commercial kitchen
facility contained within the building?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, I believe it does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris, a lot of the
requests we've had were -- just the time I have been on the board were
condominiums that were saying, well, typically we have a seasonal
resident that doesn't use as much per year. And it's basically saying
look at me individually rather than averaging me among multifamily and
yet there are no guarantees that that water usage won't be the same --
or won't be -- will not be what is being projected. In this case this
project, I believe, has a single master meter -- MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that comes off the line. Help me with the
point. Is there a provision that should the alternative impact fee
calculation show that the water usage far exceeds or exceeds by any
significant rate what is shown here, that there will be revision to
that calculation?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And do we have other ACLFs that are built that
have shown us that this is a consistent average among ACLFs, or is
this breaking a little bit of ground in your recommendation?
MR. FINN: This is consistent with the ACLFs that are on our
system. Let me go back and add something to my previous answer. Your
-- on second thought I will not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If staff's comfortable that we have a
systemwide -- and staff has not recommended that we accept the
multifamily ones in the past. And I think the difference is that
they're -- we understand that impact fees are based on averages and
not on just this unit versus that unit. And if this is consistent
with the averages of similar uses, then I think we have a case to
consider it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I didn't compare this
to other condominium projects, but rather to other existing ALFs that
have not received this alternate calculation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But they haven't applied for it.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And I guess the parallel
situation I would make is those people who call Florida home can
exercise the option for homestead exemption. But if you don't file
for it, you don't get it. And it's an advantage you have to take --
you know, you have to go after. And it's the same thing here. If
someone else didn't exercise their option, these folks shouldn't be
penalized for it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If there's no second for that motion, I'll
make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion and a second. Do we
have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so. I have one Kay Randazzo who
indicated Item B, but I can't tell if it's this item or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Randazzo, if you'd be so kind as to come
up to Mr. Fern -- Ha'am. We don't want the court reporter trying to
hear conversations.
No, ma'am. Not at the podium. Over here. Thank you very much.
We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four to one.
MR. FINN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #882
REPORT TO THE BCC ON THE SOLID WASTE STANDARD CONTAINER PILOT PROGRAM
AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS - THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH WHI AND CONSUMER SURVEY
TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE END OF A TWO YEAR PERIOD. MULTI-FAMILY ISSUE TO
REMAIN THE SAME. FULL AUDIT TO BE CONDUCTED.
Item 8(B)(2), report to the board on solid waste standard
container pilot program and request regarding solid waste collection
franchise agreement. Good morning, Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, David
Russell, solid waste department. The board had asked staff to come
back today to report on Waste Hanagement's pilot program for a
standard container system with a mechanized vehicle. I can report
that the program was quite successful. The -- there was -- 1242 were
sent out to these households that participated. Fifty-three percent of
those households did respond mailing responses back to Waste
Management. Of those households that actually participated in the
program, a full 90 percent approved the program if there were no
additional costs related to the program. Eighty-six percent of those
households felt that this kind of system contributed to a better,
cleaner neighborhood on collection days. They were definitely in
favor of that.
There were a hundred and eighty respondents that actually did not
participate in the pilot program. At the outset of the program, they
had a -- some problem with the size of the container. A separate
survey sheet was sent to those households. Seventy-three percent of
those individuals said they would have participated had they had a
smaller container.
Container size seems to be a bit of an issue. Fifty percent were
all right with the 90-gallon size container. I think most of them
found that they were manageable. About 19 percent would have
preferred a 65-gallon size, and roughly that amount would also prefer
a 35-gallon size, because there are some households that have limited
space for a standard container.
But all told it looks like this community does want that style of
mechanized service.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's no additional cost?
MR. RUSSELL: If there is no additional cost; that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Always been the key component in that. But I
was -- I did see the study results and I was actually quite pleased.
It said a lot of what we knew, which is there are some communities
it's not right for, but the others seem to be rather overwhelming that
it was accepted so --
The item was brought back for that and also one other item, and I
see there's an additional item. The next item is a discussion of the
franchise agreement. The third item that has been added on here is the
revenue services department recommending that multifamily units be
added to the mandatory program. I think the two discussions are
separate entirely.
I think we have an existing franchise agreement we need to make a
decision on and that we should proceed with that and then at the
conclusion of that discussion look at that last item and determine
whether we want to make a decision on that today. Is that -- is that
the pleasure of the board?
Let's have the -- the other two items. One is direction
regarding the -- I'm sorry, the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Audit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Well, not the audit, but the
agreement, the franchise agreement. And the second is the multifamily
mandatory collection requirement. I think the two are separate
discussions. So rather than hearing them both at the same time, why
don't we deal with the contract first, then we'll go from there.
MR. RUSSELL: My understanding was that we wanted to look at the
results of this pilot program to decide whether or not this would go
in a bid package that would be issued. As far as separating the two
issues, if we were going to go out to bid, the amount of units
serviced would be impacted obviously with the scope of services if we
go from about 54,000 units to adding another, you know, 60,000 plus
units there of multifamily so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's where I differ with you, because
I believe we're talking about whether to go out to bid or not. The
board hadn't given specific direction on that, and I think that needs
to occur one way or the other first so that's the first step.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether we go to bid or not, I think
the -- on the -- on the 90-gallon container issue is fairly simple.
We do that as an add alternate, because people have said, gee, they
like the service but they're not sure they want to pay for it. So if
it comes back at little or no cost, it's a no-brainer. And if it
comes back expensive, then we can deal with that issue when it comes
back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Based on the single-family response, I want to
see it as a part of it and particularly those areas we've had a lot
of problems with litter being -- being a concern. I think it's got to
be a part. Whether we go to bid or whether we don't, I want to see
that in there with no net increase to the ratepayer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree more. I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's move to the issue of the franchise issue
that was supposed to be brought back as to whether or not we go to bid
and if so what parameters do we want to establish. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Russell, when's the last time we
went out to bid for this type service?
MR. RUSSELL: To my knowledge this service has never been bid in
the county. It was a negotiated agreement early on. I believe the
first franchise agreement began in 1979, and it was renegotiated in
1990.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The concern I have is that we have a
fairly high satisfaction percentage with the service we get right now;
however, do we know if there's anybody out there who can do it better
or cheaper? There's only one way to find out. And what we
traditionally do any time we have bids or proposals is reserve the
right to reject all bids and proposals. So if we weren't happy with
what we got back, we could simply reject them all and negotiate with
the existing bidder. But to me the only way to know if we can do it
better or cheaper is open it up for proposals and take a look.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But isn't there a cost associated with going
out to bid?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure there's a cost of putting
together a bid but compare that with what's a several hundred million
dollar service over -- usually over the life of the -- you could make
that up literally in two months' time or less.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry, when county manager --
when Neil Dotrill was here, I asked -- I don't think it had to do with
garbage, but I asked him just to tell me what sort of a general cost
of, you know, the RFP process, and it was somewhere between eighty and
a hundred grand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's accurate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the overall bid amount you're talking
about, is -- is, you know, is not a big amount. But when we had this
discussion last time, I think, Commissioner Constantine, I was
concerned because we hadn't bid this and -- you can say ever, but we
have checked it each time we've renewed the contract. And the
benchmark, if I understood correctly in '91, was cost to consumer. We
looked at what the pattern of consumer satisfaction was in the program
that we currently have. We looked at the cost to consumer. And I
think there is a point that you have to wonder, you know, what are we
going to get by going to bid. What is that $80,000 -- or even if it's
$60,000 -- going to bring us? I tried to answer those questions by
getting information on other operations throughout the state. Looking
at the whole picture, one of the questions -- Mr. Russell, and this
you brought up -- is the separation of commercial and residential.
And I think we decided collectively that wasn't going to happen here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was in the best interest of the community
to bid them both together. Am I correct there?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And is that -- am I recalling that correctly,
the commercial and residential would be bid together?
Okay. So I tried to look at those that do that very similar
thing, and I had a little concern that the commercial costs could
come down in this county, but I didn't want to do that at the cost of
subsidizing that with the residential ratepayer. So looking
throughout the state, there was one county -- I want to say it was
Hillsborough -- that was one or two pennies cheaper per yard -- or per
year than Collier. And that was because of our recent CPI increase?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So out of 67 counties -- and we always pride
ourselves on being the lowest millage rate in the state --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just get that in there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, in there. In case the paper didn't say
that -- no. We want to make that plug whenever possible. I think we
also have to take some level of pride in our contract negotiation
skills and our staff skills in that we have negotiated the second
lowest collection rate for residential purposes in the county.
My question is, can we make that better for our residents and can
we get to even a lower rate over the next few years for our residents?
And if we can do that, I'd rather do that than avoid the -- whether
it be forty, sixty, or eighty thousand dollars of the bid process to
accomplish --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know how much a bid would be
ballpark?
MR. RUSSELL: It would be strictly staff time. I don't believe
-- I don't know if the purchasing department has an average number on
that. I've never heard one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have discussed balking at bidding when it
was $15,000 before.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm just thinking out loud and
if it's -- realistically I don't think it's anywhere near eighty or a
hundred thousand --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought I recalled that from his --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For certain things it may be, but you
need to take a range -- I remember the conversation, because I
remember we got on him about it, but if it's staff time, and they're
going to be there, we're going to pay them anyway, I don't think it's
-- somebody is going to spend an entire year putting together a
proposal, so it's not going to be 30 or 40 thousand dollars. It's
going to be in the teens. Then if we spend 15 or 18 or 20 thousand
dollars then come with a bid that over eight or ten years saves
several million dollars, it's a pretty good return on investment. And
I agree with your analogy of the ad valorem -- plug again --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was the lowest millage rate in the state?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the entire state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The entire state.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the interesting thing is, even
though we have the lowest, we still make an effort to make that lower
every year. And I just think that through the proposal process we can
do the same with this. We are in a wonderful spot, and we are in a
good place to be right now, and that's at the cheap end of the scale.
And we want to maintain that, and the most effective way to do that in
business or in government is to look at multiple things. And, again,
we always have the alternative. If we're not happy with the proposals
that come back, we've got the alternative of rejecting them all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- again, I'm not going to -- you can't
argue with what you're saying. It's just not nec -- you know, it's
true. It could happen that way. In an attempt to avoid that cost and
improve on what I think is already good service, I went ahead and took
the liberty of -- I'll avoid the term "beating up on" and use the term
"discussing with" our solid waste franchise to see if there's a way we
could do that without going to bid, see if there's a way we could make
our rates the lowest in the state, if we could do a little better for
our residential customers and a little better for our commercial
customers. And what I'd like to do is kind of present you with
elements of that that I believe that Waste Hanagement's willing to
agree to, and then we can make a choice whether that is sufficient for
our ratepayers or whether that is -- that's not sufficient and we want
to go to bid to see if we can do a better job. So let me at least go
ahead and put that out to you.
I was a little concerned when I found we weren't the lowest
residential rate in the state, because I thought we were up until last
year. But what has happened is in the contract we have a CPI increase
that each year bumps it around three percent. MR. RUSSELL: Roughly three percent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- what I asked is that we freeze the CPI
for the -- I think there's a two-year renewal option in the contract
-- that we freeze the CPI so that the cost right now would be the same
cost for the next two years. There would be no increase to the
residential ratepayer for that period. The second thing I was
concerned about was the commercial because we had talked about that,
maybe we could hold the residential and do better for our businesses.
One of the functions of commercial is a per-yard cost, and although
our per-yard costs here again are -- and I'm trying to remember if we
are lowest in the state on that. We're very close.
MR. RUSSELL: We're -- on the commercial side we are on average
20 percent higher.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm talking about the per-yard tipping fee.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Compared to the rate.
MR. RUSSELL: The tipping fee, I believe we're the sixth lowest
in the state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I asked for a per-yard reduction in the
commercial containerized, which is the dumpster area, and came up with
a -- twenty-five cents per yard, which, Mr. Russell, that would bring
us closer to kind of the middle -- the middle of the commercial area,
if I'm not mistaken; so we would be about average for the state in the
commercial area. We'd be the lowest in residential in the state. And
then based on the survey results that I saw from -- from the study and
discussions with some of the Waste Management folks, I wanted them to
throw that in. Just wanted it. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wanted them to throw what in? I didn't
get that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All the carts.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The pilot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The pilot program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To phase it in over those two years. The
capital cost to that -- and I'm sure they have somebody here that can
tell us what that is -- did not allow that to occur within two years
because even through the collection method they have, the equipment
they would have to buy, the option available there is instead of a
two-year extension to go to a three-year extension continuing the
freeze and the price reductions we talked about, but the county would
get -- residents would get, if they so choose, the container program
and a choice of containers, not just one size fits all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. If we give them three years, we get
the lowest rates for the whole three years?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, that would extend for the three
years, and we get the container -- the pilot program extended
throughout the county and what that phase-in is I didn't get to that
degree. The reason I went through all this is to try to give
ourselves something to measure against. Is that something that we
want to pursue and are comfortable with that, and if we feel we can do
better than that, then let's go ahead and go to bid. But I wanted to
at least see if we could get -- get some of those contract elements
lessened to the benefit of our ratepayers, both commercial and
residential, get that pilot program in there which was received very
well in the majority of areas. And if I'm not mistaken, I think the
residential rates would actually be frozen for four years because the
CPI that's coming up did not occur.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long is the length of the bid --
or the length of the contract?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would be -- if the cart program's included,
it would be a three-year period.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- some very good looking numbers
there. I guess when you say this would be something to measure
against, it would be a great measuring stick. If we could get Waste
Management to commit to that and then if -- but really the only way to
know if anybody can do better is to go to bid. And if we don't go to
bid, we never know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The way I looked at it is we've got those bids
throughout the entire state of Florida. We've got 67 counties that are
responsible for waste collection systems and just -- you know, Lee
County just did -- was it a two-vendor bid? They had two vendors, BFI
and Waste Management?
MR. RUSSELL: I believe they have at least three vendors --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Three vendors?
MR. RUSSELL: -- that service five different areas.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They just -- they kind of went through this
and the result was not something that I think we want here. So I'm
not -- you know, I felt my job was to see if we could do better than
what we have now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate that. I just think
-- and if you look at what Waste Management does in other places, it's
more expensive elsewhere as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's because we don't beat on them there.
We just beat on them here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't know if other places are a
measurement of what we could do. I guess -- just we will never know
unless we do bids. And if this is good enough for the majority of the
board, then that's your choice, but I just -- this is great, and it's
better than what we got now, and I appreciate the work you put in on
it. I'd just like to see is there anybody who could do any better.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate that and I think maybe
I can offer a little bit of solution that might help ease your -- your
concern. Obviously Waste Management has stepped up to the plate --
we'll make some commitments to you right now if you will agree to give
us the contract extension. Well, that puts them at a distinct
disadvantage if we go to a bid because they've already shown their
hand. I mean, their cards are on the table and people can, in effect,
try to low ball their bid.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be good for the user -- end
user of the service.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- but don't forget there's more than
cost involved in the service. I mean, one of the things that's very
pertinent to the discussion is that the solid waste pickup service
gets -- is it the very highest rating of approval from the citizens of
Collier County?
MR. RUSSELL: I believe it is, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And we're jeopardizing that if you go to
another company. I mean, maybe their service won't be as good. So
there's more to it than cost. Right now we know we'll have the lowest
cost. You know you'll have the lowest cost. We also have a very,
very high approval rating. But I think I could support a contract
extension as outlined by Commissioner Hancock if we also included in
that a commitment today to go to a bid at the end of that extension.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just upset that I didn't throw that in
here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can do that because -- I mean, what
it does, in effect, is lower our costs for the next couple of years,
and it still opens up long term to see what's the best service.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. And the result is a savings in excess
of a million and a half dollars over the next three years, which I
think is something that our ratepayers would appreciate. What I'd
like to do is if there are representatives here of Waste Management --
I see somebody in the back of the room -- just in case I have
elaborated in areas that don't sound familiar to you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Throw in a couple.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually they just said two years. No. The
elements of our discussions as I have them are that the curbside
residential collection for a three-year extension would be frozen at
the existing costs, so there would be no CPI, no increase in
residential rates for three years; is that correct?
MR. URBANSKI: That's correct. Excuse me. My name is Dennis
Urbanski, regional vice president for sales and marketing for Waste
Management.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second is that commercial customers --
there would be an immediate rate reduction of 25 cents per yard for
commercial containerized dumpster service as soon as the extension
would be -- if approved by this board, it would then be adjusted per
CPI adjustment during the balance of the extension. So you'd see an
immediate 25-cent-per-yard reduction subject to CPI over the balance
of those three years; is that correct? MR. URBANSKI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the third item, which I was real
happy with, is the cart program. That -- that's the reason for a
three-year extension instead of a two. And the same rates would be
set forth such as the residential rate being frozen and the 25-cent
reduction in commercial for the period of the renewal. What I would
like to know is the phasing of the cart program. What --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How are we going to get there?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. How detailed can we get today on that
to ensure that the majority of the customers who are looking for that
as an added bonus will have the opportunity to receive it in this
contract period?
MR. URBANSKI: Our company would move as rapidly as possible in
terms of rolling out the cart program to the 54,000 curbside
residences and customers within Collier County. A few decisions would
have to be made between now and the time of actually implementing that
rollout. And thatws one in terms of the issue of the size of the
container, and we still have -- even though wewve done the survey for
the pilot program, I think before we make that commitment -- because
wewre talking about a sizeable purchase of 54,000 carts -- you want to
be fairly accurate as to the amount of inventory that youwre going to
need in order to meet the needs of the consumers. I think we would
have to study -- not so much study that but have some continuing
discussion with county staff so wewre fairly comfortable with what we
expect will happen as far as the selection that the residents would
make relative to the size of the container. And we have three
containers outside that show the various sizes, the 35-, 65-, and
95-gallon container.
Recommendation that I made to staff a couple weeks ago was that
we could go back to, again, our pilot group and those people that had
some question about the size of the container, again, poll them as
well as probably provide the alternate size container to let them test
it first, because itws a little difficult to make a decision about
size when youwre not really sure about the amount of garbage you
generate because you never really pay close attention to it. So I
think if we had some more information from that study group, we could
make a very good decision. And Iwm not trying to delay the
implementation. Itws just that when youwre talking about 54,000
containers at 50 to 60 dollars a container, itws a three million
dollar investment if my figures are correct, and you want to be fairly
accurate on that.
Secondly, we have the issue of a commitment from the manufacturer
to produce the carts once the decisionws been made. And, thirdly, we
have to change some of our fleet in order to accommodate the cart
collection program. So itws a question of not just purchasing carts,
itws changing some of our collection vehicles, and I have to get a
commitment from the manufacturer of those specific trucks.
I would estimate, once wewve made the decision relative to the
size of the cart, the start-up would probably be in the range of six
to eight months. But I donwt have an answer for you today, but I
obviously would provide that answer to you within the next -- a week
to ten days as we query the manufacturer of the carts as well as
collection vehicles.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At what point, Mr. Russell, does the contract
-- a new contract or an extension of the contract have to be signed?
What is the date on that?
MR. RUSSELL: The contract language is such that if the county
takes no action in a window January 1 of w98 until May w98, then
therews an automatic two-year extension. This third year, I believe,
would require some documentation to add that to the current agreement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the details of the cart program that Mr.
Urbanski is talking about would need to be resolved prior to May 1 of
1998 in order to meet the contract requirements; is that correct? MR. RUSSELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So wewve got more than a week or ten
days.
MR. URBANSKI: Thatls correct, but obviously we feel it~s
important to the county that we move rapidly. Our intent is not to
wait until 1998 and start talking about it. We need to get these
answered now so we can plan appropriately. So if I can make a
suggestion, Iwd certainly like to get back with staff and see how we
could com -- resolve that issue and then bring it back to the
Commission to say this is what the cart program is going to look like
based on some further data that we received from the field, as well as
giving you a time frame of delivery of equipment to meet the 54,000
dollar -- I mean, 54,000 residential needs of your county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the current per-yard cost to
commercialize container?
MR. URBANSKI: In -- in David Russell's analysis that -- he said
that the rate based on size and frequency, which was a four-yard
container going twice a week, I believe David used -- the rate that he
used was $5.38 per cubic yard for that type of service.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So a reduction of 25 cents per yard or
on average a dollar per container. You just said --
MR. URBANSKI: Roughly. If you're using a four-yard container,
you would see a 25-cent-per-yard reduction; correct. So depending --
obviously it depends on the size of your container as to what you
would see as the business owner and the frequency of service, total
number of yards collected. That could vary between, you know, two
dollars a month to, you know, a hundred dollars a month depending
on --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just trying to figure out 25
cents per yard, what that was percentagewise.
MR. RUSSELL: I think that would be approximately a five
percent --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was looking, again, to bring those
commercial rates at least to middle or better, trying to accomplish
for commercial what we have accomplished for residential to some
extent. And Mr. Urbanski was helpful in getting that done.
I do want to let everyone know that I did make it clear to Waste
Management I was not having discussions on behalf of the board, but
just as an individual trying to bring this forward and see if there
was a better mousetrap out there. And what I heard Commissioner
Norris indicate, and I want to make sure this doesn't just -- Mr.
Urbanski, this isn't something that I discussed with you or any
representatives of Waste Management, but the direction given today
would also include that this contract go out for bid at the
termination of the three-year extension, period. That direction would
be given today. Does that in any way change the commitments that you
and I had discussed?
MR. URBANSKI: It does make a significant change. And if I could
just add some comments to that before a decision's made relative to
bid or no bid at the conclusion of the extension of our contract.
Currently within your -- within your -- within our contract or
franchise with the county, at the conclusion of the term of the
contract, either party has the right to request the extension or deny
the extension; so that's always in -- it's always available to the
Commission to say yea or nay at some future point in time when the
current term expires. We're making a significant capital investment
of $3 million for the containers as well as retrofitting our fleet in
order to provide that service. We understand that investment, and
that's an investment in the future of our company in terms of the
relationship with the county as well as an investment in the future of
the quality of service and the high level of service that the
residents currently receive based on the satisfaction ratings that
we've seen in terms of all the surveys. And we -- we're willing to
make that commitment, but we'd like to have the opportunity if we are
able to, again, maintain a high level of service and the Commission
two years down the road or three years when the time comes to
determine what is the future of the cart program, the relationship
between the county and Waste Management, have the opportunity to,
again, prove ourselves at that point in time to see whether or not the
county would, one, like to continue the level of service, renegotiate
the contract, put the contract out for bid. We're not asking for a
blank check for our future. All we're asking for is the opportunity
to have that considered at the appropriate time in the future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll have the opportunity -- if we
follow through on your suggestion, Waste Management would have the
opportunity to bid at that time. And that would certainly be the
opportunity to continue in the future.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm trying to think about the -- and I'm
sure you can help me with this, Commissioner Norris -- is why would we
want to decide today to force a Commission to make a choice that we're
today rejecting.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the corollary to that is we can't
anyway, because the Commission in the future could change its mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But he's going to be here in three years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And he'll remind them of that; so we could
state our -- that it was our intention that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can make a commitment to the public
and the board in three years can opt to keep their commitment to the
public or not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It just troubles me that I've got a choice
today and I'm choosing B, and I'm saying three years in the future the
county commission, I'm forcing you to choose A, and that seems odd to
me. I don't understand why we would do that. I don't understand why
we would try to do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's a good point and -- and I just
threw the commitment to bid out as a -- as a point that might help
Commissioner Constantine with his concern. If the rest of the board
doesn't feel comfortable with making that commitment today, that's
fine.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But isn't it true, too, that, you know, in
three years a survey is taken again on homeowners, and if there is a
high degree of satisfaction with current service, one of the questions
that I have -- a concern that I have, since my particular district has
a great deal of rural area and remote area for the most part, a
transition in a company would have a big impact on that particular
area only from the standpoint of familiarity with the area and knowing
where residences are located and so forth. That sounds rather strange
but you have a lot of unmarked areas and undesignated areas that for
someone coming into the county new, there would be a transition
period, and I guess I'm kind of looking -- I'm certainly concerned
about dollars obviously. But on the other hand, I'm also concerned
about service to my constituents out there and making sure that they
have the proper service. This would be a concern for me that I'm
going to get a lot of phone calls in this transition when their waste
is not able to be picked up; so it's just something to consider and I
think something that we have to weigh in addition to cost and
everything put together. You can't just look at one aspect. I think
you have to look at the service provided and weigh all facets of the
entire industry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you make a great point, and
did none of you get complaints -- and I know what our survey said. I
also know how the survey question is worded. But did none of you get
complaints as far as missed pickups or --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have gotten some complaints. I have to
tell you in all sincerity that the number of complaints that I have
gotten, you could count probably on one hand, maybe two hands. And
that's -- I'm saying they have been from the same people. I will also
tell you that upon a call from myself or my secretary to Waste
Management, they have tracked and they have worked with the people and
with Waste Management, and there has been a distinct improvement and
there have been some things that it was a misunderstanding on the part
of the people and it had to do with times of getting the material to
the curbside. It was, you know, something that was overlooked. It
wasn't anything that was an intentional kind of thing. And that has
been remedied and so I -- you know, if you look at the number of
people and the area, miles, etc. in my particular district, I think
it's remarkable that the complaints are as few as they are.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Geographically about half of my district
is serviced by this franchise, and I actually have never gotten any
complaints but I was aware of a complaint and I just sort of watched
it, because I was aware that a complaint -- frankly, it was in my
parents' neighborhood so, you know, they told my mom who told me that
they -- they called Waste Management and it was like we need you.
We're going to get you to sic them. Huh-uh. They took care of it
without ever really calling me so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going -- I'm going to interrupt the Waste
Management lovefest here for just a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Geez. Garbage love. I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The point's been made that we can say, well,
we'll go out to bid at the end of three years and a future board that
only two members of this board -- three members are going to serve on.
I'm sorry, Barb; I forgot you. Anyway, you know, that leaves a little
bit of a wild card. And we can't bind future boards. But I think
what we can do is identify what the important areas are and require,
if Waste Management's willing to agree to it, a survey that is
approved by this board as a consumer survey with a time frame before
the end of that third year and that that survey be used by the board
to determine whether or not a bidding process is -- is warranted.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the complaint is that the survey internally
at Waste Management can be geared -- and we all know surveys can. I
mean, come on. If you want to get a survey that says the sky is
green, just word the question appropriately, and you'll get that
survey result. But if the survey --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's doing that survey?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, actually I did it. No. If the survey
is statistically correct, if its method is true to --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Independently done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what are quantitative methods, then it will
ferret out a reasonable response. So maybe instead of trying to --
rather than trying to tie the hands of a future board, we require a
survey what, twelve months before the termination of the contract?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I think that's fair.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then do a six-month date -- six-month
decision prior to the end of that third year?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have at least one public speaker who
is going to help us make this decision?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Urbanski, is there -- just on that
point, is there any objection to that?
MR. URBANSKI: No objection. We'd welcome the opportunity to
prove ourselves. We do it every day, and we look forward to that
opportunity twelve months down the road from the expiration of this
extension to participate in that survey. We'd certainly look forward
to that, and we feel that's very fair and reasonable on the part of
the Commission.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Urbanski.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final comment. Clearly I'm in
the minority but it's -- I mean, in truth we have a service that most
people are happy with at a cost that is very good, but if I go to the
grocery store and buy a particular brand of milk that I like the taste
better than any other brand of milk and it's ten cents cheaper a
gallon than any other brand of milk, I'm going to be very happy with
it. But I'm going to be even happier if they lower the price another
25 cents. And so I guess -- generally we're happy with the service,
but I just wish we would look. There may be a better service at a
better cost that we will never know unless we go to bid. I just hate
to miss that opportunity. I know in '92 that was a hot button during
the campaign of '92 because we were fresh off the prior renewal
without bids. That was something the public was very, very frustrated
with at the time. Clearly I'm in the minority and -- but I find it
equally frustrating in 1997.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Urbanski?
Let's go to the public speakers on this.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, could I get a clarification, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: On the rate increase freeze, would that include
this last year? We're on the threshold of the eighth year (sic) of
the current year. Would the price freeze also include on both the
commercial and residential sides a freeze?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's not a freeze on the commercial side.
It's a lowering -- when this contract here terminates, it drops 25
cents.
MR. URBANSKI: No. If I can just clarify that. Our commitment
to the county is to -- upon the agreement between the county and
ourselves of extending this contract, we will immediately drop the
commercial rate 25 cents. Effective this October under our current
terms of our existing franchise agreement, we were entitled to a CPI
adjustment on the residential rate. We will not -- we will not take
the CPI adjustment on the residential rate. In essence, the current
residential rate today will be frozen through the life of -- remaining
life of the contract as agreed upon. And the only adjustment that
would take place would be the adjustments effective to the commercial
rates i.e., in October with the CPI adjustment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's right. I had them -- I had them
reversed.
MR. URBANSKI: Under the current terms of our existing agreement.
So the only thing that happens to commercial is we reduce the rate 25
cents. Everything else stays the same under the franchise agreement.
Residentially we've agreed to freeze the rate effective today through
remaining -- extended term of the contract.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Public speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, are you ready for speakers?
Kay Randazzo.
MS. RANDAZZO: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman. I'm Kay
Randazzo, the president of Riviera Golf Estates. We have 606 occupied
homes. Mr. Norris represents us. I would like to comment on the
pilot program. It was issued to some of our residents and it proved
to be very good except for the 90-gallon container, which most of our
people returned immediately. There might be about 20 90-gallon
containers out there yet. Our people would readily accept the 35
gallon. I will say this for Waste Management, most of our people are
pleased with their service and with keeping the rate low, not that we
wouldn't like it to go to bids. I'll stick by Mr. Constantine on that
-- I think -- this is only my personal opinion. I think most of the
residents of Collier County would think more of the commissioners if
they did put it to bids, because they would think you were working for
us. You might think about that.
Anyway I am here to find out -- and the man from Waste Management
has answered most of those questions -- when this will start. Our
community, half the people go away for the summer months and nobody
will be back until October. Now, if you extend this till May, people
are going to be going away again. So we wouldn't be able to have a
delivery of these containers through May to October because they'd be
all sitting at the curbs. There'd be nobody to put them away.
But most of the people who kept the 90 gallon, if you would drive
there on collection day, you will see that they do not recycle.
Everything is in that 90-gallon container. It was convenient because
you can put everything in it. When you have the smaller one, people
recycle in our community. I'm speaking strictly for our community.
But that's what has happened in our community.
And so I am really concerned when this would start and when would
be the delivery, and I'd like to ask, Mr. Hancock, you mention that
they would have a choice. Now, do you mean a choice for individual
residents, or do you say a choice for the different communities?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, ma'am. A choice for individual residents.
The bottom line is no one would have any size container forced upon
them. You would receive a choice individually of which of those
containers is most appropriate for you.
I do want to respond to your comment of the public would think
more of us, it's like we're not working for them. A million and a
half dollars savings for ratepayers over three years to bring the
lowest rate to the state of Florida, combined with avoiding the six
months of turmoil that Lee County experienced when they changed
providers and what Commissioner Berry was referring to, which was
drivers not familiar with areas not knowing about certain things such
as Mr. Fernandez experienced in Alachua County. When things are
going really well in a certain area of service, particularly in
government, we need to learn not to mess with it.
MS. RANDAZZO: I understand that. We have that even in a small
community, and I understand that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that is a consideration.
MS. RANDAZZO: That was just my own personal opinion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. I just wanted to respond
because that was a consideration that I didn't state in these points
and Commissioner Berry did, because it was something every community
experienced was six months of absolute headache in changing providers.
There's got to be a significant dollar reason to go through that
turmoil, and with our rates where they are, that's why I brought this
forward. I just wanted to respond to that one point.
MS. RANDAZZO: Thank you. My other concern is -- and I have
written to Mr. Norris about this and maybe to you -- but to address
the reason from the county that the little bags would get picked up
even if there is not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
MR. RANDAZZO: We have a lot of -- it's an over-55 community, and
a lot of people are in their 80s and they do not even struggle with
any container. And I think you did write me a letter and have that
in writing, and we will hold you to it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the commitment that we've gotten
from Waste Management, that they will pick up the bags '-
MS. RANDAZZO: Thank you. I thank you for letting me talk. And
I would like to know if Theresa Rezin, perhaps, would let me know when
this is going to start so we can keep our community -- everybody is
always calling and asking when is this going to start and are they
going to deliver the smaller ones, and when are they picking up the
bigger ones. We've had a lot of problems with the bigger ones,
because they do not fit, and they're standing outside the houses all
the time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you will check with Mr. Russell, give
him your name and address, he will notify you as soon as we have an
answer on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the meantime we'll finalize all the details
you're talking about. If this moves ahead today in this form, we'll
finalize those details. And I normally don't recommend you read the
paper, but a press release will occur '- MS. RANDAZZO: I read the paper.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't believe everything.
MS. RANDAZZO: I'm watching everything you do. That's why I
agree with Mr. Constantine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you want to know what we do, don't read the
paper.
MS. RANDAZZO: We also hear otherwise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. RANDAZZO: Thank you for hearing me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have another one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Another one. Okay. Please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Trash pickup
from -- for Waste Management is not a very romantic business -- my
name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking
for myself.
Going back to the romance of Waste Management, it is not a very
romantic subject, and I am personally very happy that Waste Management
have introduced an attractive alternative to the variety of cans,
boxes, and what have you that's currently being used; so all I can
really say is that while I'm aware that they will gain some
efficiencies in using the unitized container, more power to them. You
know, this is one example when the aesthetics improvement within a
given industry actually helps everybody including the provider.
I have a comment to Mr. Constantine. I have negotiated for most
of my life, and there is -- things could turn worse. You put things
out for bid, what you're essentially doing -- this is a very small
community of an industry. Any industry is -- essentially consists of
very few members. Everybody knows everybody. And if you examine the
cost structure that's today very satisfactory -- as a matter of fact,
from the information given out, we are the lowest or certainly among
the best, but there is a very high public acceptance to the service, I
really personally don't see any need for giving Waste Management a
weapon, a proven weapon, for the future negotiations by proving it to
them that they're by far the most reasonable current provider. That's
all I have. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that the last speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That was the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did mention that we would try and do this in
two parts, one is the -- to discuss whether or not we wanted to go to
bid or whether it was more advantageous we believe to do an extension
of two or three years. I think the three-year extension with all of
the commitments made from Mr. Urbanski from Waste Management is on the
record; so I'll just ask what the board's desire is in that matter.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to move for a three-year
extension of the contract according to what was stated by Mr.
Urbanski.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that Commissioner Hancock has in
writing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll submit this for the record, which was a
letter from their representative that identified the three main
points; so I'll enter that for the record. We have a motion on the
floor.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was there another commitment that was not
on this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. The commitment was, and Mr. Urbanski
agreed to it, was the survey one year out, that this board have an
opportunity to review prior to it being sent out and have to give a
statistically significant sample, not target areas of a neighborhood
that is in love with the --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If the motion maker will include
that commitment, I will second.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I will do that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion on the motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who will absorb the expense of that
survey?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- is Waste Management -- I asked on the
record if they would do it at their expense. And, Mr. Urbanski, if I
could get you on the record to state that you would, in fact, absorb
the cost of that survey.
MR. URBANSKI: Dennis Urbanski. We will absorb the costs of the
survey for twelve months prior to the expiration of the extension of
our current franchise agreement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They will draft it, present it to this board.
We can alter it if we wish if we don't like the wording of a
question --
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- or whenever we can have that input in a
meeting, get it back to them, and they will send a survey out, and
we'll even make it a county address for receipt of the survey if that
would --
MR. URBANSKI: Whatever the pleasure of the Commission is at that
time relative to the survey, we'll participate wholly with the county
as a partner in the survey and subsidize the cost of the survey.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have a centralized mail facility there,
you know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions on the motion?
Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Russell, before we take a -- is that
sufficient direction?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Call the question. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four, one.
The second point on this item was -- I'm sorry. Dissenting was
Commissioner Constantine.
Second, the revenue services department has made a recommendation
that multifamily units in the county be added to the mandatory
program. I looked over this, and I can see some positive to it, but
what it becomes -- it becomes more problematic to me in that -- I
don't know how many of you have lived in a condo in the last few
years. You live in one, don't you?
And after I first got married, we lived in one, and our building
had one dumpster and a trash chute. And if we didn't need a dumpster
that big, we'd get a smaller one, and if we needed a larger one, we
could get that. Or if we needed more service, we could tailor it that
way. And most condominiums operate that way. Yours is probably the
same way. My concern about this is what happens is you end up kind
of averaging all multifamily units and assessing a billing amount.
And the tailoring of service -- right now they can say, well, out of
season we don't have hardly anything so they get a smaller container
for that period then during season. And I'm afraid that the benefits
in billing are outweighed by the reductions in flexibility to the
consumer. And with the commercial reductions we just did, I
personally don't think that that has a significant benefit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's too messy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Well, that was a lot easier than
the first item. We'll leave that portion of the process as is. Is
there any further items on this, Mr. Russell, or have we covered them?
MR. RUSSELL: Just a housekeeping matter regarding an audit of
the franchisees that the clerk's been providing that service on a
limited basis. It's been several years since we've done a full audit.
Solid waste department did budget for that. We wanted to wait till
this process to get agreement from the board on conducting a full
audit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone have a problem with the audit moving
forward?
Seeing none, full speed ahead.
Okay. With that, let's take a five-minute break if you would be
so kind as to smack the gavel down there, Commissioner Berry.
(Break taken at this time.)
Item #12C7
APPLICATION FOR A CABLE FRANCHISE SUBMITTED BY MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC.
- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. Or good morning. Excuse me.
Going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. Yeah.
I'm rushing things, A1. Folks, if you could eliminate the
conversation and have a seat, please. Thank you.
We have two items that -- there are specific time commitments
for. Thank you. We have a time certain this morning on the -- which
was a continuation from last week -- on the cable franchise
agreements. And we also have an interim government -- I'm sorry -- an
impact fee study consultant that has a flight early afternoon. So we
have those two items to get through before more or less the -- either
the noon hour or shortly thereafter. I don't know which of the two is
lengthier. My guess is we could probably knock out the impact fee one
fairly quickly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in fairness to the -- I don't
know how many people are here on the cable thing, but last week they
came, and then we set that up again; so they've actually been delayed
seven days as opposed to being delayed an hour.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm going to ask is if we start
approaching a time that the individuals here on the impact fee feel is
critical, that we let Mr. Fernandez know, and we'll -- we'll try and
accommodate as best we can. So with that why don't we go ahead and
move to the -- help me with the number here. We are up to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12 (C)(7).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 12 (C) (7).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12 (C) (7) .
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I was going to say 12(C)(7).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to 12(C)(7), recommendation for board
to consider an application for cable franchise submitted by Marco
Island Cable, and this is continued from last week. Who do we have on
staff? Miss Herritt, are you presenting this item?
MS. HERRITT: For the record, Jean Herritt, office of franchise
administration. You have for your consideration an application for
cable television franchise. Ordinance 88-90 as amended in Section
30-28 paragraph states, nonexclusive franchises may be awarded by the
Board of County Commissioners for all or any portion of the county to
applicants upon finding that such award is consistent with public
interest, furthers the goal of providing competitive CATV services to
all residents of the unincorporated areas of the county and does not
result in material abuse of county streets or easements or
rights-of-way and after consideration of the factors referred to in
Subsection F. The ordinance also states in paragraph 10 of this
section, the county in it's discretion may agree to accept other
information in lieu of the items reflected in this paragraph providing
it is acting reasonable and is satisfied that the applicant has
materially completed with the requirements of this section.
Marco Island Cable, Incorporated, has submitted an application
for a franchise that would allow the company to serve a portion of
Marco Island. Staff believes that given this territory the
application that has been submitted is materially complete. The
financial information Mr. Gaston as owner of Marco Island Cable,
Incorporated, has supplied the county is adequate to assure that Marco
Island has the needed resources to build out the described territory.
Although staff cannot provide an unqualified endorsement of this
application, however we do recommend the grant of a franchise to Marco
Island Cable, Incorporated, subject to the following conditions: that
the territory be enlarged to contain a greater amount of single-family
dwellings to achieve a balance between multi- and single-family
housing. Mr. Gaston is well aware of staff's concerns and with the
problems associated with the competing cable operator in the
marketplace. He has discussed the matter with us, however, we believe
the way to resolve the problem is for Marco Island Cable,
Incorporated, to enlarge it's proposed franchise area adequately so as
to minimize any criticisms.
Staff is very much aware of the history of litigation surrounding
the company as a result of what occurred three years ago.
Extraordinary steps have been taken to adhere to the county's
franchising process and maintaining a level playing field. We take
very seriously the Florida Statute, Section 166.046, that provides
that no municipality or county shall grant any overlapping franchises
for cable service within its jurisdiction on terms or conditions more
favorable or less burdensome than those in any existing franchise
within such municipality or county. However, Florida Statute Section
364.01 also speaks to encouraging competition while making the point
that all providers must be treated fairly. Thus state as well as
federal statutes clearly indication -- clearly indicates that
competition is desirable.
A small company has a very difficult time attempting to compete
with a corporate giant. They don't start out even. Resources, both
financial and manpower, are not equal to begin with. This must not be
interpreted to mean that a small operator cannot compete. Ordinance
88-90 as amended clearly states, in considering the desirability of an
additional or expanded cable operator, the Board of County
Commissioners shall balance the desirability to promote competition in
the cable industry so as to promote a diversity of information and the
provision of high-quality cable service at the lowest economic price
against the unreasonable disruption of private and public property by
multiple cable operations.
Marco Island Cable has a good track record. This office has
received no complaints about an unreasonable disruption of private or
public property, nor have we received any complaints about the quality
of service the company delivers. Staff believes that if Mr. Gaston
will agree to enlarge his proposed area appropriately, that he should
be given a franchise and subsequently a specific franchise agreement
that is acceptable subject to the board's approval.
One other point needs to be made. Any written reports -- this
according to, again, 88-90. Any written reports, studies, or
materials to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at
the public hearing must be submitted to the county administrator's
office within 15 days from the date of the first publication of notice
of the public hearing. Our consultant, Mr. Robert Sepe of Action
Audits, is here to discuss the specifics and to respond to any
questions you might have. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you, Miss Herritt.
I don't know where they're currently operating on Marco Island. Let
me just revert. On page 31 of the staff packet it says, grantee
service area, and it's a big blank page. MS. HERRITT: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What were they proposing as a service
area, and what are you suggesting in the alternative? I don't have
any information about where they want to operate except for somewhere
on Marco Island.
MS. HERRITT: Commissioner, if you will allow me to defer to our
consultant who will go into the very specifics that you're speaking
of, and you also have a copy of his report in front of you which will
give you more specifics in writing. If you will allow me to do that,
I'd appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is his report in our staff report?
Oh. No. It's coming. Thank you.
MS. MERRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There should be a rule that if it's more than
five pages, we get it more than five minutes ahead of the hearing,
but --
MR. SEPE: I'm Bob Sepe. I'm from Action Audits. I'm your
consultant on cable television telecommunication matters. I've been
involved in cable television administration and franchising since
1983. I have performed -- involved in franchising rate reviews and
other related issues. This morning what I would like to do is to lead
you through the process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you mind answering my questions just to
start?
MR. SEPE: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What piece of property are we talking
about on Marco Island where they want to provide cable TV?
MR. SEPE: Basically if you look at the franchise agreement,
Section 11 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this the one you just gave us?
MR. SEPE: Right. And also -- right, that is correct, and also
it's the same one that was handed out last week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Handed out last week?
MR. SEPE: Well, we had it prepared last week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We didn't get it -- you know that -- that
week.
MR. SEPE: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know that we didn't get that?
MR. SEPE: Right, 11.3.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just -- just so we move along
smoothly. I don't really care whether it was prepared a week ago. I
haven't seen anything of this till now. So whether you had it
prepared or not doesn't really matter.
MR. SEPE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you're our consultant; so let's be on
the same side.
MR. SEPE: Okay. That's fine. It's 11.3, 3.1. Now, the initial
service area includes a portion of North Collier Boulevard. A
secondary service area includes Saturn Court, Green Brier Street,
Dandelion Court, Wintergreen Court, and Manor Terrace. Okay. That's
the secondary service area. The applicant already has the initial
service area served. The secondary service area maps and design plans
were submitted for that, so that is complete. With respect to Miss
Herritt's comments regarding expansion of the service area to include
more single-family homes, that is included in Section 11.3.3.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just don't -- is there a map of -- do
you guys know where that is? I'm sure Commissioner Norris does. MR. SEPE: I don't have a map.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know where Wintergreen Court is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are these areas contiguous?
MR. SEPE: Yes, they are contiguous.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Contiguous to North Collier Boulevard. So
basically right now they're doing condos and they're expanding into
some residential streets, and we're suggesting they should expand
further.
MR. SEPE: Correct. That is correct, ma'am. And I believe that
you were provided with a map that wasn't in the application package.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't have it, sir. If you wouldn't
mind providing a copy of it to us. Does anybody else have a map? I
don't have a map.
MS. MERRITT: The map was included in the application that was
given to you several weeks ago, the big blue book.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Is it something that we could have
a copy of today?
I didn't do that. Sorry about your ears. Thank you. Okay. I
just needed to do get sort of oriented to what we were talking about.
MR. SEPE: Okay. That's fair. That's fair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and continue then.
MR. SEPE: Yeah. Procedurally, what I'd like to do is to walk
you through the process so that we follow all of the requirements of
the ordinance. Essentially what happened is that a thorough review of
the application was performed by myself, and a subsequent report was
given to the franchise administration staff that pointed out 19 areas
in that application which were deficient because they either were
incomplete or lacked detailed information. Now, that application was
returned to Mr. Gaston and he also was provided with a copy of the
report, and he was advised that once the deficiencies were cured he
could return the report to the -- rather the application to the office
of franchise administration, which he did in fact do. The application
was revised. The deficiencies were cured and basically the
application is judged to satisfy the material requirements of the
application process as it now stands. Your county code, Chapter
30-28, requires that -- that the board review a number of -- of
aspects of the franchising process and make a determination and this
is what I have done, and I'll share this information.
First of all is an evaluation of the economic impact upon
property within the franchise area. Essentially the record does not
indicate any significant negative economic impact on the surrounding
properties in the franchise area. Moreover the expected economic
benefit obtained by having a second cable operator area serve the
franchise area appears to outweigh any negative impact. The applicant
proposes to use county rights-of-way for signal distribution, for
their infrastructure, and proposes to use underground construction,
which eliminates any visual impacts upon residents. The headend and
antennas are currently placed atop a high-rise condominium. These
facilities are not visible from the street, therefore, the existing
proposed system would not adversely impact property values in that
regard. And the availability of a competing cable telecommunication
operator in the marketplace may serve to enhance property values.
The second aspect that needs to be considered is the public need
for such a franchise. Competition arising from granting a second
franchise has the potential of a diminishment in rates, improved
programming, and better customer service. Now, one of the things that
we did for you is that we administered this cable television survey.
Now, findings from the survey, we learned that 48 percent of Media One
and 65 percent of Time Warner's cable customers said they would switch
to another cable company. Ninety percent of Time Warner's subscribers
and eighty-three percent of Media One subscribers stated that Collier
County should encourage competition within the same geographic area.
Fifty-six percent of Time Warner customers and forty-six percent of
Media One customers stated that their cable telecommunication purchase
decision is based upon lowest price. Seventy-one percent of Time
Warner cable customers and fifty-four percent of Media One customers
perceived cable rates as being too high. Seventy-five percent of Time
Warner cable customers and seventy-two percent of Media One customers
are against protecting the existing cable companies from competition
by refusing to grant a franchise to a competitor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Sepe, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I
need to put some things in context. A couple of them are no-brainers.
If you ask someone do you want more choice, 90 percent say yes. Duh.
I mean, that's a given.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you like it cheaper?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you like to pay less? Duh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just wonder who that other percentage
is that said no to those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe employees of Time Warner or Media One.
The question that -- that I asked -- it says 90 percent of Time Warner
cable subscribers and eighty-three percent of Media One subscribers
stated that Collier County should encourage competition with the same
geographic area. How much of the county offers choices outside of the
DSS system?
MR. SEPE: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So that --
MR. SEPE: There might be some very slight overlapping areas
about which I'm aware, but virtually none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When you asked would you switch to another
cable company, was that the question?
MR. SEPE: That was the question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you say at the same cost? At a higher
cost? At a lower cost?
MR. SEPE: Well, you know, I could give you the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm curious about the question, because we
just talked how, you know, questions can be framed in such a way that
the answer is obvious.
MR. SEPE: These questions were reviewed by staff, and they're
nonbiased questions. I mean, they're straightforward and straight up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the last one -- I'm sorry, but the
last one that you read about should Collier County protect the big
company to the detriment of the little company didn't sound like an
unbiased question to me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not getting -- Mr. Sepe, I'm just
asking what the question was that generated that response. MR. SEPE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page are you on?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the second page of what we were just
handed, the Action Audits piece.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. It was the cover segment to that, the
white paper.
MR. SEPE: The question was -- which is Question 21 -- would you
switch to a competing cable company if it offered comparable
programming and rates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SEPE: So that's -- that's an unbiased question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you give me the last question?
MR. SEPE: Which was?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About protecting from competition.
MR. SEPE: Okay. It will take me a moment but I'll find that.
That's Question 22: Should the county encourage competition among
cable companies within the same geographic area?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Isn't this -- you can -- I can put all these
questions and I see one thing. I see frustration with lack of choice.
That's what the whole thing adds up to me, is that people, because of
the cost of installing cable systems for the most part, people want --
like they do in everything else in life, they want choice, but
financially getting two cable companies to run a coaxial down the same
street has been problematic.
MR. SEPE: People want -- I think you're correct. People want the
ability to choose between providers. I mean, they can choose now
between their long distance providers and shortly they'll be able to
choose between their local telephone service provider, so it's not
unrealistic to expect that people would seek a choice with respect to
cable television providers or line providers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask -- we've seen
this issue at the board level a number of occasions. I think most of
us are fairly familiar with this proposal. How much level of detail
do we intend to go into today?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong but Mr. Gaston has
brought a bevy of people I assume and, Mr. Sepe, are their points of
contention in this contract that are the focus of today's discussion?
MR. SEPE: I think we can -- we can go right to it. I can go
right through it quickly. Essentially I think the rights-of-way are
adequate to accommodate the additional facilities; there's no
disruption. Marco Island has been serving its customers
satisfactorily for over two and a half years; so they have the ability
to provide the service. And I think that -- that the significant
issue is the issue with respect to cherry picking, and let me address
that. Essentially it's been argued by incumbent cable operators that
the cable television service area proposed by Marco Island Cable
constitutes cherry picking because it primarily serves multiple
dwelling units. Now, before drawing a conclusion on this issue, it
must be recognized that -- and these are your statistics from your
planning department -- of the developed properties on Marco Island,
8,298 are multiple dwelling and 3,910 are single-family units.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Eight thousand and three thousand?
MR. SEPE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. SEPE: Eighty-two hundred and thirty-nine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So eight and four.
MR. SEPE: So that's roughly a two-to-one ratio of multiple
dwelling units to single-family homes. So regardless of who goes to
Marco Island to serve Marco Island, they're going to be serving a
preponderance of MDUs. Can't help it, because it's a two-to-one
ratio. However, you know, what we believe here that the grant of a
cable franchise to Marco Island just to serve residents living within
MDUs may not be consistent with the public interest vis-a-vis the
study. So, therefore, these folks indicated that they want
competition in the marketplace. They want the ability to choose; so
consequently we recommended that Marco Island Cable in terms of the
grant of a franchise, that it be subject to reasonable expansion of
the service area to include a portion of cable service to
single-family homes.
And what did we consider being reasonable -- and this is minimum
level of reasonableness -- that would require Marco Island Cable to
pass no fewer than 100 single-family homesites for each of the second
through the sixth years of the franchise. That's five years; that's
adding a minimum of 500 homesites to their service area in addition to
the 88 homesites that they're already going to pass the first year in
terms of that map that was -- that I brought up earlier.
And we believe that they can adequately fund this expansion. I'm
going to ask Mr. Gaston to attest to that a little later, but the
expansion can be reasonably funded out of cash flow, existing cash
flow over the five years.
Another factor that is important to consider is that the Cable
Act of 1992 limits the ability of a franchise authority to withhold
the grant of a cable television franchise. The act provides that a
franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and
furthermore it goes on to say that it may not unreasonably refuse to
award an additional competitive franchise.
Also, it has been a year and a half since the Telecommunications
Competition and Deregulation Act of 1996 altered the regulatory
landscape. Of particular interest -- it's important to look toward
intent. In the conference committee report where the Senate expressed
its intent, quote, to allow for competition by modifying the minimum
standards yet protect the public interest and somehow balance the
playing field particularly when a company faces competition from a
telecommunications carrier that is a large, global, or national entity
that has financial or technological resources that are significantly
greater than the resources of the new entrant competitor. That is
very important to look toward intent.
Now, essentially the franchise application documents have been
reviewed by county staff and its consultant, and I'm satisfied that
the application has materially complied with the county's cable
television franchise application requirements. Therefore, it is
recommended that the board find that Marco Island Cable's application
is materially complete, that it modified the applicant's proposed
cable system service area to extend service to pass no fewer than 100
single-family homesites for each of the second through the sixth year
of the franchise term -- that's a five-year period -- and approve and
execute the proposed seven-year franchise agreement between Marco
Island Cable and Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Sepe? Commissioner
Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I just have a question about the
level playing field. Currently the two companies that are serving
Marco Island are Time Warner and Media One; is that correct? MR. SEPE: Well, it's Media One.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Media One? Okay. When you talk about level
the playing field, I would think that that would mean that there's got
to be certain areas in Media One and Time Warner that when you look at
their entire costs -- I happen to live in an area that would, quote,
be considered a little more remote. In other words, I'm not within
the city area, okay. So somewhere along the line they've got to be
making up costs. I mean, in other words both of them, both of those
companies, would be on a level playing field because they're both
covering areas very similar, okay. But if you go to a company that's
going to basically just cover one particular area, how is -- I don't
understand how that's a level playing field.
MR. SEPE: Well, it's a new -- it's a new entrant and they're --
they're expanding to serve areas that they can -- in other words,
Marco Island Cable cannot support a countywide franchise. They don't
have the financial resources to go countywide. The other thing with
respect to level playing field that you have to remember is that both
Time Warner and Continental Cable signed a social contract with the
Federal Communications Commission to erase a whole host of rate
complaints that were filed against both of those companies. Part of
that agreement allows Time Warner and Continental-Media One to
precapitalize their investment. They are collected -- they collected
last year an additional one dollar per subscriber to fund -- that's
per month to fund their expansion. This is the second year of the
social contract. They are collecting a fee of $2 extra per subscriber
to fund their expansion of their cable service infrastructure.
Marco Island does not have an agreement with the Federal
Communication Commission that allows it to precapitalize its -- its
infrastructure so, you know, essentially if we were to move toward a
level playing field on that basis, then you would want immediately
Time Warner and perhaps Media One to rescind the $2 increase this year
per month that its subscribers are paying to put them both on the same
plane.
So, you know, there -- obviously they have an advantage.
obviously that has to be mitigated. We believe that we've effectively
done that. We've weighed all the facts, and we believe that Marco
Island Cable can reasonably serve Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A couple of just real practical ones. Do
we know the rates paid by the current users of Marco Island Cable
versus Media One on the balance, you know, something similar on the
island. They can get it a lot cheaper from Marco Island Cable?
MR. SEPE: Mr. Gaston.
MR. GASTON: Single family units or units not under contract --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say your name for the record.
MR. GASTON: I'm sorry. For the record, William R. Gaston,
president, Marco Island Cable. Single-family units and units not
covered under a bulk contract at multiple dwelling facilities, it's
21.95.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As opposed to Media One which is?
MR. GASTON: Approximately thirty --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thirty dollars balipark, something like
that.
MR. GASTON: In that range. Approximately 33 percent higher.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's about -- okay. So about a third.
And the other question that I have is -- and I don't know who has the
answer to this question, but my concern is while I want Marco Island
to have choice -- I'd like for everybody to have some choice -- I
don't want people in my district to be subsidizing this choice for
Marco Island by virtue of higher rates as a result of the cherry
picking on Marco; that's what worries me.
MR. SEPE: Well, I don't believe there's cherry picking on Marco.
MR. GASTON: There's not. Could I address that one particular
point?
MR. SEPE: Sure.
MR. GASTON: There's not cherry picking necessarily on Marco
Island at all. And on top of that the rates are more dictated by the
fact that when Continental bought Colony, they bought it for $1800.00.
When Media One bought Continental just a few months ago they bought it
for $2600 per subscriber; that's what's dictating the rates. Marco
Island Cable is not going to dic --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than sitting here and trying to open
the books of both organizations and having a fight between you and
anyone from Media One -- that's not what this is about. This is a
franchise for your organization.
I understand your question.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know how to balance that, but it's
what my concern is primarily.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It can't be unless you can start putting
dishes in residential neighborhoods to serve a hundred homes. I
mean, the other thing to think about is that if they are on a level
playing field, if all the commercials for Media One are correct, it
won't be level soon because all Mr. Gaston can do is provide
broadcast. A form of coaxial cable is going to be providing broader
services than that, so the level playing field itself is changing; so
that -- apparently that 33 percent more is also going to have more
options attached to it. And whether we can provide choice to those
people, depends on whether or not someone comes up with a way to serve
them and can make a buck at it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the ground reality is that -- that
somebody on Manor Terrace or Buttercup something Court can choose to
have Media One or Marco Island Cable, or they -- there will be both
lines in the street?
MR. SEPE: There will be two lines in the street, and they would
have a choice. There are some places in -- in the United States where
there are three cable companies side by side, and you have a choice.
You can get your cable modem service from one and your cable
television service from another if that's what you so choose.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the disruption of the right-of-way is
that there is some sort of a conduit there that they're going to
shoot these lines through or --
MR. SEPE: Well, they - they go ahead and they -- they either
direct bury the cable into the right-of-way. It's a minimal intrusion
process. And actually most of the disruption would be due to
vehicular traffic, people having to move around the construction
crews. You might have some problems at intersections when they cross
an intersection but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although I think these broad issues apply
today, the details I think we need to wait for the telecommunication
ordinance to come in --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just need to get a sort of a picture of
what are we talking about. If we approve a franchise agreement,
what's going to happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The same thing that happens now as I
understand it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only more. Only it would be expanded
because the staff is saying if you approve it, approve it in a greater
area to lay more cable.
MR. SEPE: And basically -- and this is to balance out the HDUs
and the single-family homes to make it more approximate the ratio,
which is two to one, on the island now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- on rates according to this contract,
I get copies of cable bills dropped off in my mailbox from my
neighbors all the time saying why did this go up or why did that go
up. And there's really, quite frankly -- and I don't know if it
applies to Mr. Gaston's operation. There's never an explanation to
the ratepayer why something just went up. And so with the amount that
this contract -- does this contract fix amounts and increases, and if
it does not --
MR. SEPE: Does not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SEPE: And the reason it does not is that CVI successfully
went to the FCC and had Collier County declared as an area of
effective competition. Therefore it removed all of the rate
regulatory authority that the county had with respect to the approval
of the basic rate. So this is effective competition. Basically the
FCC's view was that people have choice and basically -- that's why the
county is not in the rate regulation business and that's why rates are
not germane to this particular franchise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the one thing I think we all have to
remember is that you don't need cable to live. It's not a public
utility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tell that to my kids.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, if you don't like what you're
paying, disconnect service and pop the old FH antenna up and off you
go. You've got major networks. So that's one misconception I think we
had about cable, is that somehow it's become a public utility, and it
just simply isn't.
MR. SEPE: I do think that wire line services have the ability to
provide a whole raft of services beyond just cable television so, I
mean, that's the key to the -- to the information, and the more venues
that you have coming into your home, the better you are. For example,
case in point, when I call Florida if I get a busy signal, system busy
from AT&T, I switch over to HCI, my call goes through. And that's the
flexibility that people want. Telecommunication is key; it's a key
economic growth factor. The availability of telecommunication at the
corner is important. It's key to economic growth. So I think the
more that can be encouraged, the better off we are --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a specific issue before us
this morning. And, Mr. Weigel, I had a very simple question and that
is, we effectively have a checklist of criteria that need to be met in
order for a franchise to be awarded; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our staff consultant has said
with certain additions that criteria has been met. This board can
agree or disagree with that. If we disagree we probably ought to cite
which areas are not being met?
MR. WEIGEL: That would be correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just try to keep the -- I
appreciate your comments on the general industry, but if we can just
stay on the one question at hand and either Mr. Gaston and Marco
Island Cable have met that criteria in the board's mind or they
haven't. And so let's run through those. Maybe he has a presentation.
I don't know.
MR. SEPE: I think that essentially we have to find out if Mr.
Gaston is willing to serve the additional 100 homes and how he plans
to finance that expansion.
MR. GASTON: I accept the additional 100 homes per year which
over the next five years --
MR. SEPE: Minimum requirement.
MR. GASTON: Minimum -- exactly. Exactly. A minimum requirement,
which basically takes it up to 600 pass -- single-family passings over
the next six years absolute minimum. Please keep in mind that there
are approximately six miles of high density area in Marco and that
there are -- we will do approximately six miles -- six to ten miles of
single-family homes over the next six years to accommodate the
requirements that Mr. Sepe has outlined. Our cash flow analysis that
we have submitted to this board and with the application shows that we
adequately have the funding to be able to do that.
With the six miles of high density, six miles of low density.
After we build that high density, wewre going to have to go with 100
percent low density. So as we build more high density at the start,
in order to complete the buildout of Marco Island, it will be set up.
It will be funded not only by the high density, but it will -- we will
be faced with just building the low density toward the end of the
franchise agreement.
One other thing. Iwd like to point out that we are being
required to build into a low density area. I have no problem with
that. I have accepted it, and from the copy of the agreement that was
given to you this morning, youwll see that I have signed the -- signed
off totally on that agreement. That I am totally in agreement with
the county franchise administration.
But Iwd also like to point out one other thing, that up there is
a page out of Media Onews franchise that theywre currently operating
under. And under that -- at the bottom there it says neither the
granting of this franchise or any provision contained herein shall be
construed to require that the system be extended to any particular
location within the franchise area where such extension is not
economically and technically feasible. So for the preceding 30 years
of this franchise, they have not been required to put one inch of
cable in the ground if they didnlt want to. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of course, they also serve low density areas
already; am I correct?
MR. GASTON: They serve low density areas, but they started out
serving high density areas first.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. So welre right on track.
The public education and government access provisions, two cable
companies I know of are receiving this broadcast. One is Media One;
the other is Time Warner. And Time Warner was required to pick up
that signal from Media One; is that correct? Okay. Well, Ms. -- I
see you nodding yes. Is --
MS. MERRITT: Yes, sir; that is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then does Mr. Gaston pick up this
signal?
MS. MERRITT: Absolutely he must do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to make sure the public education and
government access requirements were the same across the board.
MR. SEPE: That they are.
MR. GASTON: They are.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we have any further questions for
Mr. Gaston at this time?
Seeing none, letls go to speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Mr. A1 Perkins.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many do we have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Three.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Letls keep our comments, again, limited to the
contract before us today.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen,
people at home. A couple of things. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade groups.
A couple of questions. First of all, I take the position that Iim
against a seven-year contract for the simple reason most of you people
will not be on this board when this terminates. This needs to be
addressed, so youlre being moved on to better and bigger things.
Something that I havenlt heard here this morning, Sprint. Where
is Sprint in the fiber optics system, because I understand they were
going to compete.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A1, Sprint's -- we're not talking about a
Sprint contract today.
MR. PERKINS: You're right. Okay. But still I know you were
talking about Media One --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Marco Island Cable.
MR. PERKINS: But you were talking about service.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're talking about Marco Island Cable, and
you need to do the same thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those questions may be more appropriate under
the telecommunications ordinance, not under this particular franchise
agreement.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. With this agreement I've got a bunch of
things here. Talked about property values and leveling the playing
field. It didn't address public access to much, but you brought up
PEG, public access.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Public education.
MR. PERKINS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a difference.
MR. PERKINS: Right. Public, education and government.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. PERKINS: Three different entities. And from what I can
gather so far, the educational is in place and the government will be
in place, and the public will be totally left out of the circle. This
needs to be addressed because this way here you have the option of
getting the truth out about anything and everything. You people need
to get off your rear ends and do something about this.
Service to the unincorporated areas. As far as Marco Island
goes, to what extent can they look forward to moving in a given
direction such as Fiddler's Creek and up through Marco Shores and even
into the Belle Heade area? Because this is an open area that is
coming on board. Horr's Island for an example and the rest of them.
This needs to be looked at real good.
But back to one thing, totally against a seven-year franchise
agreement. Get it down to where it's reasonable. We're only talking
about two-and-a-half years they've been in existence. Hold it at two
and a half years or two years because the media is changing so fast
and furious with the computers and worldwide communication and the
whole five yards. You need to take and stay up to speed on this thing
and not get caught in a corner. Thank you. Does that cover it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it would actually be nine
meters in the modern day.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Dr. Faye Biles is the next speaker, Mr. Chairman.
DR. BILES: Faye Biles, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers'
Association. Our board has discussed this whole thing. In fact, I
had the whole contract with me last week and everything I wanted to
say and then I walked off without it this morning. I forgot it. But
I did want to tell you that being -- living on Marco Island we are
absolutely in favor of having a -- Marco Island Cable Television come
into our island. Our prices have been high for cablevision and having
lived in a condo, three different condos, in fact, our prices were
extremely high. And when Mr. Gaston brought it in, the condos then
could arrange so that the price went way down per apartment, and then
it was paid through your maintenance fee. So there is no comparison
in the prices that we paid before and now. So we're entirely in favor
of this. I'm happy to see that it is going to the single-family
dwellings, and I hope in time it can extend across the whole island.
I think competition is absolutely an American way to go. It's
like David and Goliath, and I just think it's time for David to have
some points. So we're in favor of it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am surprised you didn't request that they
cover the city council meetings, too.
DR. BILES: I'm sure that's going to come with demand.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will be the City of Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the city I thought you meant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: City council meetings.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Terry S.
Beanstock.
MR. BEANSTOCK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Terry
Beanstock. I'm the attorney from Media One, and I'd like to address
some of the issues. I was here three years ago addressing almost the
precise issues with Marco Island Cable's application back then, and we
had concerns back then with Marco Island's compliance with this
county's cable ordinance. They were not -- the staff disagreed with
us. A federal court did agree with us.
Our concern sitting here today, as was raised at the beginning of
the meeting -- sitting here today we have no map. We have no
franchise document. We have no staff report, which apparently -- we
just asked for a copy of it. We were told it was completed at six
o'clock last night. This is not appropriate mechanism under your own
ordinance on how to deal with a franchise process. And all we ask --
you know, Media One is not opposed to competition. Media One competes
in many different segments of its market and it also competes and
intends to compete and it does compete today with Marco Island Cable.
The issue is not competition. The issue is the ordinance and a
level playing field and cherry picking. And cherry picking was a very
important issue under state law and under federal law. And what is
being proposed today -- and, again, I talk about today, because this
is not what the application said. What's being proposed today is
cherry picking. Going to only segments of Marco Island is cherry
picking. Media One, Time Warner, hopefully new entrants, are all
going to have requirements that they have to serve high density areas,
low density areas, wealthy areas, less affluent areas. That's what
cherry picking is all about. That's the problem with giving a
franchise allowing Marco Island Cable to go wherever they want on
Marco Island and not being required to serve less economically
advantaged areas within the county.
There's no reason they can't do that. My client did it. Time
Warner's done it. New entrants -- hopefully as new entrants, I
understand there are new applications either about to come in or
coming in. There's going to be plenty of competition. As the
Telecommunications Act revolutionized the way telephone and cable
service is going to be provided both here and throughout the United
States, it's caused interest in competitive situations because now
you can have competition, not just on video, but on telephone, on
Internet service, on data services. And there's going to be
competition in this county even more than there has been in the past,
there's no question, with or without Marco Island Cable. I assume
Marco Island Cable wants to be part of that, and that's fine.
But your ordinance has a process on how to deal with that. And
the process is not hard to complete. You have to tell what you're
going to build, how you're going to finance it, with specific
information, so this -- you commissioners can evaluate it rationally.
And then you make a public policy decision on where you want that
competition to be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question because I did notice
something. On the very first page in our staff report in bold print,
you know, about two-thirds of the way down. It says no written
reports, studies, or materials were received even though the ordinance
or the advertisement in accordance with the ordinance required that
they be submitted by a certain time and date. I didn't understand the
significance of this, but apparently that's what you're referring to,
that none of this was received. And so how do we find ourselves here
today?
MR. BEANSTOCK: What's even more significant than that,
Commissioner, is that your ordinance requires before an application be
considered that there be complete financial data, proformas on what is
proposed to be served. This has literally been amended standing here
today. The service area that is being proposed to be adopted today
was neither in the application, not in the proformas, not in any of
the financial information. And just walking in here when I asked Mr.
Sepe where's the financial data supporting this, he said "I just know
that they can do it." I said, "What do you mean you just know that he
can do it?" Where's the data? That's not what your ordinance
requires. We have been through this before, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is this the data? I mean, do we
have --
MR. BEANSTOCK: I don't know. We have never seen that; that was
just handed to you. I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That has been in our office for weeks.
MR. BEANSTOCK: I'm sorry. Not that. I'm sorry. The staff
report they gave you this morning.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This little one, yeah.
MR. BEANSTOCK: That's new.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question --
MR. BEANSTOCK: In there there is data, but that data is not for
the franchise that is being proposed today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question, frankly, was for Mr. Weigel
about whether or not, you know, we're in compliance with our ordinance
and why was there this bold print statement in our staff report saying
that nothing was received.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what's important in regard to the statement
that nothing was received is that the intent of the ordinance as
written is that within a certain time frame -- in this case 15 days --
of a publication that is made of a notice of hearing, that there will
not be information provided late to staff or to -- brought to the
attention of the applicant of which the applicant will not -- and the
staff will not have the opportunity to respond in their presentation
to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And also the public? I mean, wouldn't
that -- I mean, does that only apply to staff?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it doesn't only apply to staff. But it also
provides in the ensuing sentences or paragraph of where that citation
comes from in the ordinance that the application, in fact, can be
amended right up to the time of public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this bold statement in the staff report
isn't particularly significant, and you're confident we're complying
with our ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm saying is that it's very significant,
but it's significant in regard to the kind of presentation that can be
made to you today. There are some certain limitations to the
presentation today. The application itself does have -- provide in
our ordinance for some flexibility of amendment and change to it right
up until the time of public hearing, but not subsequent to public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So has the presentation today satisfied
the ordinance requirement?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I cannot respond specifically to the financial
data. That is a call that would have to be made by staff and by the
consultant as far as --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go there, because I thought we had
already discussed that. We heard both Ms. Herritt and Mr. Sepe say
that there is a checklist of stuff that has to be provided and that
all of that was provided. I'd like one or both of you at the podium to
reassure this board that the information required was, in fact,
provided in the time frame set forth by county ordinance. Was that
the case?
MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir; that was definitely the case. We feel
very comfortable with everything that was provided. The application
was completed the last of April. We very carefully looked over it.
Mr. Sepe found some places where he thought we didn't have everything
we needed. We subsequently told Mr. Gaston that. He satisfied all of
those things. We feel that the application is very much correct.
MR. BEANSTOCK: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume that the information provided
is open to the public as is anything? MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a reason, then, why a request
from the public, in this case Media One, for the financial data was
not satisfied?
MS. HERRITT: When we advertised, Commissioner, for this public
hearing, there was -- the public had an opportunity to see at that
time the application.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are they prohibited from seeing it
now?
MS. HERRITT: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then, so again, I ask the exact same
question. We've just been told Media One requested the financial data
and we were told it wasn't provided to them.
MS. HERRITT: I think he was talking about -- I'm sorry. I may
have misunderstood. I thought he was talking about the report that
our consultant gave to you today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So let's go to the question. You said
financial data.
MR. BEANSTOCK: Let me be specific.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you request the financial data as a part
of the application previously?
MR. BEANSTOCK: Yes. And we received financial data for the
application prior to its amendment. What I asked this morning is
since they've amended the application to order all this new
construction, has the financial data changed and do you have that
financial data, and that's when I was told, "I just know it and you'll
hear it during the commission meeting." That's what I'm talking
about. You can't -- that's the problem with -- under this ordinance.
You can't amend the application at the commission meeting, not have
the financial data to back it up, which you don't -- which if you do,
it hasn't been presented to the public because we asked for it 10
minutes before this hearing and were told you'll hear it at the
hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- the amendment is the extension
into more single family?
MR. BEANSTOCK: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was new today?
MR. BEANSTOCK: That was new today, and that is a significant
change. That changes the cost structure and the proformas
dramatically. It's double the amount of construction that was in the
financial data from a month ago.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate your -- your desire to try
this case in front of the county commission, but this is not the place
to do it. Our staff is telling us that everything is in order. We
take our legal advice not from you, sir, but from Mr. Weigel.
MR. BEANSTOCK: I understand. And I was just trying to give you
legal advice --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to talk while you
were interrupting there --
MR. BEANSTOCK: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but let me go ahead. So, you know, I'm
-- I know that you desire to block Mr. Gaston and, frankly, if I was
in your position I would too. But we're not going to allow you to try
this case here in front of the county commission. We're going to have
to rely on what our staff and our legal department tells us is
correct and make our decision based on that in all due respect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I would like to get the answer to the
question if it takes a moment for Mr. Weigel to look at what our staff
has and give us the straight answer, you know, do we have sufficient
-- was information provided sufficiently to satisfy all the
requirements of the ordinance, including this change about the area of
the franchise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I agree with you
wholeheartedly but I just have a concern if -- Media One
representative's point is a good one and that there would -- I assume
would be additional financial information required for the additional
commitment that Mr. Gaston has agreed to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The capital.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have that or do we not have
that? If we don't it concerns me and if we do, it concerns me that
you're not willing to share that with the public.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we do, could I have a copy.
MR. SEPE: Well, basically it's fairly straightforward. The
additional -- Mr. Gaston has on file a hundred thousand dollar letter
of credit for the -- to secure the construction of this cable system.
The additional extension of plan per 100 homes per year at a minimum
would require an additional $46,000 per year to finance that, and Mr.
Gaston has indicated that he -- he can -- he has the resources to do
that and he also can take it out of cash flow so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a piece of paper?
MR. SEPE: No, because we just agre -- you know, basically we
just discussed it this morning before we came up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That troubles me.
MR. SEPE: Well, it's been -- it's been discussed. That was our
proposal and when we presented it to Mr. Gaston, we indicated to him,
you know, how are you going to finance this, and he indicated that he
has the resources to do that. Now --
COMHISSIONER MACIKIE: So if I could pause you and ask you to let
Mr. Weigel opine on whether or not thatls legally sufficient, that
would be real important for my vote anyway. Do you have enough
information?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thatls what you get paid the big bucks for,
Mr. Weigel.
MR. SEPE: Plus the financials in the application indicate the
sufficient cash flow, so I donlt believe this is an issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Sepe, hang on a second. We have a question
of the county attorney from Commissioner MacIKie Iid like an answer to
before we move on with this incredibly lengthy discussion this
morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Iim going to respond by asking a couple
questions of staff, and that is in regard to the financial data that
has been provided by the applicant up to this point, I think you may
be attempting to distinguish to this board and the public that they to
a certain degree have already demonstrated the financial wherewithal
with a letter of credit and the projected cash flow of the system that
exists presently to be able to undertake and complete the
staff-requested additional building of the system that is required.
That long question is a yes or no answer. Have you received that kind
of information, or do -- upon a review of whatls already been
provided, do you reach the determination that with what is already
provided, a letter of credit and a review of the business as it runs
right now, that that business, in fact, can take on the additional
construction responsibility that is being placed before it? MR. SEPE: Thatls yes.
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. Okay. Now, beyond that, just to
gild the lily here, Mr. Gaston has apparently indicated to you in
your discussions that he will provide, if I understand correctly, some
additional financial assurance of his capability of fulfilling the
request that the staff will be making to the board if it approves this
application; is that correct?
MR. SEPE: That is correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And can you provide the board, the public,
some information as to materially what is that assurance thatls being
suggested at this point by the applicant?
MR. SEPE: I believe Mr. Gaston would be able to indicate the
resources available from cash flow. I did a quick pencil calculation,
and basically all we need for him to do is to attest to that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I would ask that the record reflect
that attestation by Mr. Gaston, and I think that the board can -- can
entertain that this question has been resolved by virtue of the
information placed before it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. And further I donlt
see this as being very different than if we say give us a third public
education channel, and Mr. Gaston, yeah, I can afford to do that.
Well, we donlt have to get a statement in writing 15 days prior that
thatls the case. I mean, things can change.
But as long as we have -- and I believe Mr. Gastonls comments
earlier were that he would agree to it and had the financial
commitment to do that, I think we already have that on the record. Is
my recollection correct that you -- as you understand, Mr. Sepe?
MR. SEPE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Okay. Then have we met the criteria you feel
is consistent with meeting the ordinance requirements? MR. WEIGEL: I believe we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any more public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any more public speakers, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Fine. We will close the public hearing
on that. Are there further questions of staff or a motion on this
matter?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if I understand this right, the
reason we don't have financials is because Mr. Gaston only -- did not
intend to agree to this expanded single-family territory until today;
is that correct?
MR. SEPE: We don't have a financial that was --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hang on. Let's go back to the question. Yes
or no? Did -- when did he agree --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did staff make the request?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When did we make the request for this, and
when did Mr. Gaston agree?
MR. SEPE: We made the request yesterday. He agreed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course, he doesn't have financial then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, that's very simple. Our staff is --
has given us all of the information that we need. I think that they
have addressed the points of whether everything is in order. Our
legal department and our franchise staff have both said yes on that;
so I'll make a motion to approve the contract with the -- with all
staff recommendations --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- as outlined here in our executive
summary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gaston, at this point we're not
entertaining further public comment unless something you previously
stated you are wishing to take back.
MR. GASTON: No. I stand by everything that's been said.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing that that's not the case, we'll
proceed. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second to the
motion?
I'll second the motion for purpose of bringing it to a vote. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries five, zero. Thank
you, Miss Merritt.
Item #BE1
BOARD REVIEW OF THE CORRECITONAL FACILITIES IHPACT FEE FEASIBILITY
STUDY PREPARED BY HENDERSON, YOUNG, & COMPANY - PRESENTED. STAFF
DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH PHASE TWO
We had one other item that had to be heard in the morning agenda
due to a flight this afternoon, and that is Item 8(E)(1), board review
of the correctional facilities impact fee feasibility study prepared
by Henderson Young & Company. Mr. Smykowski, not that we haven't --
that we don't enjoy your company, but welcome back.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you, sir. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, O&B director. The board today is going to review the
correctional facilities impact fee feasibility study prepared by
Henderson & Young. Randy Young is available today. He'll give a
brief presentation and then entertain questions. In addition, the
board at this point must make a policy decision whether or not to
authorize the preparation of a full-scale legally defensible
correctional facilities impact fee rate study. Again, going back to
March 18, the board kind of approached this in a -- along two phases,
one the feasibility to determine a balipark estimate of how much money
could be realized from the corrections impact fee and then if the
feasibility appeared to be there and the revenue were sufficient to --
for the board to be interested in pursuing that further, phase two
would commence at that point based on your direction. With that I'll
turn it over to Mr. Young of Henderson Young company to outline the
results of his feasibility study and entertain questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Young, understanding your time
schedule and as the noon hour approaches, if you'd be so kind as to
point to us what you think are the burrs under the saddle so to speak
so we can make a -- an educated decision as to whether to move
forward.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to do that.
My name is Randy Young. I'm one of the senior partners of Henderson
Young & Company, your consultant engaged to look into the feasibility
of developing an impact fee for correctional facilities, and if you
choose to proceed with that final rate study, then we'll be the
consultants to perform that study for you.
Quite simply, Collier County has several correctional facilities
at this time. The two principal ones are the existing county jail
with a capacity of 582 inmates and the stockade at Immokalee with a
capacity of 172. Those facilities have not reached their maximum
capacity at this time, but according to estimates and forecasts
prepared for and by the sheriff's department, the indication is that
by approximately the year 2000, those facilities will be overcapacity.
So part of your concern is what future facilities you will need.
In addition, there is a proposal that has been suggested by a
number of parties but I think principally coming from the courts that
this county would be well served to have an additional different kind
of facility, a work release or work restitution or work opportunities
restitution center. Being a new kind of facility, a portion of its
cost would need to be borne by existing residents of the county; and
only a portion of it, the portion attributable to new development,
could be charged to impact fees. Impact fees for the existing jail
and Immokalee facility would only be allowed under one of two
circumstances. Either at such time as those facilities are full --
approximately the year 2000 -- at which time you enter into an
expansion program and you would charge impact fees for them then.
Or you would choose to charge impact fees now to pay you back for
the facilities that you already built. It's not a widely used
practice in Florida, although a few communities have done this. It
does work an awful lot like a water or a sewer connection fee in that
the government makes the advance investment and then requires new
users to join into the payment. It is an established legal precedent
in Florida that you can do so. I'm not here urging that you do so.
I'm simply outlining your options.
It seems to me that your options are these: One, if you proceed
with the work release center, the new type of facility, you could
charge an impact fee for the growth portion of that facility. Our
initial estimates -- and I must caution you, as our written report
does, that these are very general estimates using a highly generalized
methodology so that you could get a rough idea of the potential
without getting very detailed about it.
We would estimate that the impact fee for that facility would be
in the vicinity of $28 per household. That number does not take into
account other payments made by new development which would reduce that
fee. It's something in impact fees that we call the credit calculation
where you reduce the total cost because of other monies that are paid
by the development for the same purpose.
We've estimated what a correctional facility impact fee would be
for the jail either in the event that you moved immediately to charge
this reimbursement fee, this kind of latecomer connection,
coming-into-the-system fee or the same amount would apply
approximately to what would be the cost of expansion of the facility
starting in the year 2000. That number is substantially more
expensive because the nature of the facility is a much more high
security facility, and the cost there would be a little less than
$300, about $265 per household.
The additional work that needs to be done if you decide to go
forward with this -- and the reason that we're prepared today to give
you these very general estimates but not to consider this to be a rate
study. Just want to share with you the things that we would do if you
decide that this is feasible and you'd like to see a full rate study.
One, we would go out and work with county staff to analyze the
records that would identify what we call an incident rate or a usage
rate. It meets the requirement of the federal courts in Doland and in
the state courts, the so-called dual rational nexus of benefit
requirement. These generally are common-sense rules that say you can
charge the new development for it's impact; you cannot charge it for
somebody else's impact, a preexisting impact or an impact by another
newcomer.
We propose to use a methodology similar to the one that we used
when we developed your emergency medical service impact fee quite a
number of years ago and that we used to develop the original rate
study and that we're updating right now for law enforcement where
we'll be able to track the relationship between different kinds of
development and the need that those kinds of development create for
jails and other correctional facilities. We would also be working on
more precise cost data and needs analysis than we were able to do in
this initial feasibility study.
We are aware that you've engaged another consultant, the B Group,
who is producing a study that's due in about the middle of August. We
will be able -- in approximately 60 days after their work is complete
to produce a rate study based on the cost data and the needs analysis
that they would produce.
Finally, we would need to do the research for the so-called
credits calculation that would reduce the impact fee by the amount
paid by others. That, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, concludes my
prepared remarks. The amount of time we would require to do the final
rate study should you choose to go that route would be, as I said,
approximately two months after the completion of the research by the
B Group, which is due in mid August, so we would be due -- be done by
the end of October.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, as I read through
here, the juvenile detention center and the assessment center are both
mentioned in here, but the county has been assured by the state the
state will be providing all fees for that. So you're recommending
those would not be part of the study?
MR. YOUNG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And you -- we've discussed the work
center before, not necessarily a done deal, but we did ask that it be
included in the study for cost anyway to take a look at whether we're
going to proceed with that at the appropriate time; is that correct to
the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I very much want to see it included.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I do personally, but the board has not
taken an official position whether to proceed with that, but we did
ask that it be included in the study.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that amusing, Commissioner
Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You care to share why?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's move on with the item at hand, please.
The question is whether or not we want to proceed with a second phase
of the study, and I have two questions on that. First of all, what is
the current funding source if we wish to do that? And secondly, is
there potential for reimbursement -- should this be instated at some
point -- to that particular fund that the money comes out of.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Recommended funding source is general fund
reserves, and it is my understanding that should a fee be implemented,
we could reimburse the general fund from the first fees collected.
Correct me if I'm misspeaking, David.
MR. WEIGEL: He annunciates well. I'm not sure -- I'm not
absolutely sure about that, but I think that may be the case. We're
certainly working toward that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We had also looked at taking a broad
look at impact fees to determine whether or not they were all still
consistent and in line with growth. It's always been my pet that if
we -- you know, if you squeeze the balloon, it bulges out somewhere
else. So rather than, you know, just adding 256, I'd like to see if
there are potential reductions in impact fees areas in which marginal
decreases can -- are appropriate and could affect the overall cost of
building homes. I think we need to be sensitive to that, but that
doesn't deter me from wanting to proceed with this to the next step.
I think it's necessary. I think it's something that should have been
done when impact fees were started. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're a little behind the eight ball on
that in my opinion, but we can make up for lost time by moving to
phase two. That's my opinion. Anyone else? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have speakers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have speakers on this item, Mr.
Fernandez?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that is staff recommendation to
proceed to phase two immediately following the conclusion of B Group
study; is that correct?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's what it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Smykowski, Mr. Young, thank
you very much.
Four, one. I apologize. It passes four, one. It's just a split
vote kind of day.
Item #8B3
APPROVAL OF FUNDING OPTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN/STREETSCAPE PLAN COMPONENT OF THE ADOPTED MARCO ISLAND MASTER
PLAN - $97,500 FROM FUND 102; $52,500 FROM FUND 111; STAFF DIRECTED TO
ESTABLISH MARCO ISLAND HSTU; $52,500 TO BE REPAID TO FUND 111 FROM
MARCO ISLAND HSTU
Okay. I've got time to get a couple more things in here. Back
to the regular portion of our agenda where we left off to pick up the
two time certain items, we are to Item 8(A)(3), approval of funding
options for preparation of the conceptual design streetscape plan
component of the Marco Island Master Plan. I see Mr. Gonzalez
stepping up to the microphone for this one. Good morning.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioner. Adolfo Gonzalez,
capital projects director. November of last year you adopted the
Marco Island Master Plan with the exception of one element which had
to do with the concept plan, what was the concept plan all about and
how we were going to pay for it. Since then we've put together some
information regarding that.
The concept plan is to develop the various line items or list of
infrastructure improvements that are identified in the master plan,
such as modifications to the street collector system on Marco Island.
There's 24 miles of collector roads, another 16 miles of local streets
on the island. It includes improving the drainage for the street
corridor, median width and placement, location of left and right turn
lanes, streetscaping, street furniture placement, an extensive public
involvement effort to again verify and confirm with the Marco Island
community what it is they want when they go to a referendum sometime
in the near future that would list a whole series of infrastructure
improvements for their selection. That's what the concept plan is.
We've spent some time in the last few months trying to find some
appropriate funding sources for that concept plan. Our
recommendations are to split it into two categories of funds right
now. One is the road district one fund, which is Fund 102. And that
was based on about 65 percent of the work in the master plan relates
to street improvements to the existing street infrastructure or road
infrastructure. About 35 percent of that plan relates to landscaping,
streetscaping, things like that.
In the executive summary we identify the cost responsibility for
that 35 percent to be Marco Island. But that's really 35 percent of
money we don't have right now. And that's why we recommended to you
that a portion -- two-thirds of that, a hundred and fifty thousand we
need for a concept plan be taken from Fund 102, which is the road
district one fund, and 35 percent, or $52,000, be taken from MSTD
general fund 111.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question, Adolfo. The
places where you have written down here Collier County to cover the 65
percent, what you really means is just the District 1, which is that
MSTD, you know, that we talked about yesterday; so it's not really the
entire county making that contribution; it's just Marco and a portion
of East Naples paying for those county contributions; is that correct?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, Commissioner. We have already identified a
prioritized list of streets to be resurfaced on Marco Island. Our
plan was to start at the bottom of that priority list, work our way up
until we got $97,000 worth of projects that we're going to postpone to
put that money into the concept plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are all of the streets that are going to
be postponed Marco Island streets? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a nutshell, we're not leaving streets that
are in a worse shape -- or poor shape and -- or in disrepair in that
condition to improve streets that are better than that at the start,
are we?
MR. GONZALEZ: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, now let me understand that. I would
suggest that there are streets in East Naples which are in this MSTD
that are in worse shape than some of the streets proposed to be
improved on Marco Island; isn't that what your question was?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we're not delaying that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We just never put them on a list at all.
So they're not delayed 'cause they've never been scheduled.
MR. GONZALEZ: As I understand from speaking to Dave Bobanick,
the interim transportation director, he develops every year a list of
improvement projects or maintenance projects, restoration projects,
for Marco, for East Naples, for the other areas that are within fund
-- road district one. So we already have a list for Marco restoration
projects. We have a list for East Naples restoration projects. We're
going to take the Marco ones and defer those so that we can use the
money to do the concept plan and then that'll -- we're just going to
bump those out by a year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I assume that we all get the
same thing. I mean, I get what's in my road district list for my
personal review every year, so if there are priorities in East
Naples, I assume Commissioner Norris has seen that list every year.
And there's been a couple things in the last five years in Golden Gate
that they hadn't added on that I said, geez, what about, and they
didn't realize, and they went ahead and added on. So there's
certainly ample opportunity to see if they haven't made the list for
the commissioner representing that area to add it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Our's is a little confusing because my
district includes portions of your road -- of your road fund and
Commissioner Norris's road fund; so he and I share that East Naples
responsibility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you guys can hash it out, then, but I --
you know, the reason I asked that question is that I -- my review is
made very easy every year because you guys prioritize them based on
condition. And I continue to tell the constituents in my
transportation district all the time that the worst ones get the
attention, period; that's just the way it goes. So, you know, I
generally don't mess with it because you guys do a good job with that
so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is
just if there -- if there is or are specific roads in East Naples that
you don't think are getting attention, you get an opportunity to bring
that up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- and I will and I am, but what I
wanted -- the only reason -- the only question I asked was where this
says Collier County, I wanted the board to be aware that what we're
really talking about is the eastern and Marco Island portion of
Collier County will be paying for these improvements that are marked
as Collier County responsibilities. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does this affect the millage rate for that
district that was affected yesterday?
MR. GONZALEZ: No. We misspoke yesterday when, I think, Mr. Finn
explained to you that the millage rate would have to be increased for
102. What we meant was the first $97,000 worth of work next year in
102 will be used to fund that portion of this plan, and the projects
that were planned to be done next year, at least that first group,
will just be deferred a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Any further questions?
Speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we have one. Dr. Biles.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Faye, but from now on you can just hand
them over -- right over there would be fine. In case you're packing
weapons, we don't need you up here.
DR. BILES: Yes. Faye Biles again, president of the Marco Island
Taxpayers' Association and a member of the master plan -- the vision
committee that drew up the master plan for Marco Island. And I just
thought I would share with you what is listed in the master plan so
that you know what objective eight number two and what it says as far
as the plan will be selected by referendum by the residents of Marco
Island by 1997. That does mean that the people on Marco Island, the
resident taxpayers, will select by a referendum which projects they
want done; so it's not the whole master plan in total is acceptable.
We made sure that each one of the elements, of course, would be done
at a referendum. So I just wanted to share with you what was in the
master plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that referendum occurring the same time as
the cityhood referendum? So it could become moot.
DR. BILES: I saw that -- at two o'clock this morning I was
reading this, I thought, geez, is that going to be done at the poll.
I don't know. It just says a county referendum. I don't know. We
have not looked -- it's not been really subjected to the public as far
as the elements of which ones they want and which ones they don't
want.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it says at a regularly scheduled
election. And I think yours is a mail ballot, the cityhood.
DR. BILES: Yes, it is. Thank you. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of the board --
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: This -- we're not ever -- the reason why
we're thinking about doing this conceptual plan here is because we're
not ever going to be able to have the referendum on any of these
projects if you don't know what they are. DR. BILES: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's what this plan is supposed to
outline for us.
DR. BILES: Exactly. But I understand that part of it in this
summary is an HSTU for -- by Marco Island people and that usually --
isn't that a referendum by the people on Marco Island, if they want an
HSTU?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't have to be, no.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It does not have to be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can be but certainly doesn't have -- the
board can create --
DR. BILES: Oh. I guess I was under the wrong assumption. I
always thought any HSTD or HSTU should be voted on by the people.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't have to be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not necessary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It can be assigned by the board.
DR. BILES: And what would that amount to? This would be 52,000;
is that what was in the summary?
MR. GONZALEZ: If I may elaborate on that. We gave you three
options. One was to take a portion of it from 102, a portion from
Fund 111; or, take -- create a new HSTU to fund the 52,000; or, create
an HSTU to fund all hundred and fifty thousand. But the last two ors
we're a year away before we get the funding for that. That's why we
recommended to you 102 and Fund 111 to do the entire hundred and fifty
thousand dollars.
DR. BILES: I'm all for one, number one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With no further speakers, are there
additional questions of staff?
Let's find our way to a motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll -- number one was what, Mr.
Gonzalez, take it out of Fund 1117
MR. GONZALEZ: $97,500 from Fund 102 and 52,500 from Fund 111.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That is -- Fund 111 is the unincorporated
area general fund?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's not the right place to take
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The sec -- the other fifty-two has to be
out of a special HSTU for Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not going to support 111.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I'll make a motion that we'll approve
the 97,500 out of Fund 102, which is the funds that Commissioner
Norris and I were discussing, and that the balance of it be -- be
Marco Island HSTU -- funded by Marco Island HSTU.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That contemplates that we're going to set
up an HSTU then; so that motion carries staff direction to do that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The other part of that is they want
to borrow money from 111 and put it back when they get it from the
HSTU. Is that contemplated in your motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it's paid back
appropriately. Because the MSTU won't be able to collect any money
until October 1 of next year if we haven't created it yet; so unless
you want to delay this thing terribly, I think we need to do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But can you spend more than $97,500 next
-- my thought was that the 97,500 coming out of the MSTD would be
enough to spend until the MSTU is formed and has collected some money,
and then you would spend the 50,000.
MR. GONZALEZ: Our plan was to complete the concept plan within
the year so that we could have information available to you for public
notification for a November '98 referendum, which means we wanted to
spend -- we wanted to do the whole project by this time next year,
late summer of next year, all hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any objection to forwarding
the money out of 111 --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither do I.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- as long as it's paid back. We need to go
back to when were discussing the Marco Island Master Plan and
everybody needs to remember that we continually said that these things
that are for Marco Island alone need to be paid for by Marco Island;
that was the whole point of those discussions so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'll include that in my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern -- and maybe you can put it to rest
-- is that, you know, traffic circles divided that community. The
idea of establishing an MSTU you think is going to be done overnight?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may not do that by referendum. We may
do it -- we're giving staff direction right now to create an MSTU,
without a referendum, on Marco Island. That's what my motion
contemplates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we can do is create it, and then
there's nothing that requires us to levy an amount there down the
road.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they decide --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the community makes it clear -- at
least that opens the option for us. If the community makes it clear
they don't want to do that, then you don't levy an --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, at a minimum there'll be an amount
levied to repay Fund 111 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if the HSTU is created so -- okay. I'm
fine. Any further questions?
Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, it's nice that we're all -- the
second was Commissioner Norris. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, you made the motion. I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like I said, it was Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just like you said.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Folks, we're at the noon hour.
Let's take a one-hour break, return at one o'clock.
(Homing session concluded at 12:04 p.m.)
Item #10A
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY - CHAIRMAN TO FOLLOW
PROCESS AS PARTICIPANT AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC ON AUGUST 5, 1997 FOR
ACTION
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
We had an anticipated item at 1:00 today, which is basically the
board's review of a proposed resolution regarding a Programmatic E1 --
EIS that is being initiated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
We had more questions than answers at the time that resolution
was drafted. As a result, I think, of board action, we have received
a lot of attention and input from the Army Corps of Engineers, from
the DEP, from DCA and every other state and federal acronym anyone can
come up with on this matter.
We stated then this was not a developer versus environmentalist
issue, but one simply of us wishing to know what the impact on our
constituents from a proposed study was going to be. And without being
involved in that loop, I had no position or no alternative but to take
a position against that kind of -- that kind of study taking place.
What I would like to do, if the board would -- would agree, this
item was continued for one week to allow for Colonel Rice and his
folks to be here today to discuss some of the details of the proposed
Programmatic EIS. There's been a lot of discussion in the meantime
and I don't want to take away from your presentation, Colonel Rice.
Mr. Fernandez, how many registered speakers do we have on this
item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Eight, or so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eight.
All of those members of the public that are here and wish to
speak on this item, you need to fill out a speaker slip that is out in
the hallway and submit it to Mr. Weigel or Mr. Fernandez here to your
left and you'll be called in order at the conclusion of Colonel Rice's
input and our staff's input and any questions the board may have of
them.
With that, if it's the board's pleasure, I'd like to go ahead and
introduce Colonel Rice and ask him to lead off this morning's
presentation.
Good morning, Colonel.
COLONEL RICE: Good morning. Afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well --
COLONEL RICE: I heard it from back there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we can be wishful, can't we?
COLONEL RICE: Anyway, I appreciate --
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, can you identify yourself for the
record?
COLONEL RICE: Yes. I am Colonel Terry L. Rice, Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville District.
I do appreciate the opportunity to be here. I know there's been
a lot of -- a lot of information going back and forth. I'm not sure
if it was all accurate or synchronized, so maybe I can put it a little
bit in perspective.
I -- and I do want to apologize for the fact that I've been a
little bit remiss here in not getting with you earlier in the process,
but a lot of things are going on and I will say that there were no
decisions made anywhere along the line to do anything.
We always intended to do this kind of thing before we ever got to
a point of making a decision. Unfortunately, the words got a -- or
the -- the -- the emotions got ahead of the words here, so that's what
we're doing here today this week.
I've been here for -- this is the fifth day I've been here, so
hopefully a lot of the things that we've been doing has clarified
some of the positions that we have.
Actually, I came here not to -- to elaborate on what we're going
to do but try to gain information about, you know, what it is over
here that we're trying to deal with, trying to learn from the people
that I speak to, trying to develop some ideas and maybe with those,
well, we can formulate some kind of a process that we can see -- see
us all through the dilemma that I face.
The -- the bottom line in what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to
get rid of some of the bureaucracy in this process. I'm trying to
minimize the government's role in this process because -- when I say
role, I'm talking about the Federal Government's role because I think
there's a lot of duplication out there and a lot of frustration on the
part of the public because we do have that duplication. It -- it does
seem just like bureaucracy.
I think with going through the process that we propose and
whatever form we decide to go through that process with, that we can
actually speed up the permitting process. We can provide certainty to
the process.
When somebody wants to do something with a piece of their
property that has been zoned for a specific reason, it will be a lot
easier to do it after we know exactly how this fits into this entire
system here.
And I think, also, we can bring a lot more defensibility to the
process. You've got a situation where we're getting day by day more
and more permits and larger and larger permits. And what happens is,
is that you start getting a lot more challenged in the process.
And I think that by going through something like this, which lays
all this out in -- in one big mosaic, I think we can bring some
defensibility to what we're trying to do.
Now, having said that, what are those factors that I'm really
concerned about? First of all, you have to understand that I have to
implement the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species
Act and the Clean Water Act. And, specifically, under the Clean Water
Act, I have the responsibility issue, 404 permits for dredge and fill.
In order to do -- do that, there are five major things that I
have to consider. Number one is the water quantity. I had -- well,
first of all, I am the protector of the -- the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of the nation's waterways.
So, when I start looking at it in this context, I have to look at
quantity of water. And I know in certain areas by -- by the
developments that we're creating, the changes we're making to the
system, we're changing the natural flows. In a lot of cases we're
providing -- creating flooding.
And, as you go through the process and if you continue to do that
by continuing the developments without considering all the dynamics of
that, you're just going to exacerbate the problem and -- and
eventually cause the public to have to pay more.
The second part of that is I know that the water is -- the
quality of the water is very important to you, whether it be for the
fact that you want to drink them or for your tourist industry,
especially the near shore waters and these -- these developments'
changes to land use create not only pollutants which affect that
water, and they all increase the pollutant loads, but they also change
that fresh water timing in quantities, which we've seen down in
Florida Bay, about four years ago, just destroyed the entire bay.
And it's still not recovered from that just because of a lack of
fresh water flows. It has nothing to do with pollutants. So, we've
got to make sure those kinds of things do not happen.
We also have the responsibility to look and make sure that when
we are dealing with wetlands, that we try to avoid it if at all
possible. If we can avoid construction on wetlands, we have to do
that.
Unfortunately, in Florida, that's about an impossibility. We all
know that.
Somebody told me the other night your -- your -- your uplands are
our wetlands, so -- and I -- I think that's true.
We've got a situation where we can't really avoid them, so we
have to minimize them. The question is are we doing that smartly in
-- in this -- in this whole area? And sometimes I really can't tell
you that right now. I just don't have a good look at that, but we
have to make sure that's done.
And then when we do minimize them, we still have impacts. We've
got to mitigate them. And I know for a fact that we don't necessarily
do that as smart as we could. I'm sure that if we looked at this
picture holistically, we would find areas where we really wanted to
allocate resource and provide that mitigation in a very comprehensive
manner, one that fit into the system, and that would serve all of our
needs so we didn't have to go around trying to find little postage
stamps to mitigate and -- and they don't make any sense in the entire
system.
And the last thing is endangered species. By slowly, but surely,
as we change the landscape, we change the habitat and we do affect
endangered species.
What do we need to do for each of those endangered species out
there to ensure that we don't have problems in the future?
And, so, anyway, I have to look at those five things under those
three laws that I spoke about.
There are about -- there are three major questions that keep
coming to me. Number one is -- or, Colonel, are you reinventing the
wheel here?
We've got all kinds of studies and everything already going on
out here. Why are we doing this?
Well, I -- I will tell you right now that our intent is never to
do another study that we don't have to do. We want to take the
studies, the data that exists, and we anticipate, we believe, by
looking at this system, at looking what's available, what people are
doing, that 90 percent of the work is -- is or will be -- has been
done and we will then be required only to do something less than ten
percent as far as the increased effort.
There might be some holes out there that need to be filled, so
we're not reinventing the wheel. We are assimilating everything that
is out there already, not only the information in the studies, but the
people who are working, into a process which can look at this system
holistically.
The second thing is, is who's going to pay for it? Well, given
the fact that 90 percent of that work is already done, I don't really
know that it's going to cost what a lot of people think it might cost.
We figure that it's going to be less than a half -- than $500,000
and it's our responsibility to pay for it because it's a -- we
consider this a significant federal action under NEPA; therefore, if
it's -- if that's what we determine, it's our responsibility to pay.
But I will tell you that we already have agencies that have said
that they would help contribute to this process. I think EPA has
already budgeted $80,000 this year and -- and that's a good hunk of
change considering it's not going to cost but only $500,000.
So, through our normal budgeting process, through contributing
agencies, we feel that we have this covered. This is nor -- this is
part of our normal process in doing our business.
The -- probably the most contentious is this word "moratorium."
There is no intent ever to issue a moratorium in this process. We
can't do that. We will take every permit as it comes in and continue
to process it and issue it as we can given the things that we have to
deal with, understanding clearly that we do not issue every permit
that's requested. There are some that do not get issued.
And that I will tell you that, given the magnitude, as I spoke
about earlier, the numbers, the complexity, the contention that is
starting to exist, the challenges that are starting to foment, I think
that actually stepping back and taking a holistic look at the entire
picture will in most cases expedite a lot of those permits because we
really have some contentious things to deal with in this process.
So, anyway, those are three of the major questions. They'll
probably be asked again but I'll answer them again and there are
others, I'm sure, that people will want to -- want to ask.
Finally, I am here, hopefully, to form a partnership, a
partnership that can see us through something that I don't think is
really that difficult if we all work together to get it done.
I think in the end if we can form a partnership and deal with the
issues that I laid out and deal with them in a methodical manner, I
will commit my resources, which -- as a priority to getting this done,
and I will commit to having it done in 18 months if we can all agree
to how we get through this. But we have to come to an agreement on --
on the terms of reference of how we would proceed through it if that's
the case.
So, anyway, I'll stop at that and if there's any questions of me
or you'd like to hear from any of my colleagues here, we're ready.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I know several commissioners have
questions. I do want to mention that I had a meeting with Colonel
Rice and individuals that are here with him today yesterday evening,
at which a lot of things were discussed and probably the most positive
thing we talked about was Colonel Rice's desire to form a joint
committee with a Collier County Commission and a Lee County Commission
representative that would act as a -- in essence, a review panel to
assist in the development of or review of the scope of the study.
And, really, what I heard from him is that the Corps would not
proceed with anything until that panel and, I would assume, the
respective bodies by communication were aware of everything from
scope, time frame, and impacts.
So, that was -- was a positive step and I think it's part of what
we were seeking. It's not to say that answers all the questions but I
do want to at least mention that as something that -- that Colonel
Rice had offered up and I thought was a -- whether you agree or
disagree with the study is a required element, if anything, as to move
forward.
With that, I'll open up your questions. Commissioner Constantine
was first and then Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Geographically, where are we talking
about?
COLONEL RICE: The process -- when you go through an
environmental impact study, but the first thing you do is have a
scoping. It's a one-or-two-month process where you bring all the
parties in, all the interest of the public, and you sit there and say,
okay, commissioner, where would you -- well, what do you think should
be done here and you draw something up on the -- on the thing and you
say why this should be done that way.
And then you turn to the other interests and you -- and you
actually merge all these ideas into something you all agree on is the
area you should be looking at, so that's to be defined, okay? We've
just kind of broadly said, you know, Lee-Collier County -- there's
even been some ideas about outside of that -- that boundary, but
that's -- really will be determined by the impacts that we feel and
the problems that we face as we go through that scoping process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, theoretically at this point, it's
anywhere within the boundaries of those two counties.
COLONEL RICE: Sure. Or maybe even outside or even --
theoretically, it could go -- I mean, you could do anything with these
things, but at the -- the scoping process would narrow that down to
something that made sense.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, is this just because -- are we
doing this or are we undertaking this because there is some concern
that there's an inadequate job being done by the -- by the existing
agencies or just not an understanding comprehensively or what they're
-- of what they're doing or what?
COLONEL RICE: I don't -- my prob -- my prob -- first of all, I
want to make sure it's very clear that we've come a long way since the
days of Golden Gate Estates and how we do permitting.
I issued one permit for Golden Gate Estates and it had nothing to
do with 404, okay? It was a navigation permit.
We've come a long way. You have developers now that are very
conscientious. They're abiding by the law. They're going through the
procedures the right way, but you have a lot of them doing a lot of
things.
It's almost like trying to paint a picture with a flashlight.
You know, you paint a beautiful little part which was in the light and
you move somewhere else and paint another little one. It's beautiful,
too, but when you spread -- show the light on the whole picture, it --
you don't know what you've got, okay?
That's my problem. That's what I face. It's not a question of
everybody carrying out their responsibilities. It's a question of me
being able to holistically look at the entire area to -- to look at
those five factors I talked about earlier on.
I'm the one that -- right now, given the pressure, the numbers
and the complexity of the permits, I'm having a hard time dealing with
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The word we've heard in the last seven
days perhaps more than any other is streamline. What does that mean?
When we get to the end of this process, how do you envision streamline
being put into effect?
COLONEL RICE: We -- what we would like to see is one of the
projects that we would agree upon up front here is the mechanism by
which this would come to an end. One of the products would be
basically a general permit, which we would say, okay, here is -- here
is your permit for your -- whatever area we study.
You implement the -- you implement the program. We've already
agreed on not only where you can -- what -- how you're going to go
about dredging and filling the wetlands in -- in this EIS, but we've
also -- are going to get water quality certification for this area for
the general permit.
So, therefore, you have all that taken care of. It's handed over
for you and then you essentially issue the permits with oversight from
us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Describe oversight from us.
COLONEL RICE: Oversight from us would be -- we would probably
have some screening process by which -- as a permit would come in, we
would say, yeah, this fits the general permit or it doesn't, and then
we would hand it off to you if it did.
There may be cases where we would have maybe audits of what you
did at a -- at a periodic time just to make sure it was being
implemented the right way. We also have to do the enforcement part of
it, which means checking and responding to public comments, things
like that. But we would not be the people out there on the ground
trying to do the permitting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But each item would go through your
office.
COLONEL RICE: Each item would -- initially would be screened
probably. That would be a -- that would be set out in the permit,
however that works.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- who -- who -- is there a
minimum size to who would be affected by this? I mean, are we looking
at where we've read in the paper all week developers or if someone
goes and wants to build a single family home in an area that isn't
already, you know, standard development, are they ultimately impacted?
Who -- who are we talking about when we talk about --
COLONEL RICE: Whatever the area we're talking about is where the
impact is, okay? But, like I said, we would continue to -- to process
permits as they come in and -- and usually in most cases, most of the
smaller ones are not the ones that cause the problems that we're
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there exceptions?
COLONEL RICE: Are there exceptions to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To that? Would there be exceptions?
Is there room for exceptions here?
COLONEL RICE: What do you --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, what --
COLONEL RICE: -- mean exceptions? Exceptions to what?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as I -- today's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Single family house on a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- ten-acre parcel is in the study area.
COLONEL RICE: Oh, we have a -- well, you -- you know, a lot of
this stuff is covered under nationwide permits already, okay?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- I -- I just want to be
careful. We've got it painted in the newspaper as developer versus
environmental issue, which it may or may not be, but that's fine --
COLONEL RICE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I don't want the little guy,
who's trying to build his own home on some property he's owned for a
number of years, caught up in the middle of it. COLONEL RICE: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- and, finally, you -- you said,
moratorium, you don't have the authority to -- to declare, which is
true, but theoretically you could effectively cause one or something
equivalent to one by simply slowing down or stifling the permitting
process.
COLONEL RICE: And I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want some assurance that's not
where we're headed.
COLONEL RICE: Well, that -- I think that's where we're headed if
we don't do this. That's my problem. I think this is going to
actually speed up the process.
You see -- you see what I'm getting at? I'm getting at -- I'm
getting to a point where I'm getting so many, so big, so complex, so
contentious with so many challenges that the process is slowing down
by its -- by -- by -- by its own momentum, okay, lack of momentum.
And what you end up with in that kind of situation is kind of a
de facto moratorium. I think we can prevent that by going through a
process like this. In 18 months we can get to an end of it where we
have a clear picture. We have a defensible -- we have a defensible
NEPA document which will get us through some of this contention.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't think you'll find anybody
on this board that's going to be chanting more growth, more growth but
at the same time I think we're just watching out. One out of --
COLONEL RICE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- four jobs here are somehow related
to the development industry, so we want --
COLONEL RICE: I understand that clearly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to be typical one to one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have one piggyback question, if I may,
Commissioner Mac'Kie --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- before you? You mentioned nationwide
permit.
COLONEL RICE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the past, the Corps becomes involved when
you exceed a threshold that puts you into a nationwide permit,
otherwise there are other lower level regulations that develop or that
-- that govern development.
What -- this study we're talking about, if you don't hit the
trigger for a nationwide permit, would the impacts of this study
affect you potentially?
COLONEL RICE: No. The nationwide permit usually handles those
things which are -- you don't -- you don't get into the permitting
process very much. They're most -- almost automatic, okay?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- and I had it backwards --
COLONEL RICE: You --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and I apologize.
COLONEL RICE: You unseat them when you go to an individual
permit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Again, those that, however, qualify, if
it would qualify for a nationwide permit, to now anticipate at this --
COLONEL RICE: I don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- point?
COLONEL RICE: -- see any changes in nationwide permits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And for those people that don't know
what a nationwide permit is or what the criteria is, could you --
COLONEL RICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- give us a little bit of that?
COLONEL RICE: Where's John? Is John here?
Anyway, my Chief of Regulatory is not here.
There's, I think, 30 of them or something like that. There's a
lot of them. And each one will have a certain criteria.
I think now, as you have three acres of fill on an individual
property, you can have a nationwide permit. You don't have to go
through all the process --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Basically, small impact --
COLONEL RICE: -- during that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- projects.
COLONEL RICE: Small impacts without --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Less than ten acres of wetland impacts, I
think, was one of them and --
COLONEL RICE: That used to be the criteria. I think it's even
down to three now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it down to three?
COLONEL RICE: Because I -- yeah, I think they brought it down to
three based on the last go round at Washington.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, in essence then, we're talk -- what we're
talking about is not ten or 20 acres of family owneds they want to put
a couple of homes on.
COLONEL RICE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're talking about --
COLONEL RICE: Yeah. We're talking --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- projects.
COLONEL RICE: Yeah. We're -- that -- those kind of things are
going to continue because those are usually dotted into already
developing areas and everything. We're talking about trying to get
ahead of, you know, bigger things that are on the horizon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for your indulgence.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- I'm sorry.
COLONEL RICE: How many -- excuse me a second.
How many nationwide permits are there?
MR. HALL: There are three --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Use that microphone up against the wall.
MR. HALL: 39.
COLONEL RICE: So, I was off by nine. 39.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need his name for the record.
COLONEL RICE: This is John Hall, the Chief of Regulatory,
Jacksonville Corps of Engineer District.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Hall, if you're going to make any
additional comments, we have a microphone right here on the wall that
you can use. Thank you.
COLONEL RICE: Right here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you have some
questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just -- a great deal of them were
covered by Commissioner Constantine with the concept of what is the
scope, what's the geographic area.
And what you're telling us, as I am understanding, is that 'all
of that is to be determined by this group that would be the steering
committee --
COLONEL RICE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- more or less.
COLONEL RICE: And let me -- could I just say one thing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
COLONEL RICE: I -- I really think the -- the -- there's a lot of
people that need to be brought to the table in this group. There's a
lot of interests, whether it be public, private. We have a lot of
people that need to be represented.
But I think the guts of this thing, the leadership really is the
county's and Corps of Engineers' And I think that's where the
nucleus has to -- to -- to expand out from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without, you know, taking on a lot of
detail questions because I'll bet I'll learn a lot if I'll just hush,
is this something -- could you point me to something similar in a
different part of the country that I could call up a county
commissioner there or talk to people in the industry and see how --
what effect did this have on your community?
Has something similar been done elsewhere?
MR. HALL: There -- is this on or off?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can turn it there.
MR. HALL: Is it on now? Yeah. Okay.
The closest that we have in Florida is something that's going on
over in Dade County now. We've done a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for rock mining over there and that has had full
county support.
We -- there --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand you're the regional office
but -- but surely we're not the only ones in the entire country. Is
there something, you know --
COLONEL RICE: I can't really --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- more similar?
COLONEL RICE: -- speak for, you know, outside the district. And
my -- John, you may know --
MR. HALL: There are -- there are a couple of others that -- that
have been done. The -- oh, I think either the New Orleans district or
the Mobile district did one on -- on -- we've got it in our office. I
can't remember what county it was on -- in.
Our -- our -- our district up in the Chicago area that covers the
metropolitan Chicago area did one on a -- on a river system up there
so there -- there are other examples.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if you could, you may refer that list
or something like that to my office.
COLONEL RICE: We'll -- we'll -- we'll look into finding out
Some '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That'd be really helpful --
COLONEL RICE: -- close examples.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because I think a great deal --
COLONEL RICE: I will tell you right now, I'm going to tell you
there's not too many of this -- of this scope.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of this scope?
COLONEL RICE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you -- you aren't surprised, I know,
that there's a greet deal of fear associated with -- from the Federal
Government and I'm here to help because they don't even like it when
we're there to help, much less, and we're the local guys. COLONEL RICE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there is a great deal of fear. And,
so, it seems to me some of the uncertainty could be removed if there
were some -- if you could refer me to whatever is the closest frame of
reference to be able to -- to get some comfort level about it. COLONEL RICE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hall stated that the one on the east coast
was associated with rock mining; is that correct?
COLONEL RICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: We --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- and the reason I asked that is, you
know, somebody that grew up in -- in an area that had a lot of
phosphate mines, you can see a lot of what the mining can do and how
there are mitigative impacts and there are water table impacts and so
forth, but we're really talking about something a little more broad
here because we're using the word "development," which means anything
above a nationwide permit as I now understand --
COLONEL RICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what we're discussing here.
So, again, where there is a nexus to kick off the study, the
nexus here, if I understand you correctly, is the fact that -- that we
just don't have a way to determine the cumulative impacts in a
geographic area right now? Is that -- is that as simple as it gets?
COLONEL RICE: That's part of the problem. There's -- there's --
there is -- there is no way to really determine right now, the way
we're doing our business, what are those cumulatives and secondary
impacts that are out there.
What is -- yeah. It's --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you --
COLONEL RICE: And that's not just secondary and cumulative
impacts that has to do with the water and everything. It's the -- the
things that you inspire when you do what you do as far as future land
use changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the practical side to that is because you
are required by federal law to address that, if you do not, someone on
a wild hair could file a suit that could shut down development of a
project, a region?
COLONEL RICE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we've seen some of that with the
university, not that a suit was filed, but that -- and we saw it with
the Ford Test Track here --
MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- so, I --
COLONEL RICE: The university was -- the only reason the
university was allowed to go forward is because of a settlement
agreement. And that settlement agreement basically said set up an
organization like we're talking about here to look at the entire area
around the university to see if there are ways that we can go through
the regulatory process in a more methodical manner.
And they met for 18 months to do work and -- and actually
produced a very good report, a consensus report. I mean there was
very little opposition to that effort.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- one last comment before I stop
and that is that I think that there is a lot of opportunity here for
some vision for, you know, overall communityside visioning. And --
and I have the same fear as most of us about the Federal Government
coming down to help us.
But, frankly, I've watched Colonel Rice in action a few times in
some environmental projects and have not found him to be the big
bureaucrat, scary guy. He's very practical, very much in tune with
what's on the ground and what the effects were.
And -- and that gives me a great deal of comfort and -- and
hopefully getting some information about some other projects will help
with that, too.
COLONEL RICE: Sure enough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may remember we've had two occasions in
the past year in which we've gotten involved from what we are blamed
as an anti-environmental standpoint, and one is the south block where
individual property rights were being trampled.
And I have to say that it actually was through the Corps of
Engineers and the Interior Secretary after -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the -- that trampling was announced, that
their efforts have at least resulted in probably some of the most
substantial progress we've seen and those folks getting a fair shake.
Now, no money's changed hands yet so I withhold -- I reserve
comment --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The check's in the mail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- comment and critique, but some things are
happening there.
Likewise, I've received letters from people saying, you know,
what, do you hate the environment, because this board took a position
that we were going to oppose the -- an unknown study of unknown origin
of unknown cost of unknown time. MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I call that good government. I don't call
that, you know, hating the environment. I don't care if it's a study
about widgets or trees or bugs or bunnies or whatever. If someone is
going to affect the economy and the livelihood of people in this
community, yet we're not a part of that process, we have every right,
reason and responsibility to object to that.
The reason it was tabled was to gain more information and that's
why we're here today.
As we go on with the speakers today, whether they be with Mr.
Rice or members of the public, what we are discussing is the possible
impacts and scope of a Programmatic EIS for cumulative impacts in
Collier County. And that -- that's it. It doesn't go beyond that
that I understand; is that correct?
COLONEL RICE: Those -- those five points that I raised, the
water and all that different things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: My -- whatever is covered under my authority is
that's what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions for Colonel Rice?
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Colonel Rice, I heard you state here this
afternoon that you would continue to process permits in the interim.
Let's -- let's say 18 months or it could be one way or the other from
18 months to get the study done.
But what you stated was that during that interim period before
the study was completed that you would continue to process permits.
COLONEL RICE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is, when you say you'll
continue to process permits, do you mean you'll continue to process
them as you have in the past?
COLONEL RICE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The same?
COLONEL RICE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No extraordinary delay, no --
COLONEL RICE: It's not a question of delay. What -- that's the
-- that's why I'm here --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand.
COLONEL RICE: -- is because there's going to be delay. I will
continue to process them as I've always processed them.
And what I'm trying to say is that -- that right now I foresee
them taking longer and being more contentious as we go into the
future, and what I'm trying to do is give you a mechanism to prevent
that from happening.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm just asking this question to get it
out in the -- in the --
COLONEL RICE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the public because I've heard some
people make this -- the statement, well, sure, they can continue to
process them but at a very slow rate and, therefore, they would
effectively for an 18-month period, or whatever it happens to be, halt
or slow down activity that's in the pipeline today.
And I -- I want to give you the opportunity to say here in public
whether or not that is the case.
COLONEL RICE: Right. No. And that's what I'm saying is that we
will take every permit as it's -- every applicant gives it to us,
process it in the normal manner, go through it as we would go through
any that we have up to this time and issue those that we could issue
or deny those that we have to deny, continue to work those that people
want to continue to work with us to continue.
I'm just -- what I'm trying to say is that -- that that process
is going to get longer and longer and longer in the future. And with
what we're trying to do we, we're trying to get that back into a
reasonable period of time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But you're saying in this interim period --
during the study period, effectively no change from your current
operation.
COLONEL RICE: There will be no change.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's very reassuring to the people
because we had a lot of concerns about, as Commissioner Hancock was
alluding to, private property rights -- COLONEL RICE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- being sort of --
MR. PERKINS: Stepped on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Trampled?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- trampled is -- is the word. I was
trying to think of one that might be a little better. But he was --
but the point is that -- that we want to make sure that we don't have
anything that could be construed a taking or anything like that.
COLONEL RICE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, your -- your commitment is very
encouraging. And I think that by working together with the
commissions that that's another step that is certainly positive
because up until today, we had heard more this agency, that agency,
another agency, and other agencies, and they were all appointed
officials.
But we would certainly not want to be in the position of ever
having to subordinate our land use authority here at the County
Commission to some other agency. COLONEL RICE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And so, that gave us big concern. But
since -- since the elected officials are going to be a major part of
it, according to -- if I understood you right, then that also gives us
a little more comfort.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sure you'll get asked this question
and may already have been, but I was given a copy of a resolution by
the Chamber/EDC Coalition asking for ten particular commitments.
And while we're along the theme of your making commitments on
behalf of the Army, I wondered if you had read those ten and had an
opinion about whether or not that they were something that you could
commit to?
COLONEL RICE: I -- I have read those ten. I have discussed them
with lots of people. I -- I -- I think many of those I would have
liked to have written myself because I think they're right on the
mark. I think all of them I agree in principle with. Maybe we need
to tweak them a little bit as we go through the negotiations to come
up with an agreement but I agree in principle to all ten of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Colonel Rice --
COLONEL RICE: And -- and if I could add, I would say that the
way -- because let me lay out way out -- the way I would see this
happening, if we can -- if we can proceed forward, is that before we
would ever start anything, we would come up with an agreement and that
agreement would be essentially the nucleus. Like I said, it would be
the county commissions and the Corps of Engineers that would have
things like that as the heart of the agreement.
These are the kind of things that we agree to. There will be
other things brought to the table that we want to agree to, too, but
those are -- those are things that I would see as a part of the tenets
of how we would go through this thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Colonel Rice, I'm confident since the elements
of our community that brought this to our attention and made it an
issue for this board are involved with both the Chamber and the
Economic Development Council in different areas, that they have a copy
of these, but sometime during the meeting I think we'd like to -- to
have them stated.
I'm sure representative organizations may do that, but I guess
the most important thing for a lot of people here is we need to know
what the decision process time line is. We've been told that we will
have a seat at the table and a voice and the direction as elected
officials and representatives of our constitutents, which is -- is
what we are initially seeking anyway, I believe.
However, what is the -- I'll call it the drop dead date at which
point a decision must be made to -- either to pursue a Programmatic
EIS with specific criteria set forth or to throw caution to the wind,
if that were the other option? What is the date in which that
decision must be made?
COLONEL RICE: Well, I think it's all -- in the best -- it's
through our best interest to try to come up with some kind of an
agreement as quickly as we possibly can. I would like to see that be
completed by the first of August if we could. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: And if we could come up with that agreement at
that point and to -- if we come up with an agreement, then we would
have an 18-month window to complete the effort. If we didn't come up
with an agreement then, as you said --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then you're going to do what you think --
COLONEL RICE: Then we have to do something. I'm not sure what
that is. We'd have to talk some more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. I know you don't like to
admit it but one option is for you to do what you think is right
regardless of our input if -- if --
COLONEL RICE: It is, but that would be disastrous for all of us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Are there further questions
of Colonel Rice?
Okay. Once again, how many speakers do we have at this point?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ten.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ten? Okay. I would like to just remind the
speakers, for those of you who have not addressed the board before, we
have a five-minute time limit for each public speaker. You have a
little monitor that will show you. When you see a yellow light,
you've got -- is it 30 seconds, Miss Filson, at that point? One
minute. Thank you.
A red light and a beeper means you're done. Please confine
yourself to that five minutes and we ask that you do confine your
comments to what is being discussed today. This is not the catchall
for environmental issues for the United States or even South Florida.
It's the issue at hand, so let's try and confine the comments to that,
please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first one, Ty Agoston, and the second is Tom
Moss.
MR. AGOSTON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for
myself.
I have a question to you, Mr. Chairman, as well as to the
Colonel. You're talking about not mentioning anything relating to
Southwest Florida or for Florida.
The Colonel is speaking of a holistic approach. Now, with my
limited knowledge of the English language, that stape -- standing back
and taking a very broad look at the cause and effect in managing them.
I am suspicious by nature and I have looked at some of the prior
experience of the Colonel who has a par excellence educational
background; however, he was part of the document called Sustainable
Florida, which has many, many areas that bothers me very, very
seriously.
It mentions force, it mentions constraints on human behavior. It
also mentions something that's -- almost borders on religion when it's
forcing humanity to acknowledge themselves being part of the
environment, whereas some people's religion defines humanity as the
crowning creation above the environment.
But be as it may, I thought that would have been protected speech
under the First Amendment but we don't want to get into that.
What I do want to ask the Colonel just exactly what holistic
means in the context of his presentation because some of his prior
work is talking about a well educated -- establishing a well educated
multicultural work force and some silly things like educating people
from the cradle to the grave.
Well, I went to school too long. I don't want to go anymore but,
be as it may, that's one of the five broad principles of the
Sustainable South Florida.
So, while I'm not accusing anyone of anything, the fact of the
matter is that the fifth is to -- for this group to create a quality
community and jobs and provide lifelong education and training to
ensure better educated, on and on. And I don't want to bore you with
it. You can read it and you can get the flavor of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've been bored with that document several
times.
MR. AGOSTON: That's why I'm not going to do that.
But the fact of the matter is, is a little closer to us the
Arnold study in Fort Lee covers very similar territory with some very
similar conclusions.
And are we heading into that section? I mean, I escaped a
communist country and it appears that I'm heading back into another
One.
MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. AGOSTON: And, you know, that's all I have to say.
(Applause)
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Thomas Moss and then Glen
Dunavan.
MR. MOSS: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Moss and I'm here to
express my support for the Corps of Engineer growth management
proposal.
The representatives of the various environmental groups will
eloquently point out how the plan will help maintain our high quality
of life in Collier County.
I'm here as a taxpayer and I want to talk cost. The development
interests will use the tax increase scare tactic to attempt to shy us
away from the Corps proposal. They're right. This plan will increase
our taxes; however, it will be an up front tax increase for a
long-term tax savings.
I'm hoping this plan will cause a cap on our future population
numbers in Collier County. This alone will result in future tax
savings.
More people mean higher taxes. Our up front tax increase will be
created by the need to protect property rights. Property owners in
floodplain areas that are environmentally sensitive areas will need to
be compensated based on the zoning of the land at the time of the
growth management plan is implemented.
Preserving our floodplain areas will provide long-term savings by
reducing costs associated with man-made drainage systems.
I'm from Miami and I compared my '95 property taxes on my home in
Miami, that I still own, and my property taxes here in Naples. I paid
for '95 $24 per thousand in -- in Miami and $15 per thousand in
Naples. The difference in tax costs is directly related to the
overcrowding in Miami.
Another reason for the difference is due to the fact that the
southeast coast is paying an Everglades restoration fee because of
past damage done to that floodplain.
If we don't control our growth, we'll end up paying the high tax
rates of Miami with the same quality of life as Miami.
The Corps and it's -- have made some serious mistakes in the
past. It is admirable that the Corps and Colonel Rice have not only
learned but are attempting to correct their past mistakes. Colonel
Rice is here to share that learning experience. Let's listen to what
he has to say.
Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Glen Dunavan and then Alan
Reynolds.
MR. DUNAVAN: Chairman Hancock and the other commissioners, I am
Glen Dunavan, and I represent Citizens of Constitutional Popular
Rights, Incorporated of Collier County.
I think that Colonel Rice had grossly understated the cause that
he champions. And what I'm referring to is Option 5 of his white
paper; states, a cooperative effort with the Southwest Florida --
South Florida, pardon me, issue group of the Governor's Commission for
Sustainable South Florida.
We was able to obtain the Governor's Commission for Sustainable
South Florida, the first report, the initial report, I should say.
Now, we have studied this document pretty well. It is a picture
of utopia such as was and is being tried in communist countries and is
a complete failure unless complete slavery is desirable.
To -- to not be able to protect the environment unless we improve
the economic prospect of the earth's poorest people, how can we
improve the -- and this is out of this -- this document. How can we
improve the plight of the poor people if you take all our land away
from us and the means of production.
Of course, this comes from the United Nations summit. Now, the
earth's poorest people do not live in South Florida, so what does this
have to do with Sustainable South Florida?
Through the -- throughout the document, there are articles and
reports and recommendations from the United Nations such as 1987
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.
One place it states sustainable -- sustainability means that
service or products should not compete in the marketplace in terms of
image, power, speed, packaging, et cetera, but instead should compete
in a way that reduces consumption, energy, use, distribution costs and
so forth. It states sustainability can be looked at as an ecological
constraint on human activity and so forth.
We don't believe the United Nations or any foreign power should
run our affairs, including the United States for that matter.
We now have 85 percent of Collier County in government hands.
How much control should we achieve? Already in South Florida,
millions of acres are set aside for nonhumans. Why deprive humans of
the few acres that's left? This is, ah, well, '84, Big Brother,
United Nations, one world order, socialism, communism all rolled into
one, the final takeover.
Turn down the request and get us out of the United Nations before
it's too late. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Alan Reynolds and then Pat
Clark.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. My name is Alan Reynolds.
I'm speaking to you today as chairman of the EDC/Chamber of
Coalition for Community Governmental Affairs.
The Chamber/EDC Coalition has been closely monitoring and
participating in a lot of the recent discussions that have been taking
place with regard to Programmatic EIS.
And, like you, we have had many questions that needed to clarify
the intended purpose, the scope of this study. Southwest Florida is
already, in our opinion, among the county's and the country's, what
was highly regulated regions.
Of Collier County's 2,000 square miles, 75 percent is either
owned by, slated to be purchased by, or required to be preserved by
existing environmental regulations, 75 percent of our county.
Less than five percent of our county within the -- is within the
coastal urban area and of the undeveloped land, half of that is
environmentally sensitive land that will have to be protected.
In the past two decades, we have earned a reputation in the
nation for creating some of the most environmentally responsible
development that has occurred.
The Coalition's primary concern has been the negative effect that
any fed or federal intervention can have on economic development and
diversification.
In order to continue our recently created momentum in this very
critical area, it is essential that we streamline the permitting
process, not further complicate it.
The mere existence of such a study can have a very chilling
effect on a business' decision to either expand or to relocate to our
region and we cannot afford to lose any of our remaining competitive
advantages in this area.
If a study must be done, we believe that it should be tightly
focused on only the most essential issues presently under the
regulatory authority of the Corps of Engineers, that it be completed
in the shortest possible time frame and that it not be expanded into a
cumbersome multiagency surrogate for the local governmental
comprehensive planning process.
The coalition has adopted a resolution -- resolution which I have
provided to you. I have provided it to the Colonel and it frames our
primary concerns.
And with your permission, I'd like to read it into the record.
Whereas, the Chamber/EDC Coalition represents 2,200 members and
55,000 employees; and
Whereas, the Chamber/EDC Coalition supports the development of
policies and programs that foster the enhancement of natural resources
and environmental protection in balance with private property rights
in the interest of business; and
Whereas, the Chamber EDC acknowledges the economic benefits of
natural resources and advocates the streamlining and coordination of
local, regional, state and federal environmental regulations and
policy plans to maximize effectiveness and minimize duplication of
effort to achieve regulations that are clear, concise and reasonable.
Now therefore, let it be resolved that the Chamber/EDC Coalition
cannot support a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Programmatic EIS or any
alternative environmental impact study in Southwest Florida unless
each of the following ten criteria are agreed to in advance by all
participating agencies and made a part of the written agreement:
The first, the purpose, scope and intended use of the study will
be clearly articulated, its geographical boundaries specifically
defined and a maximum budget funding source and time frame for
completion established.
Second, the study shall be restricted to the specific issues
under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
unless it be demonstrated that expanding the scope of the study will
further the goal of Number 8 below, which deals with the streamlining
of the environmental permitting process.
Number 3, the adopted future land use maps and related elements
of the Lee County and Collier County Comprehensive Plan should be used
as the basis for the study and individual projects or properties shall
not be targeted for a selective analysis or implementation of study
recommendations.
Number four, there are a myriad number of existing and ongoing
studies and plans that address water quality, wetland, listed species
impacts in the Estero River basin and surrounding area. The study
will utilize to the maximum extent possible and will not duplicate or
supersede any prior or ongoing local and regional study activity or
plan.
Number five, private property rights shall be clearly
acknowledged and respected in study recommendations. Property owners
shall be fairly compensated for the loss of property or property value
that is the result of this study in accordance with applicable laws.
Number 6, the study group shall include representation from local
and regional organizations representing business, economic
development, real estate and service providers such as, but not
limited to, Economic Development Councils, Chambers of Commerce, the
Southwest Florida International Airport, Florida Gulf Coast University
and the Urban Land Institute.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Reynolds. In the interest of
fairness to all speakers, if I could ask you to possibly paraphrase
the last three? We do have copies of them and we'll enter them for
the record today also.
MR. REYNOLDS: That -- that's fine.
The -- the seventh condition has to do with the -- what perhaps
is one of the most important and that is the commitment to not only
continue to accept and process but to issue permits during the
pendency of the study.
Number 9 deals with making sure that economic impact is a
consideration in the study and that the study will not result in
detrimental impacts to the economic development and diversification
efforts in the Southwest Florida economy.
And, finally, the tenth being that the study would be governed
and conducted under the Florida Sunshine Law.
So, those were our ten points. We were very pleased in meeting
with the Colonel over the -- over the weekend, that he agreed in
principle to these ten and I would urge you in any resolution that you
would adopt to likewise include these ten criteria as part of any
study that you would support.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
Any questions for Mr. Reynolds?
Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Pat Clark and then Gil
Erlichman.
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Clark, president of the
League of Women Voters of Collier County.
I -- for the league, I'm here to speak in favor of the proposal
-- proposed study of the Army Corps of Engineers.
League members from Collier, Lee County and Charlotte County met
with Colonel Rice, his staff and members of the Department of
Environmental Protection.
And of the options we were discussing, of particular interest was
the programmatic environmental impact study. This type of study
provides a regional perspective of cumulative and secondary effects in
the region for new projects.
Also, by including local, state, county and -- local, state,
county and federal agencies and officials, as well as other interested
organizations, there's real promise that the piece-by-piece processing
of permits could be improved, made more effective and cost-effective.
It's our understanding that no processing would be halted during
-- on -- while the study was underway, but we ask the commissioners to
give this proposal your full attention and consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Gil Erlichman and then David Guggenheim.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Gil
Erlichman. I'm a resident and taxpayer and voter in Collier County.
Reference was made by a previous speaker about mistakes made by
the Corps of Engineers. Well, the mistakes, I -- I imagine that the
-- the previous speaker was referring to was the draining of the
Everglades, draining of the swamps, and that took place back in the
twenties, early twenties, and that was to reclaim the swampland and
the marshes, et cetera, for farm -- for farming purposes.
And the Corps of Engineers dug a lot of canals, and if you look
at a map of the State of Florida in this -- in this part of the state,
you'll find a lot of canals running east-west, the east-west
direction, over toward the east coast and a few running east-west over
toward the west coast. And the purpose was to drain a -- drain the
swamps and the Everglades.
Well, lo and behold, now we're confronted with restoring the
Everglades. The heck with what happened previously with all the
taxpayers spending that money due to a national policy created by our
Federal Government to employ the Corps of Engineers to dig those
canals.
Now we are faced with the idea of reclaiming the Everglades and
flooding certain areas to provide habitat for endangered -- so-called
endangered species.
Well, I've stood here many -- on many occasions and stated to you
that I do not trust my Federal Government. MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. ERLICHMAN: And I still say that. I do not trust my Federal
Government regardless of what statement is -- is being made or
statement made by the representatives from the Corps of Engineers
about increasing and speeding up the process of permitting.
Well, how fast -- how fast do you think this study is going to
enable us to or enable you people to increase the speed of permitting
and, also, the question of oversight by the Corps of Engineers,
according to what I heard, that they will have the last word in the
issuance of permits.
So, in other words, you people and the commissioners from both
Lee and county -- Lee and Collier County who are on this commission,
joint commission, with the Corps of Engineers would have some kind of
input, but the final say would still be the Federal Government, big
brother, having the last word as to issuance of permits. Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
(Applause)
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is David Guggenheim and then
Robert Duane.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that while speakers are
addressing the board that we keep our comments to ourselves and
maintain decorum. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means you.
MR. PERKINS: Absolutely. Right.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good afternoon, commissioners.
For the record, I'm David Guggenheim, president and CEO of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I'm distributing a -- our position statement to you which is in
support of Colonel Rice's efforts on a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement.
I think in Collier County and around other parts of Florida and
-- and the nation, we recognize that piecemeal permitting is
problematic. It's created enormous problems on the east coast of
Florida, problems that could have been avoided with better foresight
and planning and problems that are now at great expense trying to be
resolved through restoration efforts.
What the Colonel is proposing is a common sense approach that
will help us understand the impacts on our environment. Many of these
impacts are not intuitive and, unfortunately, sometimes we're
surprised, which is the worst possible outcome. And the Colonel used
the example of Florida Bay.
At that point, we're forced to deal with costly restoration
efforts. This is a tool that will equip us with the ability to
anticipate those kinds of outcomes.
This is really an opportunity, an opportunity to get assistance
from the Colonel and the Army Corps to build a clear and long-term
vision in a participatory process and to commit ourselves to a process
that will give you the information that you need to guide the
development in Collier County to reduce the project-by-project battles
that I think we're also tired of and as well to streamline our
decision making and our permitting processes in the future. I think
you've also heard that this is something that is responsive to the
needs of our economic community.
I would like to offer my personal support to -- to Colonel Rice.
It has been a privilege to work with the Colonel on Everglades
restoration activities. He has been recognized by the White House for
his activities. He really understands the importance of local
involvement. He's dedicated to that. He knows how to involve a
diverse group of stakeholders and build consensus.
He's focused. He has a distaste for unnecessary bureaucracy and
inefficiency and inertia. He knows how to get the job done and I hope
you'll join in Colonel Rice's efforts. The Conservancy offers its
support and participation in this process as well. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I do have a question. Please go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to take the
opportunity to -- to make a comment about -- I've wanted a public
forum to be able to thank Mr. Guggenheim and also Colonel Rice for the
work they did in getting us those federal funds to solve our problem
with the south blocks.
I don't know if everybody knows just how many trips Mr.
Guggenheim made to -- to D.C. and how many meetings with the
Department of Interior and others, but I think these two gentlemen are
owed a great debt of gratitude by our community for finally getting
some funding for that really important project.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: I appreciate that, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
(Applause)
MR. GUGGENHEIH: I -- I think the important message there is that
local involvement is critical and that was the -- the gap that we were
trying to bridge and I think -- I think by doing that, that gave the
Federal Government the confidence it needed and the reassurance to
move forward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Guggenheim, I read in your -- in the
position statement from the Conservancy, and it more or less confirms
my -- my sense, and I think, Commissioner Norris, you actually stated
this a week or two ago, that the -- the seed of concern really started
in the Estero Bay watershed. That really brought the attention for
the Programmatic EIS to Southwest Florida.
And watersheds don't recognize county boundaries, but is it still
the Conservancy's position that that watershed really is the -- I
guess the -- the -- the end point or the seed for the -- the
Programatic EIS and that it's -- we're not looking at this as a way
to put a crowbar into something that is not affecting that general
area?
I'm -- I'm concerned that a Programatic EIS starts off with a
seed of concern for a body of water or one or two bodies of water ends
up connecting ourselves to the Everglades and the east by a canal. I
mean the -- the growth of that can become expediential if we don't
recognize the purpose for the PEIS out of the chute.
So, just reading that, I'm -- I'm just curious what your -- your
take on that is.
HR. GUGGENHEIH: Well, I think -- I think you're right to point
out that that was the -- that was ground zero for -- for this -- this
particular study concept was the Estero Bay watershed and probably
will continue to be the -- the -- the focus, but I -- I would have to
say that -- that part of this scoping process will -- will lead us to
what those project boundaries are as -- as Colonel Rice pointed out.
And, as you point out, the watersheds don't recognize our
geographic boundaries all the time and -- and that's something that we
have to consider.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree but you would consider that at least a
key recognition and -- and discussing --
HR. GUGGENHEIH: The Estero --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the scope of the project.
HR. GUGGENHEIH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
HR. GUGGENHEIH: Thank you.
HR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Robert Duane and then Whit
Ward.
HR. DUANE: Good afternoon. Robert Duane for the record.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board for
hearing the Colonel out and having the kind of discussion that I hoped
we could have had today where we could bring together a diversity of
interests.
I represent you on your Regional Planning Council and also as a
member of the Governor's Sustainable Commission for -- for South
Florida.
I'm -- with me today is Jim Hurley, Secretary of the Department
of Community Affairs, the co-chair of that committee.
This morning I'd like to think that we reached somewhat of a
middle road position. It's very similar to the resolution you have
from the EDC/Chamber Coalition. We don't want to see a unilateral
effort with the Federal Government. We want to see a collaborative
effort formalized in some kind of an agreement so we understand the
outcomes of the process, and that basically was that commission's
recommendation to your group.
I also serve with the EDC/Chamber Coalition as their growth
management chair and a number of us have put a lot of work in on the
ten points and I would like to strongly encourage the commission to
consider those in your resolution also this morning.
Finally, with regard to the Governor's Commission, I want to know
-- want you to know, as was previously brought out, Hiss Hac'Kie, a
number of us from the west coast contingency worked hard to try to
direct some of those federal funds over here. We were successful in
that effort.
The year I've spent on the commission has been spent literally in
hundreds of hours of consensus building with the Corps and fate --
state and various federal agencies also represented by agricultural
interests, banking interests, elected and appointed officials.
And they were able to agree on a conceptual framework basically
on how the Corps would proceed and the state to spend a billion
dollars in Everglades restoration. And I think that the -- the
Colonel deserves a lot of credit for trying to work with the
commission and, further, I think all of our goals today. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Whit Ward and then Brad Cornell.
MR. WARD: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Whit Ward.
I represent the Collier Building Industry Association.
We have also been in meetings with Colonel Rice. We've heard and
considered all of the information. We've talked with the other
organizations in our community.
We were very much opposed to this proposed environment impact
study and I'm here to tell you that we're still very much opposed to
it and I would like to tell you why.
Once this study is initiated, there's -- there's going to be more
impact on private property use than there is today. If we were
starting out with a piece of land that nobody owned and had never been
used, then a -- a study like this would be very good because we could
lay out exactly how we want that property to look like in the future
and it would be perfectly environmentally correct.
But that's not the case. And I'll point out some -- some
examples. Southern Golden Gate Estates has been mentioned several
times today. Those were mistakes of the past, that's true, but the
people who owned the property in southern Golden Gates Estates have
been holding on to that property for many years without the use of the
property, without being able to use the property and without being
compensated for it.
MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. WARD: The -- and as an example, Collier County ourselves
were in Golden Gate, the part of the Golden Gate -- and, by the way,
one of my major -- our major concern is Golden Gate Estates, not the
southern part, but all the rest of it. It is clearly in the
Everglades. It clearly has wetlands significance and it is the only
-- pretty much the only place in this county where our working class
people can live, certainly the only place you can put a truck in your
driveway.
MR. PERKINS: Right.
MR. WARD: So, Golden Gate Estates --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward, just a second.
Mr. Perkins, I don't know if my comments on decorum escaped you,
but your comments are out of line. Contain them.
Please continue, Mr. Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
Collier County had a general permit from the Army Corps of
Engineer. The Army Corps of Engineer has -- saw fit not to renew that
general permit, so we can no longer issue building permits in Golden
Gates Estates without consideration by the Army Corps of Engineer.
That has recently happened.
Now, we say that permitting is not going to stop. I -- I don't
know whether this permit was not renewed because of a proposed
environmental impact study, but I do know that -- that we can no
longer issue building permits without consideration of the Army Corps
of Engineer.
Once a general permit -- once this study is completed, itws my
understanding that a general permit may be issued to local government
so that we could issue -- we could then issue development permits.
However, I would point out to you that a general permit is only
good for five years and then it can be -- itws -- it can be withdrawn
just like ours was. It can be renegotiated. The whole deal is off.
You have to start over again. So, whatever agreement we make, at the
very longest is only good for five years.
I would also question whether or not the Regional Planning
Council and the Water Management District Boards of Directors, as you,
are elected or appointed officials, have approved of this process.
And -- and I -- we have a commissioner who sits on the Regional
Planning Council. You may recall whether or not youwve ever voted to
tell your staff to support this program. I donwt recall reading
anything about it in the paper or hearing any -- anything about it on
the news.
And, finally, my last and probably most important point, as good
as an environmental impact study may be and as important as -- as
maintaining our ecosystem may be, I can promise you that when this
study is completed, some people who can currently use their land, the
land that they own, they bought and paid for, will not be able to use
their land anymore for that intended purpose.
I would encourage you not to approve anything that doesnwt have
funding in place up front. If wewre going to take peoplews property,
we need to be able to be prepared to pay for it and we need to be able
to be prepared to pay a fair price and to pay that fair price
immediately, not -- and God bless the people that helped us with
southern Golden Gate Estates.
Those people have waited much, much, much, much too long for
their money. We donwt need to do that again. Thatws our concern.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Brad Cornell and then Nancy Anne Payton.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Brad Cornell and Iwm here representing you -- representing the
Collier County Audubon Society as their vice-president.
The Collier County Audubon Society Board of Directors and its
1300 members fully supports and want to encourage Colonel Rice and the
current Army Corps initiative to revamp the Southwest Florida regional
permitting process.
Further, we strongly encourage the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners to participate in this process. We believe that
permitting status quo is not doing a good job of protecting the public
interest in Southwest Florida or environmental integrity and it is a
public interest in environmental health.
And that includes flood and water -- flood and water protection
and sprawl prevention and habitat preservation. All of us are
fundamentally affected both economically and in life-style by the
whole permitting issue. And this will only magnify as the buildout --
as buildout approaches.
Collier County Audubon Society also concurs with the need to
bring all interests to the table to work -- work out the best -- the
best way to conduct this development permitting. This is the only way
a study of this scope can bear fruit beneficial to all.
And one final thing that personally Iwd like to add is that Iwve
heard it said that in -- Florida is unique in the permitting process
in that once a permit is -- an application is filed, that's the point
of -- at which negotiations begin, but in other places, there's more
certainty to -- to permit applications. People know what they're
applying for and what they're going to get, what they're likely to
get.
And I think that the certainty that Colonel Rice mentions in --
in -- as a benefit of PEIS is something that is sorely needed in
Florida.
Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Nancy Anne Payton and Sewell Corkran.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife
Federation.
And we'd like to express our appreciation to the commissioners
for tabling the resolution until today to allow the opportunity for
Colonel Rice to come and explain and discuss conceivably what's going
to happen and also to allow the public to provide comment on it.
Thank you.
Florida Wildlife Federation supports the concept of a PEIS and we
like the idea of a collaborative joint arrangement between the Army
Corps of Engineers, Collier County Commission and Lee County
Commission. We feel that that sort of arrangement, that agreement,
that core group is -- is necessary to have an effective and a
responsible review.
We also urge that the agreement be -- provide the opportunity for
public input at every opportunity because this does have great impact
or, conceivably, great interest to many different segments of this
community.
Also, we understand that the agreement has the opportunity or
will or may have the opportunity for other interested parties to sign
on and it's our feeling that the more interest groups, parties or
organizations that agree to this going in, it's going to be easier to
implement what happens at the other end at the end of the 18 months.
Therefore, we urge the Collier County Commissioners to enter into
negotiations, take the next step and sit down with the Lee County
Commissioners and the Army Corps of Engineers to talk about how this
can be done.
There is an impression that something should be done and I think
it's best that -- that the County Commissioners be part of that core
group and help drive the train. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Sewell Corkran and Judy Lineweber is
next.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: After Miss Lineweber, how many speakers
remain?
MR. FERNANDEZ: One more. Mr. Perkins.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll go ahead and get through the public
speakers first and then take a short recess. Mr. Corkran.
MR. CORKRAN: Good afternoon, commissioners, chairman. I'm
Sewell Corkran.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. Go ahead and continue, Sewell.
MR. CORKRAN: I'm Sewell Corkran. I live in Olde Naples.
I'm speaking for myself, but I have spent the last year in the
administrative courts and I'm now in the Appeal Court, District 2,
trying to strengthen the rules of the state with respect to the area
of critical state concern in the Big Cypress.
Many people think that all of that property is available for sale
and will some day be bought, but there are 70,000 acres that are in
there which are not for sale to governance their own by large
landholders, corporations. They are in the path of development.
And I have a letter and I was interested that Secretary Hurley is
here. He wrote me a letter in July, a year or so ago, saying that he,
too, recognized that this 60 or 70,000 acres not for sale to
governance is in the path of development.
Those 70,000 acres are subject to Rules 28, 25, Florida
Administrative Code, approved by the Administration Commission in the
year of 1973.
The current people in the DCA have nothing to do with these rules
but they're totally inadequate and I implore the Army Corps of
Engineers to include the Big Cypress area of critical state concern
within the scope of their study.
And I believe that the state and the DCA in particularly, as the
agency in charge of these rules, should be a participant at some point
in this process. This is not Federal Government down to the county.
You've got the state layer in there with the Rules 28, 25 that govern
these 70,000 acres not for sale.
The County Commission ought to be pleased that in 1989 the
county, recognizing the loopholes and the weakness in the DCA Rules
28, 25 instituted two regulations, which I'm sure you won't recognize,
but they're seven and eight, and they blocked the loopholes and are
doing a much better job than the state rules. But the state rules are
the top dog and they ought to be brought in line.
I hope that the Army study includes this important 70,000 acres
which is sitting on top of the potable water supply that's going to
take care of this county. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Judy Lineweber and then A1
Perkins.
MS. LINEWEBER: I'm Judy Lineweber and I'm representing myself.
Big brother isn't going away. He is still going to breathe down
our necks. Colonel Rice will do this report the easy way or he can do
it the hard way, but he will do it.
Colonel Rice was on the panel for Sustainable Florida and a Keith
Arnold Committee. This is what his guidelines are and his bible for
permitting. Just remember, every time there is flooding in the United
States, the Army Corps of Engineers is behind it.
Not only that, the Big Cypress Basin Board and South Florida
Water Management are doing this exact same study, so, it means we, the
taxpayers, get to pay for this study twice. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our last speaker, Mr. A1 Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
commissioners, and whoever else is listening, especially you people at
home. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups.
Well, socialism and communism is alive and well in Southern
California and right here in good old Collier County.
I hear this study and how this study has been studied and
restudied and restudied and restudied.
Now, I've been here before most of you people even thought about
this place. I'm what they call a swamp rat. That's right. You climb
a tree when you can't get enough water. Okay.
They talked about mitigation and impact and all the rest of it
and I'm going to bring up a sore subject, the homeless on 70 acres
that Reverend Mallory is trying to get permitted by the Corps of
Engineers.
They talk about mitigation. That means double expense, double
expense, because they want him to buy property to give to them so he
-- they give him the permit to take and build this thing on his land.
These people here, all these paid employees sitting out here, are
collecting off of you people both ways. You're not only paying for
their -- your -- their salaries, you're paying for all the rest of the
stuff right down the line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A1, don't make it personal.
MR. PERKINS: I make it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't make it personal.
MR. PERKINS: I didn't point to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: -- any particular person.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: But -- okay -- Pam, I know which side of the street
you're on.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah?
MR. PERKINS: Okay. 1948. This study was done in 1948 and the
Corps of Engineers took the permit money and gave the permission to
dig the canals.
Now, all of a sudden, they say, well, I guess I made a mistake.
Well, how come this could be a mistake. How many mistakes are we
going to eat? Stop guessing. They tried to put the Big Cypress -- in
the Big Cypress.
By the way, you know we got oil wells in the Big Cypress? These
guys -- they condone it. Okay. And it's pumping right now to Broward
County.
Most of these people here do not own any piece of land in this
county. They don't pay taxes. They are not affected by any of this
stuff at all. They wouldn't buy any part of the stuff that they're
going to put under attack.
Now, I heard the -- that Corps of Engineers is asking for $80,000
from the department of eternal plunder. Okay? But at the last
meeting of the Big Cypress Basin board, they gave $70,000 to the DEP
of our money out of the Big Cypress Basin, which we're being taxed and
we're going to be taxed double in three years to pay their bill. And
you're paying for preservation 2,000.
That's $300 million this year with a $900 million debt service.
Did you have an opportunity to buy the doggone bonds? Did you know
where they were being sold? What's the interest rate? What's the
duration of time? But you're going to get paid. You're paying for
them. And I don't think they paid for the first one. This was going
on seven years.
Who the hell's land is this anyhow? Whose country is this?
Every veteran in this place ought to get so hot and nasty, it isn't
funny.
In the Big Cypress, these same people put the farmers out of
business. Then they found out that the -- that the Brazilian Pepper
took it over. Then they spent your money, went in there with
bulldozers and put it all in a pile and got the Brazilian Pepper out
of there. Then they put the dirt in a pile.
Now they have 58 million cubic yards of dirt that they don't know
what to do with and they were going to take it and haul it over to the
frog pond and put it there, but they found out they would tear up
multimillion dollars of road to do it plus paying the hand to handle
this stuff.
Come on. Wake up, people. Studies in impacts, one over the
other. Permit fees. This is -- the whole thing is based on money.
You're paying them. They want money for permits, money for this,
money for that, transportation, all the rest of it. Wake up, people.
This is a brochure I got handed. This young lady handed it to
me. It's put out by the DEP.
Well, you paid for it. It's propaganda. Big time. How
wonderful they are, but they'll pack up and they'll be on their way
back to Tallahassee this afternoon. Thank you.
That worked out good for a change, didn't it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Colonel Rice, I have a question for you if I
may. I meant to ask it a little bit earlier.
You said, assuming all other things go as you would intend or
hope, that a general permit would be issued. And we heard from Mr.
Ward the fact that a general permit may be revocable after a period of
five years, so I guess I have two questions.
The first is if a general permit is issued where the permitting
responsibility is, as I understood you correctly, now with the county,
do we have increased administrative costs to our local taxpayers to
issue permits under that general permit that we didn't have
beforehand?
COLONEL RICE: I would assume that you would do it with the same
staff that you issue your own permits right now with.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it depends -- you know, if we were
issuing X number of permits and this study causes us to raise that by
one-third because property is now a part of that that wasn't
previously, am I -- am I hearing that correctly or is the general
permit -- these would be properties that are all under a certain
general permit now.
Because when we're adding property to a general permit review,
and we're going to be doing the review, that sounds to me like an
increased workload.
COLONEL RICE: You already go through a process of permitting and
we would assume that that would be simultaneous permitting and you'd
just take our requirements as a part of that.
I don't -- we work all those --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have an --
COLONEL RICE: We work all those details out, but I'm just
saying --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: -- that I think that -- I don't think there's a --
much of an increase here considering that it's -- you really -- that's
the whole point. We're doing -- the -- local government, Water
Management District, DEP and Federal Government are all doing the same
permitting for the same land separately. And we're just saying let's
combine our requirements into one package and let you do them all.
And that way it shouldn't really entail that much more work and
should get rid of the other agencies getting in your hair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The concern being that everyone gets
streamlined except us, we get additional responsibilities that have to
been funded by local tax dollars. And that's the concern I'm -- you
know, I agree --
MR. PERKINS: Yeah. We need to think about that. I agree with
you. And also the five-year thing is right. There is a five-year
limitation. That's why in a lot of our discussions we were trying to
figure out maybe there's a better mechanism to do this same thing.
That's something we need to determine also.
But we would commit to a fact that -- that -- during that
five-year period we would continuously monitor. That would be part of
what would go on to ensure at the end of that five years we could
renew the general permit because we'd make the modifications that we
saw during the five-year period.
So, that would have to be a very part of the plan, too. I think
it could work either way.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I -- you know, think everyone's reaction in
looking at anything that has the potential, whether it be realized or
not, to augment or increase regulation on property owners, the first
reaction is the same across the board, and I think we all share it;
that is, to stick your feet in firmly and say no.
The problem I have is that I can think of three occasions in the
last 12 months in which I will use the term -- in one case I think I
used rogue environmentalist in one. In another it was someone who had
a beef against a property owner and used the environmental permitting
process to try and strangle that property owner and their investment.
That is affecting people's individual property rights. The fact
that there is so many open doors in the permitting process, that
anyone who has -- someone who has absolutely no involvement whatsoever
with a project, is not impacted by it in any way, can enter the
process and hold that property hostage and hold that -- that property
owner hostage through the process is problematic.
And the one main reason I've heard for why we should be at least
at the table until we know what the scope of this study is and can
determine for ourselves whether it is beneficial or not, is that by us
not being there, that isn't going to go away.
If anything, it may get worse because whether we like what the
Federal Government has told you you have to do, and you have to
enforce, you're going to enforce it.
And if that leaves those many, many doors open to people that for
either pure intentions or impure, use that process to tell people they
cannot use their land without taking out their checkbook and writing a
check for it, we need to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm not sure if the cure is worse than the disease in some of
these cases, but if we're not at least involved in developing the
potential cure, I think we're taking our chances.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share your frustration on the
instances, particularly with the university, but in -- in my opinion,
I guess I would prefer to see legislation changed to disallow that
process rather than a half-million-dollar study on an unknown area or
with an unknown outcome and unknown long-term impact.
So, I think there's nothing but good intention here but there are
so many unknowns and I've heard you say, Colonel, several times, well,
we can work out those details.
And I appreciate the willingness to do that but there are so many
unknowns involved with this now, I just -- I'm not sure --
COLONEL RICE: I think that's why I was trying to point out that
I think the process would go where we would go through an agreement
process and to -- to define those unknowns and try to rectify them
before we would actually start the -- the process forward. This is
kind of a two-phase approach here.
And that's what I'm -- recommended at this point in time based on
my five days down here talking to people, that I think a lot of what
you're concerned about, we could work out in a -- in between now and
the first of August, some time frame like that, fairly quickly, and
see if we can get to an agreement.
If we can't, then we'll do something else.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if we cannot, I don't think we've given
away our ability to bring to bear our objections and to utilize our
contacts with the state and Federal Government to try and make those
objections louder and broader if we need to, which is a path we were
heading down two weeks ago.
Yeah, actually, we need to -- we do need to take a break if for
no other reason than for the court reporter, if that's an okay place
to pause?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just wonder if -- if it might be
possible at this point just to wrap it up with a resolution in -- in
support of -- of the proposal with some conditions and -- and to, you
know, would be -- finish this process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that more complicated than that or --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I think that's something that's not
going to occur in the next two minutes, so why don't we take a break?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take five minutes and then we'll
reoonvene.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting. We are continuing --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- with our morning agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- barring your discussions. We are
continuing with the time certain item at 1:00 regarding a proposed
resolution opposing the Army Corps of Engineers Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement.
And, folks, all telephones and pagers need to go on a silent mode
or power off. If I hear one more, it's the Judge Ito rule.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whoops, that would be it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See you later, Tom.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. It's -- if I like the brand, it stays
for awhile so let's turn them all off. They're rather disruptive,
please.
When we adjourned, we were in a little bit of a discussion point.
We have completed the public speakers portion of this.
Folks, as you come back in, let's do so quietly, please.
We're at the discussion portion, trying to obtain direction.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had proposed adopting some form of a
resolution before we went to break.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. My -- my proposal is that we -- I
understand there's -- there's some reticence to, you know, jump in
with both feet. And -- and I respect that and I -- and I -- I want to
try to incorporate something in the motion to allow us that
opportunity to continue to participate with the acknowledgement that
if it goes in a direction, if we can't come to an agreement that is
satisfactory and represents the best interest of all of Collier
County, that we at that point will remove ourselves from the process.
I -- I don't think that's ever going to happen.
Nevertheless, what I would like to do is propose that Collier
County enact a resolution in support of Programmatic EHS -- EIS being
proposed by the Corps with the ten conditions that were agreed to in
principle by Colonel Rice this morning as proposed by the Chamber/EDC
Coalition and with one of the most important being participation by
this board in the development of the scope of the EIS.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a -- before we call that question, I
have a question for Colonel Rice.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue, Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Colonel Rice, the stated goal of this study
is a bit amorphous really. I -- I really am very curious, need to
know, actually, what it is we hope to accomplish at the end of the day
on this one.
What is the -- what is -- what do you think is going to be the
actual impact if Collier County did happen to be included into this?
COLONEL RICE: The impact --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On private property. I mean --
COLONEL RICE: Well, as part of -- when -- when it comes to the
private party act -- private property aspect of this thing, obviously,
we understand the expectations of people and -- and -- and what they
have as far as what people have done in the past to give them those
expectations.
And that should be a part of what we consider as we go through
this process. Hopefully, there's no -- there's not going to be any
impact but there is, like some people have said here, we need to find
ways to -- to -- to fund things that have to be funded if -- if we
have to impact on private property.
Hopefully, that doesn't happen though. That would be one of the
goals, I think, we would want to put at the forefront of this -- one
of the tenets of this process.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my -- my point is that we wouldn't be
going through this exercise if there wasn't something that we wanted
to accomplish at the end. And I'm still not clear on it.
COLONEL RICE: Well, what -- what we want to accomplish is we
want to ensure that our permitting process does not exacerbate
flooding in this area from a holistic viewpoint, that our water
quality is maintained from the holistic scale.
Not only is it the pollut -- pollutants but also the -- the
timing of the fresh water, the quantity and the timing of it --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: -- making sure that we're minimizing the impacts
on the wetlands. That's -- which is my responsibility by law to
ensure that happens.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COLONEL RICE: And that when we mitigate, that we mitigate
smartly. We just don't go out and put a postage stamp here and one
over here. We have a program. We all understand this makes sense.
That is really where we want to put all of our resources; local,
state, federal's into a mitigation plan and that we have a plan which
supports the Endangered Species Act, which is the law that we have to
abide by.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What my -- my concern, I guess, is
-- let's see if I can verbalize it for you a little bit better.
Let's separate the urban area in Collier County and the nonurban
area, the rural area. What you're saying probably makes more sense
for the rural area than it does for the urban area. The urban area in
-- in the central part of the county is fairly well developed and
really, frankly, not a lot you're going to do -- COLONEL RICE: Right.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: -- to change anything that's going on there
today.
But in certain areas of the urban area you have a large
development here and a large development there and a large empty spot
here and a large empty spot there.
And, so, what my concern would be -- if you're going to take that
area into your -- your study area, then what do you do with this
patchwork of -- of areas? Are -- are the -- are the undeveloped
portions going to somehow be held a little more punitive than the
others because they're going to have to correct some perceived mistake
of the already developed areas, for example?
COLONEL RICE: Well, first of all, those kind of things have to
be taken into account of the scoping pro -- process in that, you know,
maybe there are areas where they're really not a concern because of
what's already been done.
Maybe there are areas where in -- where you have all kinds of
development and the only pieces in the middle that haven't -- where
you're not really concerned about what future development as long as
you have a mitigation that you can -- a plan that you can take those
into account.
I would think the most important reason why you would include
those areas is the fact that I think there's -- there's -- there's
been some restrictions put on a lot of these channels that go to the
near shore waters that you have to figure out how can you get more
water through those in certain times. And I'm not sure how you do
that. I really don't. But there is that restriction problem.
I've heard of flow ways. I've heard about retention. You know,
we've got to look at that to make sure that what flows through those
areas which there obviously has to be water doing that, how do we
handle that on a -- on a big turn -- a big time -- a big scale basis?
South Florida Water Management District is looking at a lot of
that. That will be incorporated. We're not going to reinvent
something here, okay. That's already -- a part of that is being
looked at right now and we would just incorporate that into the
process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You would think the urban area has to
be a part of that.
COLONEL RICE: I -- I think that's up -- it needs to be discussed
as how we would look at that, right. And it may be beneficial to do
that because we may determine that that's something that's not that
valuable as far as the little pieces that are left where we might want
to go to other areas to -- to mitigate that work, so I think that
would be beneficial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I keep coming back to the term "cumulative
impacts."
COLONEL RICE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It seems to be the one thing that ties just
about everything together that's been discussed.
And cumulative impacts to receiving body of water from surface
runoff is something that I can -- you can trace back, you can
determine, you can measure, you can calculate, you can anticipate. It
doesn't -- you don't need a Programmatic EIS to do it. You just need
to develop a process by which those cumulative impacts are reviewed
during the -- the approval process of any given project.
I guess where I get a little lost is the cumulative impacts of
wetland avoidance of -- of minimizing wetland impacts.
COLONEL RICE: There -- there are three things. There are three
things that I have to look at primarily -- well, four. Three things
that I have to really look at as I go through the process.
The first thing I have to do is to see if the applicant has
chosen the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. It
has nothing to do with secondary and cumulative impacts. That's the
first thing I have to do.
The second thing is then the -- the avoidance thing. Can -- can
he do what he wants to do and avoid wetlands or minimize after that
and then -- and then mitigate properly when that's done?
The third thing is secondary and cumulative impacts. What is the
-- what is going to assure me? How is that applicant going to assure
me that what that applicant is doing is not going to cause undue
secondary and cumulative impacts?
That is really hard for an applicant to do on a regional basis.
And I get all kinds of stories, from each applicant different. And
I'm saying that if we can determine what those are in a holistic plan,
then that applicant doesn't have that burden to go do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The mitigation side of that is the one that
strikes me as one of the few areas that we can make some headway in
because, and it was mentioned earlier, Reverend Mallory's -- COLONEL RICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- First Assembly Center. The initial
mitigation numbers that came out of that were ludicrous. I don't know
where they came from. I don't know if they were just off the cuff.
If -- they obviously weren't part of an -- part of an issued permit so
they're not finalized.
But it was just astounding because I know the qualities of
wetlands on that site are not good but to see something even touted
such as a ten-to-one mitigation for low quality wetlands that the
property owner had no doing in reducing as far as from a quality
perspective. It was just -- it was asinine to me.
So, I guess I'm caught between two things, you know. I'm -- I'm
caught between not wanting to take action that increases regulation on
landowners unnecessarily. And the second thing I'm caught between is
the opportunity to create a little better mousetrap in the regulatory
process.
Unfortunately, the latter, every time we've tried to do that,
we've usually screwed it up worse than it was when we started. And I
don't have a lot of faith that we can accomplish that. Maybe together
we can. But it just -- I'm looking for something to hang my hat on
and it's tough to find anything, quite frankly, Colonel Rice, because
we're talking about a study that doesn't exist and has no scope and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I talk -- can I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's just difficult.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just tell you again what my motion was.
My motion was that we participate in the development of the scope, and
at that point we decide if we want to continue to participate in this
-- in this study. As it goes forward, it will go forward.
The question is do we want to be involved in developing the scope
of the study. And I would think that we certainly want to go that
far. I just want to be sure because I was very verbose in my motion,
that it was clear that that's what I intended.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- again, cumulative impacts to
receiving water bodies, I understand that. COLONEL RICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we're looking at wetlands, you know, is one
of the options here that we end up creating a -- a standard mitigation
procedure that is the form of mitigation banking that is advantageous
to the property owner? Is that an option? Is that a consideration?
I just -- there's just so many things that we -- we don't know.
I --
COLONEL RICE: Well, that's why we're doing this because we don't
know. That's the whole problem. And let me -- let me just add one
more if I could.
I think that I've talked and explained to my best ability. John
Hall who deals with this for many -- has dealt with this for many
years, knows much more about it. Let him try to give you his feeling
about what -- what might satisfy your question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HALL: I think the -- the idea that you mentioned of
identifying mitigation banks that can provide adequate mitigation for
wetlands fills that we will be permitting is an excellent thing that
could come out of this -- out of this process. In fact, one of the
options in the white paper, I think, contemplated doing something like
that, doing some kind of a study that was specifically targeted at --
at trying to come up with an idea for an appropriate level of
mitigation for wetland impacts.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess for me it goes back a year and
a half ago or so. Commissioner Norris coined a phrase in talking
about how generalities sound great. And -- and -- and the idea of
trying to protect wetlands and trying to protect our environment and
trying to protect the water, no one is going to argue against.
But I'm reading the League of Women Voters support letter here.
It says -- it concludes by saying, well, the study options remain open
and specific details are yet to be formulated. The League is in
support.
And -- and the thing that concerns me isn't the intent, the idea
of trying to protect all those things. It's great but Commissioner
Norris had coined a phrase that said, would you like some ice cream?
Everybody's going to say yeah. But then when you say, oh, by the way
the flavor is tuna fish and it costs $5, then you change your mind.
And so what sounds great initially is what concerns me. And --
and I don't think anybody's going to object. I mean we talk about
growth issues and sprawl issues. We've had people get up and talk
about that. And -- and I think we are dealing with some of those
currently. We're doing that through our lowering the densities.
We're doing that through changing our future land use element.
We're making on the local level a very concerted effort to make
sure that growth doesn't go wild and go unbridled and -- I'm concerned
though with -- with the potential of a study like this to come back
with additional restrictions and additional requirements, more
mitigation.
And then Commissioner Hancock outlined the number that was thrown
out there at ten to one and -- and more cost, frankly. And -- and
what it all boils down to is two words and that's more government.
And it may be very, very well intentioned but it's more government.
And -- and as I look at, and we talked about this a week ago, the
government at any level, whether it's our Congress or the state or
here at the local level, people are saying very, very clearly at the
ballot box and on the phone and in letters to us they don't want more
government. They're tired of that. Less government.
And -- and quoting Commissioner Norris again last week saying,
the irony of the situation where the Federal Government, the State
Government and the local government are all saying we need less, and
we're trying to return more and more to the local area, the irony of
the Federal Government coming in and -- and dealing with a local
permitting issue.
And -- and we were just told that there is no other study of this
magnitude anywhere in the history of the United States. And -- and
that alone raises a red flag for me, concerns me.
And try -- I don't have any doubt that you have the best of
intentions here. I -- I appreciate the willingness to include Collier
in the conversation, though I do find it curious that that offer
wasn't made until a week ago when we were going to adopt a resolution
opposing this, being concerned about this.
And I -- I do appreciate your coming here and your talking with
us, but I just don't see this as anything other than good intentions
and more government. There -- there's too much of vagueness there,
too much unanswered questions.
And I've got to believe despite the fact you've come in and
inquired today and suggested we put that group together. There --
there are some specific goals in mind where it wouldn't have gotten
this far.
And -- and, so, I guess I would -- I would expect to see more in
the way of some specifics and then open that up for dialogue. But
there really are almost no specifics here. And no matter how well
intentioned, I don't think in good conscience I can support that
unless there are specifics and unless there is some clear assurance
that it's not going to equate to more government. And I don't have
either one of those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
Colonel Rice had -- or -- or Mr. Hall, and I guess since I'm '-
I'm asking more or less for some level of commitment, this is more
appropriate to Colonel Rice.
There are three things that would probably give me any level of
-- of confidence in at least waiting to file an objection until I know
more about what is being proposed in addition to what the Chamber/EDC
has proposed.
One would be that the first step would be to define the
cumulative impacts to be assessed, since I don't even know what those
are at this point, and the methodology of assessment. How do you
assess cumulative impacts to surface water runoff? How do you assess
cumulative impacts to wetlands? How do you assess -- in other words,
define what it is. What are these cumulative impacts we want to
assess and how do we do that?
That's the first piece of knowledge I have to know before knowing
if a study is going to potentially be more onerous to land owners in
Collier County.
The second thing is that I'd have to know there's a commitment to
property owners that the resultant process from any study would not be
more lengthy, more costly to them or more onerous than the existing
processes.
If those -- that commitment cannot be made, then everything else
said here today falls well short of why we should participate in any
way, shape or form.
If this does not provide a benefit to the residents of Collier
County, not just from the general environmental standpoint but from
the consolidation standpoint that we've been hearing about, there's no
reason for us to sign on now or at any time in the future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad you mentioned that because
that's one of my specific concerns is the cost impact long term.
Somebody wants to put up a home on their little five-acre, ten-acre
lot, whatever it is, and has to do something if it's more than a
three-acre impact. What's the cost -- what's the impact to them?
And perhaps I'm mistaken. But I'm pretty sure I heard comments
made that there could very well be additional requirements or
additional restrictions or -- or changes in the way mitigation was
done at the inclusion of this.
And all of those very clearly have a cost to them. So, I'd --
I'd love to hear an answer to your question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I put that in there is, Colonel
Rice, if you've ever gone through the permitting process where you've
had six or seven agencies commenting on an acre and a half piece of --
of former wetland --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wetland.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which now has four cypress trees in it and
the rest is all palmetto, you know, you start to ask yourself just how
much time and money is being spent for what environmental benefit and
could it be spent better elsewhere. And the answer many times to that
is yes.
So, I think we need to know -- understand where we are and where
any study would take us. And if the result is more onerous, then
that's a perfect case of government doing exactly what we're being
accused of doing today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there only one measurement for that
though is my question? Is the only measurement for whether or not
government is doing its job, whether or not it -- it is doing it more
quickly and more efficiently? What if what's determined is that
there's an interest, a public interest to be protected that is not
presently being protected and needs to be? Shouldn't that -- isn't
that also an important function of government?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's a very good point
and I'm glad you brought it up because I know wetlands are very
benevolent. Everybody on this board is fully committed to doing what
we can here in Collier County to make sure that we balance the
environment and the environmental needs of our very sensitive county
with any building proposal that comes up.
We've done that for the last several years. We've been very,
very cautious since I've been on the board about that sort of thing.
And if -- if there's anyone that -- that says that Collier County
is not doing a good job of being a steward of the environment, then
they're either not being truthful with you or they're just not paying
attention.
So, the -- the point of it all is, is what additional benefit
will Collier County gain and what price will that exact from our
citizens if we do it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I -- I think that goes to the heart of my
second point. If it's more onerous, more costly or more lengthy, then
it has not accomplished what I understood the goal to be, and the goal
is to consolidate, to take a cumulative look, to take individual
permitting processes and put them in together in one batch and say we
can do this better collectively than we're doing it now individually.
And that sounds like a great idea, and if that were all it was, I
don't think you'd have a comment to the contrary from this board but
it's a level of distrust that that would actually be the result
instead of the result being an additional set of regulations that are
on top of what we already have. And that -- that really provides
benefit to no one.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a very good point because --
because this -- the situation that you described where you and I, both
in our former lives have processed permits through governmental
agencies, know that if you have 16 agencies commenting on your acre
and a half project, I'd -- if the question is, is the result of this
study to be a diminn -- a diminunization of that -- diminn -- is that
the right word?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Anyway, making smaller of that, then I --
than that's -- that is the goal. But if -- I don't think anybody is
suggesting that we're going to keep every layer of regulation we have
and add another one. Is that your question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the problem is most times when the out
-- the -- the idea at the outset is to consolidate -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hake less.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- everything, we form a department to
consolidate everything and a review agency --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Form a revenue --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to review the consolidation of everything
and we end up with another layer somehow.
We -- you know, I mean, everyone in government is guilty of that
at one time or another with the exception of this board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. And I -- I'm going to just one more
time say that my suggestion is that we participate in defining the
scope so we can try to have some influence in the outcome of the
study.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My point is unless we can hear -- unless we
get a commitment of what I'm talking about, that it's not going to be
more lengthy, more costly to property owners or more onerous a
process, there's no sense going any further because that's not going
to be beneficial.
And if -- if you're asking, well, what if it does more for the
environment? We're not talking about changing the federal regulations
that the Corps is required to enforce. They're the same now as they
supposedly would be after this study.
We're not talking about developing new federal regulations here.
The federal regulations exist today. They are charged with enforcing
those regulations today.
So, to say that what if there's a better result, there would have
to be new regulation if that -- if you follow that line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and that was just sort of a
rhetorical question on my part anyway. Colonel Rice is who should
answer the question.
COLONEL RICE: There's no new -- there's no new regulation here.
I mean, we -- we're -- we're within the scope of the regulations we
currently have. We're trying to follow the law. Following the law by
doing what we're talking about reduces the bureaucracy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. And I was trying to follow up
Commissioner --
COLONEL RICE: But there's no --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Hac'Kie's question.
COLONEL RICE: -- new regulations here. I mean it needs to be
clear.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I understand that. I was following up
Commissioner Hac'Kie's question as to, you know --
COLONEL RICE: But the -- the whole point --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what if it provides --
COLONEL RICE: -- is I think all the questions you're answering
and -- and discussing are very -- I mean they're good questions and
everything, but you're trying -- I thought we were trying to formulate
an agreement which included these stipulations.
I mean, if we can't sit down and negotiate an agreement, then
that's one thing, but, I mean, we're talking about, you know, maybe
not going forward before we tried to do that. And I -- I think that
would be kind of shortsighted on my -- from my perspective, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm convinced that if any agreement we settle
on includes something like what I have stated as my second point, then
the residents in this community will benefit.
If that cannot be agreed upon, then we have no place being at the
table or being involved because it's not benefitting our constituents.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're probably not going to get that
commitment today because we don't even know what the heck the study is
supposed do. I won't go as far as to say I support the specifics of
your -- your motion, Commissioner Hac'Kie, but I think we want to sit
down with the Colonel, with representatives of Lee County and get the
que -- the answers to one, which are defining these cumulative impacts
that -- to be assessed and how they're going to be assessed and
determine if that, in fact, that assessment can result in the second
point I raised.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so, you would support not a
resolution in support of the -- of the PEIS, but a general direction
on the board's part that we would participate in defining the scope of
the study?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're premature for any resolution --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for or against.
My gut feeling right now is against because I need to see, you
know, what was it during budget, show me the money. Well, in this
case, show me the reduced regulation.
When I can start to see that that will be a result, then I'm in a
position to support a resolution. If I start to see that will not be
a result, I'm in a stronger position to adopt a resolution and pursue
opposition.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what I'm suggesting is we'll either
participate as a party to an agreement or not, but could we please
continue the negotiation process to see if we can come to an agreement
in -- that we can continue to participate in throughout the life of
the study.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in going
to -- going to the table to talk, but I also want to know at what
point can we pull the plug and say, no, this is not in the best
interest of Collier County and its residents and we're not going to go
any further.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do -- do we all recog --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Can we do this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you recognize that we can't pull the
plug on Colonel Rice? He's either going to do this with us or without
us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But let's -- let's be quite honest. Our
involvement can effect change.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we hope -- if we stay involved, we can
have some influence but he's going to, you know, enforce the federal
laws he's charged with enforcing whether we participate or not. Let's please participate.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's not required by federal law to conduct
a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on this section --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- not according to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- his decision of whether he is or he is
not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He is not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's certainly within the discretion of his
office to do so or not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's not required to do it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By requirement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think the answer to your question from
my standpoint, Commissioner Berry, is that if any of us sense that a
commitment cannot be made from the respective agencies, in this case,
the Army Corps of Engineers, that our property owners will not be
better off at the conclusion of this study.
And by better off I have defined that as a -- the process now
being more lengthy, more costly to them and more onerous, then we have
every right to reject any proposal for an environmental study because
it has a negative effect on the private property rights of the people
of this community.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't forget the endamaged in the interim
during the study.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. But those are the points that the
EDC has put forward that Colonel Rice has indicated support of.
So, with those two points that I've stated, plus the ten previous
points that have been stated by Mr. Reynolds, the EDC/Chamber
Coalition, with those as guides, and I know there's one that I -- I
didn't add that I will add now which is the permitting shall only be
assumed by local government if commensurate funding is provided by
state and federal agencies.
I don't want to be issuing permits for the Army Corps of
Engineers unless I'm going to get paid to do it. That's an Article V
cost locally or an unfunded mandate federally, and I think we've got
enough of those on our table. We don't need any more.
If you add those three things to the ten, I'm willing to sit down
with all those -- there's a list of items behind me, and if any of
those are not held up at any given point, then we -- we turn our backs
on it and fight against it if we need to. But I think those are the
cautions that we have to have in discussing any future Programmatic
EIS for the area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, are you volunteering to take
-- take that duty?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quite frankly, yes, I will -- I will -- I'll
be happy to work with it, assuming the balance of the board is -- is
comfortable with my doing that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then what I suggest is that this board
withhold any formal action today and -- and you can follow the process
as a participant and report back to the board when appropriate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if that's the consensus of the board, that
will be done. I know that there is a desire to not move ahead at all,
not to seem party to a Programmatic EIS. And I -- I have to admit, in
the pit of my stomach, that sounds like a great thing to do. But I
think we're erring on the side of caution this way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we can certainly have the
discussion with them. I hope it's not interpreted, and I don't think
it's the intention of the board that it's any way incurring. The --
the programatic study needs to be done. We'll determine that through
your discussions.
Colonel Rice had said August 1st perhaps is the time frame by
which that could be settled. Maybe we can get a report back from you
for August 5th. That will be our first meeting following that.
As part of that conversation, all these commitments are wonderful
but what -- what's the stick to enforce them is -- is also a question.
We can say, well, there will probably be no further restrictions and
then go ahead and do the study and the end result are further
restrictions.
And there's no way to go back and say, well, you said there
wouldn't be any, so there's going to be some -- some way to make sure
that the commitments are carefully followed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that -- and my opinion is, and if this
is not acceptable to you, Colonel Rice, you can indicate now, but the
scope and intended use of the study will have to articulate these
commitments and if at any point those commitments are not adhered to,
it would seem to me any individual or this government has a class
action lawsuit standing and ready.
Because if -- if you and I agree on a contract requirement and
you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you can rest assured you're
going to compensate me for not doing that.
And we are acting, in essence, on behalf of the property owners
in that area, the affected area. And I think we need to do so
extremely cautiously and warily to let -- to try to hopefully provide
the benefits we've been told would be derived out of this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, just to make sure I understand,
you'll -- you'll enter into conversations with Lee County and the Army
Corps during the next month or so and we'll just defer any decision.
We'll make a decision whether we support this or don't support it or
what our feelings are in August.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will bring back to this board and to this
community those discussions each and every time a meeting is held for
a report, and at any point if it goes awry of the ten points the
Chamber/EDC Coalition has put together and the two or three points
that I've discussed here today, then I think our -- our direction is
very, very clear.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: From my perspective, that's -- that's
reasonable because I have a number of questions that don't have the
specificity that I would like in the answer and we can probably get
those soon.
And, like you say, I'm a bit on the skeptical side right now but
I certainly have an open mind and can be convinced otherwise if -- if
all the answers come back favorable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As we said, if we're going to object, let's
object specifically.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I concur. I think you ought to go -- go to
the table and talk and keep at all times in mind the property owners
that may be affected by whatever comes out of this particular study.
There's a lot of unanswered questions. I think it's too soon to
take any action from the board on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Colonel Rice, although woefully short of a glowing endorsement, I
think the -- the partnering that we discussed to -- at least to find
the parameters of the study will be the next step and I'll make myself
available, barring the next two weeks of vacation, to -- as much as I
Can.
I think the last two weeks in July would probably be a -- a good
time for me but we can coordinate that through my office.
Okay. Is there anything else? Anything additional in this
matter?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just thank him for coming.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Colonel Rice, we'd like to thank you for you
and your staff for making the effort and --
COLONEL RICE: And I would like to thank all of you and all your
time and all the time of many people here and other places, but just
from my perspective, I think we have an excellent opportunity and I
hope we can negotiate something here that will work for all of us.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise. Thank you.
Okay. We are moving on with the balance of our morning agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're getting into the meat of our morning
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's just take a brief one-minute recess so
folks can exit the chambers.
(A recess was had.)
Item #8B4
CHANGE ORDER WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR STORM SEWER REMEDIAL WORK FOR
THE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT, BID NO. 95-2441 -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Folks, let's reconvene the Board of
County Commissioners' meeting. We are to Item 8(A)(4), approve a
construction change order with Better Roads, Incorporated for
stormwater -- storm sewer remedial work.
Mr. Gonzalez, good afternoon.
MR. GONZALEZ: Hello, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital
Projects Director.
During the routine inspection of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road
construction project, we encountered a pipe that had some cracks in it
about a month ago. We had already worked with the contractor to do
some remedial work.
When we went back to the location of the pipe, we noticed that
the cracks were getting larger and larger. Upon that discovery, we
decided to inspect the other cross-strains along that corridor.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One question. Whose fault is it?
MR. GONZALEZ: We haven't determined that yet. There are several
reasons why we think they have failed; possibly design, possibly pipe
manufacturing, possibly construction methodology, a combination of all
those.
When we dig up the pipes and reinstall the -- the correct ones or
the appropriate ones, we'll have a little bit more information as to
why they failed and under what conditions they failed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I already did that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the motion maker include direction to
pursue that with full speed to determine the -- the party at fault?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will full vim and vigor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why, I thank you.
Second amends?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, you have a speaker. Do you take
speakers before the action or after?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why we'd love to.
Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman, taxpayer and resident of Collier
County and voter and speaking for myself.
I'm a resident of the -- along Rattlesnake Hammock Road and we've
been inconvenienced this past eight months, ten months, I don't know.
And they're just about, I think, ready to complete the south side of
the -- the road there and I just hope that the commissioners consider
the taxpayers and make sure that there's no cost involved to the
taxpayers on this -- on this situation with these cracked drains or
tiles or whatever it is because observing the way the work has been
going on, it's been going on at a -- at a snail's pace in my
estimation.
And that's my only comment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure that the responsible party will be
pursued on this, Mr. Erlichman. If it's internal, maybe we can save
some money in salaries left vacant. Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was subtle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Thank you.
MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, on an unrelated item, just since I
was up here, you had asked us to come back about a month ago with the
Bonita Beach Road interlocal agreement with Lee County on the
landscaping.
Just to let you know that we're finalizing that contract this
week. We're just a few days away from finalizing the legalese aspects
of it but it incorporates everything you had asked for; 50/50 cost
sharing on capital, on maintenance, dedicated funding sources,
discussion as to auditing rights we would have with Lee County for
that.
And that will be finished and ready for your signature before you
come back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about the vicious rumor that crushed
shell or wood mulch may be used as ground cover? Is that true?
MR. GONZALEZ: We are working with one of the residents who had
suggested that in lieu of sod. And we're trying -- he's -- he's got a
suggestion for more Xeriscaping than what we had already included in
our plan. And right now our project manager is working with Lee
County's project manager to try to incorporate some of that or not
have it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those along the Pine Ridge corridor will tell
you wood much -- wooden mulch is not aesthetically pleasing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Green is good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- okay. I just wanted to issue that as a
concern that I received information on. MR. GONZALEZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
The next item? Boy, if only the last few items went that
quickly.
Item #885
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEHENT WITH COHMERCIAL DEVELOPHENT COHPANY
FOR A LAND DONATION FOR A SEGMENT OF THE FUTURE EAST-WEST SEGMENT OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD IN NORTH NAPLES - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $520,000
Item 8(B)(5). This is an add on; developer contribution
agreement with Commercial Development Company for Livingston Road.
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record,
Edward Kant, Transportation Services Division -- Department.
This is a developer contribution agreement between Commercial
Development Company and Collier County for a parcel of land for the
roadway right-of-way for the future east-west leg of what we're
presently calling Livingston Road.
It begins immediately east of County Road 887, which is Old 41
Road and lies immediately to the north of Landmark Estates.
For the record, before the question is asked, this has no
association, to the best of my knowledge whatsoever, with the
so-called Stadium Naples Project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This --
MR. KANT: The develop -- the development agreement is pretty
much straightforward.
This was a project which we started working with this developer
about two years ago and the development agreement is -- is pretty much
the standard county development agreement.
The only item which we feel necessary to bring to your attention
is that in recent development agreements, we've been limiting or
trying to limit the assignability of impact fee credits to those
projects within that district for the same developer.
In this one, the negotiations had started with the developer
being able to assign the agreement within the -- the credits within
the district perhaps to another developer or partially assign them.
And because we began that way, we decided it would be best to
continue on that way. Both the County Attorney's office and -- and
our office were not sure we wanted to do that but we also didn't want
to go back on what we had originally presented to the developer.
So, that was brought out in the executive summary that we
presented to you. That's the only thing that is at all any different
from what our present standard developer's agreement is. And we would
ask that you approve this agreement unless you have any questions.
I'll be glad to try and answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask a question that you're going
to hear on the other Livingston Road proposed agreement, which is, I'm
concerned that -- it used to be that if a developer wanted to build a
road ahead of what the county would have built it, they just built it.
It was for their purposes and they had build it to county standards.
With the advent of impact fee credits, are we encouraging single
use roadways to be developed in giving impact -- impact fee credits
for them before the roadways actually should be coming on line to our
network?
MR. KANT: I don't believe that that's the case in this
particular instance. The right-of-way that we're acquiring will
probably not actually be used for several years.
The developer -- if you'll notice in your packet, the -- the
location of this project is well to the north of this. This is
cutting a slice off of their southern boundary. They will have their
own internal road.
Now, eventually if they choose, they may have an access on to
this particular leg, but this is a piece of roadway which we would
need in any event. By obtaining it now, prior to the filing, they're
in the process of filing their preliminary subdivision plat and by
obtaining it now, frankly, we're going to save some money in both the
cost and the credits than if we were going to buy it outright at some
later date.
So, we're -- we're -- I -- I understand your concern and -- and
we share that concern, but I'm not -- again, I'm not sure it's really
applicable in this case because this is not their access to their
development. They're going to have other -- other access up Old 41
Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My second question deals with the last point
-- you brought it up -- which is the ability to use it for other
projects within the district.
That one gives me a little problem for the simp -- I just -- I
have a problem with, again, it's -- it's much the same thing as the --
the -- the impact fee credits for the project make sense because that
project will create impacts on that roadway.
To go to a separate roadway and transfer those impact fees
credits to there may be robbing that roadway, say, if it's a roadway
that needs widening in five years, may be robbing what we anticipated
as revenues for that roadway.
I know it's all the same pot, but the timing issue is one that it
could create a cash poor situation for capital improvements if we did
it on a large scale.
MR. KANT: Yes, if, in fact, the dollars were sold out as a lump
sum. Typically, what we found is that the developer will begin to use
these impact fee credits and then either on his own projects, and in
the case of some of the older agreements, or on somebody else's
project, they will want to buy these impact fee credits at a discount.
The developer will typically go over a period of anywhere from three
to six years to use them up.
The advantage to the county, obviously, is that by issuing the
impact fee credits, we have no out-of-pocket expense.
The downside is if, in fact, they were all to be used up at one
particular time in one particular place, then obviously that -- that
means that there would be a revenue decrease.
The likelihood -- and, again, I'm speculating, I believe, as well
as the commission would, but the likelihood of that happening, I '-
I'm trying to imagine a building that that could be assigned to.
The -- the only thing that comes to mind is, as an example, is,
for example, when the Wal-Hart on the north end of town was built,
that's about a hundred and change square foot -- a thousand square
foot building.
The impact fees on that were about a quarter of a million
dollars. Now, that's a pretty good sized building and that's a pretty
sized lump sum.
Somebody would have to be building an awful lot of houses or
condos or something else to use up that type of impact fee credit in a
very short period of time. That's why typically these agreements have
a lifetime of anywhere from four to -- three or four to six or seven
years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, the improbable happens more
often than we like but --
MR. KANT: Yeah. On this one, we were going to get -- I -- I
can't predict that, sir, any -- any better than anybody else can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I still have a relative degree of
discomfort with that. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, did I understand that it's our
current policy to not assign these out?
MR. KANT: No, sir. Our current policy is to try to limit the
assignment to other projects of that same developer, the theory being
that he's only got so many pots he can stir at one time.
If he sells or has the ability to sell the credits, then another
developer obviously may be able to accelerate his project. I mean,
you know, it's -- it becomes a commodity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we -- have we done this before in an
agreement, recognize this?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. It's pretty much a stan -- as I say, our
standard clause today limits any assignability to that particular
developer and his projects.
This one would give him the ability if Developer XYZ walked in
and said, hey, I'd like to buy some of those impacts for whatever
reason.
I -- frankly, I've not been in the development business for a
long, long time and I'm not sure I could predict when that would be to
an advantage of another developer, but that seems to be something that
-- that is of importance and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you say at least they have to be used
in the same road district?
MR. KANT: Oh, absolutely, yes, sir. Within the same road
district.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same type B district?
MR. KANT: That's correct. Within the same impact fee district.
The ordinance is very specific to that.
There are some instances where it can cross a line. You take
like a Pine Ridge Road, a section of that -- bless you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me.
MR. KANT: A section of that straddles two impact fee districts.
But in this particular case, if we were going to earmark these
funds; for example, you have a Livingston Road or you have an
Immokalee Road, which is well -- lies well within that district.
I can't immediately think of any funds which have crossed
districts but, again, I -- we don't have an accounting procedure, so I
can't tell you for sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a problem with -- with these impact
fees going on the market. You know, if you can sell them to anyone,
not just within your own company, then all of a sudden every project
that comes on line gets a phone call and says, 90 cents on the dollar,
I'll sell you some impact fee credits, and before you know it, you've
got a -- a revenue producer where once you had land that was not
saleable.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the -- in the road district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the road district, but -- but the bottom
line being what we anticipated as cash flow from standard commercial
development becomes use of impact fee credits from, say, a residential
community.
I just don't like the way that mixes and maybe it would work --
MR. KANT: We --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- out just fine but I just don't like that.
MR. KANT: Well, again, I don't -- this is something probably the
County Attorney's office needs to address more specifically than --
than I would as an engineer, but we'll be glad to work with them and
look -- go back and revisit that for future agreements, but we can see
where -- where over time we are going to continue to have these
development agreements and the incentive, of course, from the county's
point of view is it's not money out of pocket. From the developer's
point of view is that a particular road segment may get built that
much sooner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. None of which requires the
marketability of those impact fee credits. MR. KANT: That's correct. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I think that -- that relationship remains.
MR. KANT: That's absolutely correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to see that eliminated from the
agreement because I just don't think it's a trend we want to start,
quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest
something else. I -- I -- I share your concern with that but I think
Mr. Kant said that the staff had already negotiated for this
particular project.
MR. KANT: Yeah. We --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we can set a policy today, a board
policy, that we don't do that anymore.
MR. KANT: Yeah. We had started this several years ago and --
because of some changes within a developer, but he had always -- we
always tried to move it along and -- and here we are today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As with any negotiation, staff
negotiates to a point, but the decision is ultimately up to us.
MR. KANT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is a representative of the petitioner here?
Is that you, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you understand my objection?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do and I'm prepared to offer a compromise.
We'll take cash.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we can just remove the road from
the -- the capital improvement element then. We'll just not build the
road. I think that's acceptable, too.
MR. ANDERSON: That's -- the county -- by way of background, the
county had initiated condemnation action for this property three to
four years ago and then dropped it.
And my client is in for subdivision approval and it's being held
up pending approval of -- of -- of this agreement.
It's a matter of indifference to -- to my client whether the
road, this particular road segment, is built or not. He has access to
his property off Old 41. He'd just either like the county to go ahead
and -- and -- and acquire it or not so he can go forward with his --
his plans.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why -- why would this -- why are we treating
this differently than others? I don't understand the reason for that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it was news to me that the county had -- had
recently begun to restrict the ability to assign these. I've done
these agreements for a number of years and they have always been able
to be assigned to anybody within a road impact fee district.
And, indeed, you need to be able to do that because otherwise
there's not a great incentive for the property owner to take the
impact fee credits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're telling me this is not a policy change
but a continuation of a policy?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, to my understanding it was. I mean, it was
news to me when it was objected, or questioned, I should say.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County
Attorney.
Several years back, we did start allowing assignments. The first
agreement where we allowed assignment was to a pro -- another project
of the same developer.
There are a few agreements that are freely assignable that were
negotiated by staff. And the County Attorney's office has reluctantly
approved those agreements, but now that there's a proliferation of
these type of contribution agreements seeking full assignability,
we've said, you know, you're going to run into a cash flow problem in
your impact fee fund. You know, we don't think you should do this.
So, we're kind of taking a stronger stance on the -- the
assignability language. So, no, it hasn't been a policy in the past
to have free assignment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess the bottom line -- I mean, I'm
sorry, but we're the -- this is different from the state in a project
where they need this for access. This is roadway that we can either
acquire now with cash or with impact fee credits or we can wait and
let them improve the property so that it's more expensive when we
eventually have to have it, and then we can apply it -- we can acquire
it with cash or impact fee credits.
I would rather acquire it now. Whether it's cash or credits is a
cash flow issue that I'd want staff advice on but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- and maybe I'm trying to solve in
one project what I see as a problem on the horizon. This is a bad
policy, plain and simple, because the idea of -- the idea of impact
fees are pay as you go. And pay as you go only counts if you can
write a check on an account with a positive balance.
Credits don't mean squat when you go to pay a contractor to build
a roadway. They don't operate on credits. They operate on cash.
So, we've got a bad policy right now, that if it's abused by a
handful of people in a period of two or three years, is going to
provide a severe disruption of cash in our capital budget.
So, I'm -- I'm trying not to start a litany of bad decisions.
I'm trying to put an end to them.
MR. KANT: As I -- as I stated earlier, we would have no
objection if -- if it is the board's direction to working with the
County Attorney's office to see how we can make sure that these types
of issues are -- are addressed satisfactorily in future developer
contribution agreements.
My only concern with this one is that if in fact the plat is
filed prior to consummating this agreement, obviously, as somebody
just pointed out, the prices certainly go up because it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The appraisal process.
MR. KANT: -- will then be a subdivided piece of property but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I love being told I can't do something that
makes sense.
Well, unfortunately, you're right.
MR. ANDERSON: Can I make two more points, please?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: One, the county -- there is a substantial benefit
to the county to going along with this in that you get the use of the
money, the -- the interest on the money and the use of the money
instead of paying it out to the property owner for right-of-way.
Secondly, I mean, we're not asking for this assignability just
for the sake of -- of asking for assignability. We're going to have
more impact fee credits than we can use on this property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you be willing to limit the
assignability to a percentage?
MR. ANDERSON: I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like middle ground to me.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. I don't know, frankly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Come on. Give me -- give me 40 percent,
Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll have to look at the -- according to the
figure that the engineers gave us, we're only going to use a little
over $200,000 worth of impact fee credits on this property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Out of $700,000 in land value?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. How about we limit it to a maximum
$500,000 of assignability?
MR. ANDERSON: I will -- I will relay that to the client, if
that's agreeable. We can make that change and it won't have to come
back to the board. If they aren't agreeable to that, then I'll
probably see you in a few weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My suggestion is we -- we ask them to look at
-- and you said two hundred thousand, oh, seven seventeen, so, let's
make it $520,000 maximum cap as assignable impact fees.
That's -- I'll make that in the form of a motion that we make
that change.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Offer that and bring the --
MR. ANDERSON: Assignable to other properties.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- item back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That we offer that and the item --
well, that the item --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The change just be made and then it be
executed if that's agreeable to both parties -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- would be my -- my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. ANd, I'm sorry. That would be a
substitute motion then because there was -- was there a motion on the
floor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Withdrawn. ANd it was -- it was a standard
motion.
Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
And we've got something to work on then.
MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #8C1
PARKS CAPITAL PLANNING REPORT AND THE CREATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
POLICY - APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO DEVELOP A CONTRACT FOR A NEW
UPDATED STUDY OF THE PARKS' IMPACT FEES
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on Item 8(C)(1), I'd
like to make a motion that Board of Commissioners approve the Parks'
Capital Planning Report and the creation of the neighborhood parks
policy and direct staff to develop a contract for the new updated
study of park impact fees.
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
to second it but --
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
Second.
I like all of that and I -- and I'd like
I did it.
Oh, sorry. I'd be thirding it then.
I said I already seconded it.
But I just have one question about it.
And that has to do with beach parking. And I just want to, first of
all, note that you have included that as a -- as a park asset or, you
know, something that should be measured and to commend you for that.
Thank you for that. We haven't had that foresight in the past.
And just -- I wanted to understand if we were going to have equal
emphasis on neighborhood park and beach parking or is one getting more
emphasis than the other? I'd like for the emphasis to be equal, I
guess, is what my goal is.
Well, we're going to have a part of this deal or go back to
neighborhood parks, which I think is wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, no. We're going to look at the creation
of a neighborhood park's policy, and with that we'll look at the --
the cost that caused us to eliminate neighborhood parks and determine
whether we want to take that cost back in to our operating budget
which is ad valorem funded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what this does is recognize
there is some demand there, looks at some alternative ways to pay for
it and at least opens the door for us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Such as establishing HSTU's and so forth.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. And that there are some
neighborhoods in the county that this would be beneficial, and if they
choose to tax themselves to have such, is my understanding when I read
this --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- that they would be allowed to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And you still need -- are you still
looking for an answer on --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm still looking for an answer on
the -- on what might we see as a result of this for increased beach
parking.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Harla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation
Director.
My hope is that when they do that impact fee feasibility study
that they will include in there a one park fee that can be used to
your discretion as to how you would like to see the parks in one big
park system.
So, if the emphasis is on regional parks or neighborhood parks,
as long as it fits within the fees that are available, then that would
be left up to your discretion.
As it stands now, it really isn't because two-thirds goes to
community parks and one-third going to regional parks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, so, as a result of that discretion,
we would have the opportunity to spend some of that impact fee money
on beach parking acquisition.
MS. RAMSEY: That is one of this -- there's three options for
neighborhood parks aspects in that what we're looking at is you can
continue to use general funds for that or you can change the impact
fees and allow impact fees to develop neighborhood parks and general
fund fees to maintain.
Or a third option would be to do the HSTU, which means that they
tax themselves.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor to
proceed with that. Any further questions?
Any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
The motion carries five, zero.
Thank you, Miss Ramsey.
Item #8C2
RECOHMENDATION TO THE BCC THAT STAFF HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR
RECOHMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THE BEACH PARKING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
ISSUE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES SINCE THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE HAY
20, 1997 BCC MEETING - ACCEPTED
We are to Item 8(C)(2).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
accept staff report on 8(C)(2).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just with the acknowledgment that the
communication level has apparently been between the board and the
council as opposed to between the two staffs because we've certainly
had communication from the mayor.
MR. OLLIFF: Just so I understand the direction here though,
we're going to try and sit down and negotiate an agreement that amends
the existing beach parking agreement to include not only the capital
items that you discussed as part of your budget review for beach end
parking but to also include the Fleischmann Park parking lot for some
specifics about that and we're going to try and roll all of that into
one single agreement and bring that back to you for your review.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're clear that whatever the
capital life of the improvement we participate in is how long the
length of the interlocal agreement should be. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Parks and Rec Advisory Board will have an
opportunity to review it.
Okay. We had a motion. Was there a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8E2
REPORT ON REVENUES FOR 2ND QUARTER FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 - PRESENTED
We were to Support Services, 8(D)(1), a recommendation the BCC
consider adopting the attached resolution update.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Skipping it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, we're going to skip that one.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let's skip --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We already heard Item 8(E)(1), so we're
to Item 8(E)(2), report on revenues for second quarter for fiscal year
1997.
What's the good news, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget
Director.
The good news is that revenues for the most part are -- are right
on track. At this point, we are projecting a slight surplus in sales
tax revenue.
At the conclusion in September prior to your making final
budgetary decisions on general fund millage rates, we will have
updated information regarding sales tax collections as well as the
state fiscal year ends in June, and at that point if there's any
windfall to be re -- to be received by Collier County in state revenue
sharing funds, that would be a known figure at that point in time.
And as I indicated in my remarks during the budget workshops, the
board has made decisions to reduce taxes or make budgetary changes
based on the availability of those additional funds in September.
Again, we would propose to provide you with that updated
information at that point to allow you the maximum flexibility at that
point in time.
Impact fee collections are -- are quite strong as well. What we
propose to do, as we've done in the past, in accordance with the
adopted budget policy is update our forecast, both of projects and of
revenues at that point in time to give us -- to minimize the number of
-- the number of carry forward budget amendments that are required,
and to provide an accurate picture as possible in terms of how much
funds would actually be available to fund the projects.
At this point, this report is advisory in -- in nature. There is
no recommended changes to the budget as proposed.
Again, we bring back an updated report in September. At that
point in time, you may have latitude to make some additional changes
to the budget based on the availability of funds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But in a nutshell though, we're doing okay,
but the Public Defender doesn't need to clear their desks for those
PC's just yet.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Any questions on that?
Thank you, Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome.
Item #9A
PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERIM
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEES - STAFF RECOHMENDATION ACCEPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 9(A), board consideration and
direction regarding procurement of professional services for
implementation of interim government services fee. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
Before you today is some information and an update concerning the
interim governmental services fee project that the staff's been
working on for quite some months.
I have had the opportunity to discuss with you commissioners a
little bit briefly recent Florida Supreme Court decisions issued May
1st, which broaden to a certain extent the special assessment flaw in
Florida, but also causes a -- a time to look at the direction that we
had up to this point in our own drafting efforts of an interim
governmental services fee to be applied by special assessment of the
tax bill.
Prior to my discussion of this agenda item today, I've also had
the opportunity to speak with Mr. Whit Ward, the executive director of
the CBIA and the president, Mr. Bill Slavich, I think is his name, to
let them know also that the county pursuant to today's agenda item
would be looking to forge forward with the -- the drafting of a fee
structure which would still implement, hopefully, a special assessment
to be implemented through the tax bill structure.
And with the consideration and response I've had from Mr. Allen
Watts of Cobb, Cole and Bell, I wanted to provide the board and let
the public know that we would be, if we were to go forward, be hiring
counsel that has significant local government experience.
Pages 7 and 8 of the executive summary show that he has been
involved with or the lead counsel with cases ranging from the 1976
Dunedin impact fee decision, a Volusia County landmark case, the
Snyder case.
He's very knowledgeable in just the kind of thing that we're
working with here and he's also had quite a rapport with the Florida
Supreme Court, which is probably necessary in the area that we're
going.
So, with that information, it is provided in the backup, there
are obviously certain costs if we were to employ Mr. Watts for his
services.
He has estimated approximately ten to 15,000 for the drafting of
an ordinance, an additional fee that would go forward for seeing the
matter through, hopefully, a validation process, which is a rather
unique concept, because if we do go through a validation process
through the local circuit court, if there were an appeal therefrom or
objection, it would go straight to the Supreme -- Florida Supreme
Court and we would have the final opinion in a period of less than one
year, probably about eight months.
So, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a couple.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One is that I spend so much time fussing
about the Department of Revenue, I want to give John Yonkosky a big
thank you for this validation process idea.
I understand that was John's idea and I think it was a great one
because instead of the concept or the fear that I had, frankly, of
litigation dragging on forever, God knows how long, we now, if we can
in court on a validation process, can answer the question of whether
or not it's enforceable in under a year. And that's a stroke of
genius. I think that's great.
The -- the question that I had is, did I hear you say that we're
still going to continuing drafting an ordinance for the fee on the tax
bill as opposed to at CO? I thought that the case law was pretty
clear that that was not going to work.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I think the case law certainly has some
clarity to it along those lines, but at the same time, Mr. Watts has
felt that with some very careful drafting, crafting, that he can
winnow the process with the Supreme Court recognizing the four/three
majority that exists at the present time to get them to recognize
services fees in a little different manner than purely special
assessments, which is what they've had to fall under right now.
That's notwithstanding the fact that the special assessment
mechanism is still -- what would be used and recognized statutorily on
the tax bill.
It's a -- it's kind of a heady thought. It -- it -- it may or
may not have prevailed, but he has opined that he thinks he can draft
such an ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Interesting concept but, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have a speaker on this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Whit Ward.
MR. WARD: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Whit Ward
and I represent the Collier Building Industry Association.
We are -- are in receipt, thanks to our County Attorney, Dave
Weigel and John Yonkosky, of the recent Supreme Court rulings. I
forwarded those rulings to our state office in Tallahassee, had our
attorneys there review them.
They are of the opinion that while this ruling does speak to
special assessments, it does not speak to the type of interim service
fee that we're talking to. This is an impact fee, and it was their
opinion that -- that these rulings would not affect the validity of
placing an interim service fee on the tax bill.
For that reason and -- and others, we would encourage you to
continue or direct your staff to continue to produce an ordinance that
would impose a fee on the tax bill.
That's -- that would be our -- our recommendation. The other
thing is, of course, is if you're going -- if we're going to court for
a validation, if that's the case, and to the Supreme Court, we might
as well vali -- find out whether or not it's illegal to put it on the
tax bill at the same time. It's the same -- it's a one-step process.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. One -- one follow-up and that is that this
outside counsel, Mr. Watts, has suggested that in his drafting of the
ordinance, that it would be shown as primarily -- the primary
mechanism would be special assessment on the tax bill, building into
this ordinance a backup, that if that would be stricken, that there
would be a levy of the interim government services fee by Certificate
of Occupancy or some other element.
That way it's an attempt to have the best of both worlds,
notwithstanding to expect litigation in any event.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Seeing none, that's your 9(A).
Item 10(A) was already discussed. You may remember that.
something to do with the Army Corps of Engineers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
It was
Item #10B
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL LOADING DOCK AT THE NAPLES LANDING
PARK - STAFF TO DRAFT LETTER FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO
ADJUST FUNDS IN AGREEMENT
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 10(B), something I placed on the agenda, a
discussion regarding the commercial loading dock at Naples Landing
Park.
We had the opportunity to discuss this during budgets and I don't
see -- is there someone from the city here that I'm missing? Okay. They're not here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, didn't we pretty much resolve that
at the budget hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we resolved it in the sense that the
individuals from the city there said, yes, we understand. But I think
this board needs to draft a letter to the city council as a formal --
formal position indicating that our agreement was that our $160 were
matching funds for the sole purposes of, and there are, I think, three
or four of those items, and that any use of those dollars or the
matching funds that were dedicated for that purpose, to construct a
commercial loading dock, is not acceptable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that their match should be equal to
ours on those noncommercial activities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. And that's the second point, is that
if $320,000 is not required to do those improvements or if they wish
to cut some of those improvements, to build a commercial dock, that
we're not going to pay any more than they are for them, 50/50 split.
That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you need a motion for that?
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, to help you a little bit, we've got an
accounting from the city on that particular project and their total
cost for the noncommercial portion of that project is 284,000. So,
our portion of the match at a continued 50/50 share would be $141,800
for that, so if we want to -- if you want us, the staff, to draft a
letter for you to sign to be able to send to the city to modify that
agreement, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was there any reduction in -- in what was
being constructed from what was originally approved?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: I think the original plan simply got added to by a
commercial portion. The commercial portion they're showing is costing
about $55,000 in addition to the original project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the key being that none of our
dollars are used for the commercial dock facility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And particularly because there's going to
be an income stream associated with it that the city would have the
total benefit of, so, you know, we had a good basis for making that
choice, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 20 grand for our --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hey. $20,000.
Mr. Smykowski, add it on to the tally sheet.
Okay. Good enough. Let's -- can we just get a motion to
authorize staff to draft a letter for my signature --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to that effect?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a section. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
PUBLIC COHMENTS - AL PERKINS REGARDING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
All right. We are to public comment. How many speakers do we
have registered?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one under this section.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just one second.
Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT REPORTER: I have to change paper.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. A1 Perkins is our next speaker.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, commissioners
and people at home. Listen up.
If I did it any different, you guys wouldn't want to know what to
do with yourself. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We'd be pleased, A1.
MR. PERKINS: I bet you would.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Trust me.
MR. PERKINS: Well, it won't happen.
Okay. First -- first of all I'm a taxpayer and a voter and I
live in garage gate estates. Now, I bring that problem up because we
have an opportunity to fix the problem.
Did you like that? College Properties is still willing to help
you guys out. We did fix the problem if you want to take and proceed
with it.
One of the -- Steve Bigelow here from the Waste Management, he
pointed at my tag and he says, "What's the t-a-g stand for?"
And I said, "That's Taxpayers Against Garbage." And he didn't
know what to do with it, okay, and left it go.
Okay. As you guys know, A1 Gore was down here, good old A1 Gore,
and he brought 25 million bucks down that we're going to make 25
million, both of -- all of it is tax money and, of course, they're
going to take and try to buy up the biggest place in the area that you
can take and make a drop zone out of it, you know what I mean? You
can get the Columbia white or Chinese snow in there big time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's tie it in, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Right.
Okay. The timely appearance of the endangered black beer --
black bear over on Port Royal, the next thing you're going to see is
the panther, the woodpecker, then the Conservancy can ask the
department of eternal plunder to put Marco Island, Keewaydin, Port
Royal on the coral list.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A1, you're not tying it in.
MR. PERKINS: This could make funds available for transactions
for special interest groups, paid employees and their political
associates and partners.
With it being hurricane season, the flooding of Golden Gate
Estates, south of 1-75, and the flooding of the Belle Heade will
provide miles of water in the event of a hurricane and a wall of water
from the east can meet a wall of water from the west, making somewhere
on top of the City of Naples and the county west of 1-75 a flood area
with lots of bodies floating around.
And with that, as long as I've woke you up and ruined your
afternoon, I will quit. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a given, A1.
Anything else?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No others.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Now that we're off to our afternoon
portion of the agenda -- you have relief coming at five -- at five --
what's the board's pleasure, to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's just take a final break. I need
a break if we're not going to quit at five.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Adjourn?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take five minutes and reconvene in five.
(A recess was had.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-28 RE PETITION PUD-97-7, THOMAS E. KILLEN REPRESENTING THE
PROGENCY CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "I" INDUSTRIAL TO "PUD"
TO BE KNOWN AS THE PROGENY COHMERCE CENTER PUD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RADIO ROAD, WEST OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, folks. We're back.
We're at Item 12(B)(1) under an advertised public hearing, zoning
amendment, Petition PUD 97-7.
Mr. Weigel, we need to swear everyone in on this one, so --
MR. WEIGEL: We do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- ask that all members of the public, the
petitioner and staff who will be testifying on this matter or speaking
on this matter, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you swear them in, please?
(Witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Nino, your Planning
Services Department.
The petition that's before you seeks to have property that is
currently zoned industrial rezoned to the planned unit development
district classification for the purpose of adding certain commercial
uses to the currently approved list of industrial uses.
This PUD or this -- the subject property is located on the north
side of Radio Road, just west of Industrial Boulevard, and the
property that is developed by the Department of Agriculture, their
forest ranger service forest station.
Also on the property, in part, there are many warehouses and the
developer is anxious to extend the uses to include -- as I indicated,
include certain commercial uses.
Under the Comprehensive Plan, industrially designated areas may
have the lands at their perimeter rezoned to a transitional type of
commercial use. And to that extent, to the extent that these lands
are indeed on the perimeter of an industrially designated area, we're
able to deal with this petition which would add certain -- as I said,
add certain commercial uses.
Those uses need to be transitional in nature and -- and in this
particular case, the petitioner has asked to add home furniture,
furnishings and equipment stores, which is a use currently permitted
under the C-4 zoning classification, and materials, hardware and
garden supply stores, which is the use currently authorized under the
C-5 zoning district.
With your approval, because we do feel there are some degree of
subjectivity here, but if you say those uses are transitional,
essentially, they are transitional and therefore this petition is
consistent with the future land use element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, help me to understand the concept in
this case of transitional. Transitional from what to what is the
measure.
MR. NINO: Well, transitional presumes that opposite the
industrial area, there is a residential environment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: So, we're looking at getting something that is less
intense than industrial, but -- but nevertheless, doesn't preempt the
industrial area with another shopping center, for example.
As I indicated in the staff report, we would -- you know, we
would be basically tearing the fabric of the industrial zoning
district if we extended this transitional type of use to include the
whole host of commercial activities.
So, they need to be those types of commercial activities that by
their nature don't attract a lot of traffic, use up lots, large
parcels of land, and I think that's what you have with the building
supply industry and the home furnishings industry as opposed to a drug
store or a wearing apparel store, which I think, clearly, the growth
management plan does not encourage us to use those as transitional
uses because that would then be preempting valuable industrial land
for a commercial purpose and we presumably have lots of activity
centers or other commercial areas where they could go to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: This petition is consistent with any other element of
the Growth Management Plan simply by adding those two additional
commercial uses to the list of uses that would be authorized under
this PUD.
The PUD development standards are the same as the development
standards for the industrial zoning district. There will be the
maximum type limitation of 50 feet, the maximum setback limit -- I
mean the minimum setback limitations on Radio Road will be 50 feet,
the same as it is currently. The spacing requirements are the same as
those allowed in the industrial district.
This PUD requires one -- one of the advantages of this PUD,
incidentally, is that currently industrial uses do not have to comply
with the architectural standards. This PUD makes all of the uses
subject to the architectural standards. It also defers to the Land
Development Code for parking, signage and landscaping.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are they voluntarily incorporated, the adopted
architectural standards -- MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- into their project?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, basically, what they want is
industrial --
MR. NINO: The Planning Commission reviewed this petition,
unanimously --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- plus or not.
MR. NINO: -- recommended your endorsement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you were
saying something.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just saying that --
MR. NINO: I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- all they're asking for is industrial
plus furniture and/or building hardware-garden supply store. It seems
to me to be very simple and straightforward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that include outdoor storage?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Prohibit it.
MR. NINO: No, it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted that to be on the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Looked for that one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I do have a question. I'm bad in --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
MR. NINO: Other -- let me -- other than the outdoor storage that
is now authorized under the industrial classification. The industrial
uses do permit outside storage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the commercial.
MR. NINO: But the commercial. Should -- should this land be
developed with the commercial uses, then outdoor storage is precluded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: When you talk about the 50-foot setback, is
that measured -- I'm not -- have not been clear on this. Is this from
the center of the road or from the edge of the road or where?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: From the right-of-way line.
MR. NINO: From the right-of-way line.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right-of-way line --
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- back. So, we don't end up with another
building set virtually on the edge of a -- MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- roadway?
MR. NINO: It will not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of an expanded road in the future, yeah.
Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Killen, good afternoon.
MR. KILLEN: Good afternoon. Tom Killen, Naples, Florida. Good
afternoon to you, folks.
As Mr. Nino stated, this land does qualify under the LDC, et
cetera, for a transitional commercial use. Originally that was C --
what; C-5, C-4, C-3, et cetera, but we spent a lot of time with staff
trying to work this out so that this -- there's 9.3 acres together.
There's about two acres of open storage at this time with boats and
vans and things parked out front.
The owner has put this land, the entire nine point something
acres into a trust for his children. What we're looking for is to
fezone the open frontage, the two acres in front, to be developed in
upscale from -- from industrial and then somewhere in the future when
the mini warehouses are older or not of any use any longer, that we --
that would flip a switch to come in and develop this as a PUD.
And he visualizes something like you see on Trade Center at this
point in time, you know, nice decorative office buildings, a nice
complex back inside.
It is a great location. It's - it's good frontage on Radio and I
think the land is not at its best use at this point. And to just
continue with the industrial zoning, I think, is a mistake.
So, what we're trying to do actually is upscale the land and lock
in some sort of PUD for the future so that they can have some plan in
mind in years to come.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On that question, you said the front two acres
would be dedicated to the commercial use?
MR. KILLEN: No. The -- the entire 9.3 acres will be under the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: So, that's -- what we're doing is taking the open
land and the existing mini warehouse land and putting them together
into one -- one PUD.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I -- I -- I want to go down
this line is -- is the -- the exhibit we have on the PUD master plan
does not differentiate between industrial and commercial as far as
location is concerned.
MR. KILLEN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're saying the commercial can occur
anywhere within the project and there's no cap on how much of that
nine acreage could be ded -- nine acres could be dedicated to
commercial?
MR. KILLEN: That's correct.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: That -- that kind of blows the transitional
concept from industrial to --
MR. NINO: Well, it's the uses that are transitional. They can
only develop them with the two categories, not the whole list of
commercial uses; home furnishings or building supplies, building
materials.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, there doesn't need to be --
MR. NINO: Only those two uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, there doesn't need to be any industrial
onsite? They could actually do the transitional for the entire site?
MR. NINO: They could develop the entire nine acres with the
transitional uses if there's that much on the market.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless them if they do it that way.
MR. NINO: With that much of a market or a combination of the
two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just pointing out there is some good
industrial out there. It's not all bad. And I agree that this --
this site could use some improvement.
The area along Radio Road, is that a 15-foot buffer with a Type C
on it? Am I -- what's the buffer along Radio Road requirement?
MR. NINO: 15 feet.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Type C?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That corridor can use some softening.
Mr. Killen, would you be willing to increase that to 20 foot,
Type D buffer in the front of that?
MR. KILLEN: Just add another five foot?
But -- we would rather not but we would consider it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- the reason I'm concerned is -- correct
me if I'm wrong, you don't have a tenant waiting in the wings right
now or a contract to purchase the property, do you?
MR. KILLEN: Well, we have -- the reason the furniture store is
in there, we do have a -- a gentleman who has been in business back in
the industrial park with used and antique furniture and he wants to
relocate to Radio Road. That's why this specifically was put in.
It's not a high volume store. It's a very small, small volume
operation. But if you go by the zoning codes of industrial, this
really is not a -- it really doesn't fall in the letter of the law for
industrial. That's one reason we want to specifically bring this item
in as the home furnishings type.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I'm asking for increased buffer is
because a lot of times in the industrial and marginal commercial
areas, you'll see a five or ten-foot minimum buffer and then a
chain-link fence behind it. That --
MR. KILLEN: That's what we have now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. KILLEN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But there's nothing to tell me that, you know,
we're going to 15 feet out of requirement but that chain-link fence
could pop back up. And I just -- if we're going to take action based
on the fact that this site right now aesthetically needs a lot of
help, I want to make sure that we have those aesthetic commitments on
the record and they're completed.
MR. KILLEN: I would -- I would prefer to leave the buffer the
same and just increase the landscape requirement in the front buffer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any other questions by members of
the board on this because there -- there's -- I mean nothing is going
to happen tomorrow on this property. It's -- this is a little
speculative, so I just want to know more about the end product than we
have here, quite frankly.
MR. KILLEN: The one item I might add is the fence will -- will
come down and the front will be landscaped.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The fence is down now.
MR. KILLEN: The fence is down now for the what, the storage
area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions?
Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I share your concerns.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- you know, I -- I like the idea of
taking a site that's in somewhat disrepair and working specifically on
its redevelopment. And that, I was kind -- that's kind of where I
thought we're heading to.
MR. KILLEN: That's -- that's what we've been working at -- on
with -- with staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe I heard Mr.
Killen say that he's prepared to intensify the amount of landscaping
within the 15-foot buffer? I would --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I heard that chain-link fence -- there
would be no chain-link fence and that the buffer would be -- would
keep it at 15 feet but increase the landscaping which is a Type D then
instead of a Type C. It is the only -- it's the next -- then next
highest step and it's not that much higher. It's -- I think the trees
are closer on center and it's a double row hedge instead of a single.
MR. NINO: Well, it's 25-foot trees on center but you may ask for
a larger tree --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That seems like a reasonable compromise.
MR. NINO: -- a double hedge row or a -- you may ask for a -- a
hedge that achieves the higher level of opacity within a shorter time
frame.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think at this point because -- unless it's
-- unless it's ten years older than -- than they are planting them
now, they don't look too impressive anyway, so I think I'd rather go
with a higher number and let them mature.
But this is -- it's on the edge of speculative for me. I mean,
it's -- it's something we're kind of throwing a little faith out there
that it's going to happen. Otherwise, this is just sitting out there
spec zoning for marketing purposes.
That's something this board doesn't have a history of doing since
I've been on it. So, if -- if we're going to move ahead, I would want
to do so only with -- at a minimum, those requirements that will
increase the buffer to Type D buffer and -- but leave it at 15 feet
and that no chain-link fence along the roadway frontage on Radio Road
be allowed.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing I did hear is they would go
to 20. They'd prefer not to. And I just -- as you said, I think this
corridor --
MR. KILLEN: Yes. We prefer just to increase the landscape to
come out rather than 15 --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my
comments, do you?
As you said, the -- this area of this corridor can certainly use
some improvement. I just think that goes a ways toward it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's something about that distance from the
roadway and it's only a few feet but it does make a big difference to
people driving by and that kind of thing.
And, again, if we had an end user in front of us and we're
looking at a color drawing of -- of what it's going to look like when
it's done, and we could look at that picture and say, yes, that's
acceptable, it really helps us. But the fact that we don't, I think
we're going to have to err on the conservative side, so --
MR. KILLEN: At this point the only end user would be the small
furniture company that's coming in in part of that open space. The
balance of that project may not happen for ten, 15, 20 years. But the
idea is to keep the entire parcel zoned together so that it can be
master planned and worked and that. This is the owner here.
MR. JENTGEN: Yeah. I'm the -- the -- represent the owner.
Jim Jentgen, resident of Collier County.
The fence was clear -- surrounded the entire property including
across Radio Road. This two and a half acres that's still vacant was
full of surface storage; cars, boats, trailers, junk.
I started removing those about a year ago because it took that
long to get everybody out of there. A month or two ago, I moved the
fence. We must have a fence around the mini storage for security.
I moved the -- I took the fence away from Radio Road, that
surface is two and a half acres, and I moved it to the north and along
the northern boundary or to the -- to the north and along easterly and
southerly so that the two and a half acres now is vacant and it is
devoid of the -- of the surface storage.
And, as I say, what I had in mind as a -- as a more attractive
use, a higher use, and one that meets the code requirements.
I do have a contract on the easterly portion of that two and a
half acres. As a matter of fact, a permit is in for it and I plan on,
within three or four months, starting another building on the westerly
portion of the ground. So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is very simple and that is
the stretch from the Airport Road to just beyond your property is not
the most attractive stretch. A bunch of Radio Road is very
attractive. That stretch right there really isn't.
And what I would like to do is set a precedent. I appreciate the
fact you're trying to improve the property and the look of it, but I'd
like the extra five feet just because it's fairly standard in a lot of
other areas and I think it goes a long way toward long-term
improvement.
MR. JENTGEN: Well, I -- as I say, I wouldn't have a big
objection except that, you know, we -- we want to have adequate
parking and we want to have adequate landscaping.
I'm a little bit at a disadvantage in the fact that -- that --
that half of that two-and-a-half-acre site is under contract and
they've already designed a plan and it's in for permit.
So, I -- you know, I'm not -- it's -- it's a difficult position
for me to be in to be speaking for somebody else who is going to own
that property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that the -- the request for that permit
was premature because of the pending zoning action.
MR. JENTGEN: Well --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And everyone knew that.
MR. JENTGEN: Well, it is and it isn't, the difference being
that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. It is because the property is not zoned
for it right now.
MR. KILLEN: Well, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: The only difference, if you'll hear me out, is that
they would have to put a wall 20 feet inside the building to qualify
under existing zoning, so they were prepared to do that. So, I -- I'm
not trying to pull the wool over --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Under -- understood.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I understand your point you don't
have a strong objection, and I don't have a strong objection, but I
still have an objection and won't support it if we don't have the 20
feet and -- and --
MR. JENTGEN: Well --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask a question, Mr. Jentgen?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I kind of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He looked like he was on the verge of
committing there.
MR. JENTGEN: No. I just said, you know, you got me in a bind
because I -- and I might lose a contract, but, as I say, it's
difficult for me to speak for someone else.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going to be talking a --
MR. JENTGEN: I don't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- contract if you don't have approval
on the fezone, so '-
MR. JENTGEN: No, I do. I am told they can go ahead and build
the building, just put a wall in, a dividing wall.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, if this approval were granted
today, what would be the -- the time schedule to -- that he would be
forced to put in the landscaping?
MR. NINO: He wouldn't have to put -- institute the landscaping
until he makes application for sit -- until the site plan is approved
for a building.
MR. JENTGEN: You know, in line with that, I would make a
commitment because the building that's in for permit now is -- is
starting momentarily and the other building would be starting in --
within three or four months, but I would make a commitment to do all
the landscaping.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to try and craft this in the form of
a motion because I'm -- do we have any more public speakers on this?
Okay. Close the public hearing.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the change in use from
a boat storage area to a commercial use, although transitional, does
have a traffic element to it. That traffic element has a potential
for increasing traffic and I think it justifies an increased buffer
over the 15-foot request, so I'm going to move approval with a 20-foot
buffer, a Type D buffer on the front -- the frontage against Radio
Road, that a chain-link fence not be allowed on the redeveloped
section. The one on the existing mini storage can remain until that
site is redeveloped at which time that fence along Radio Road would be
removed.
Did I leave anything out?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. A commitment to begin the
landscaping immediately.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. And a commitment to begin the
landscaping immediately instead of waiting until the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The permit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the permit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a commitment to make the
architectural centered, so what we talked about is already in here; is
that correct? They've already --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Which, by the way, I -- I do appreciate
it. I mean, that's -- that's a strong step in the right direction,
but I think these are just little tweaking items that we need. That's going to be my motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got a question.
MR. JENTGEN: Hay I clari -- okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question just perhaps is for you, Mr.
Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- if we impose these conditions and --
what if -- can we lose the baby with the bath water here? Can they
decide that, never mind, they don't want this after all, they'll go
ahead and do it the way his contract yendee said that he would with a
-- with some sort of a wall and we learn -- we lose this architectural
and -- are we at risk there?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Only if they withdraw their application.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Quick before we vote?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Otherwise, it stands and the rezoning is -- is
complete.
So, that's the -- the reason -- what I was getting to is to say
that's the extent of my motion. If there are no alterations to the
motion, I just -- if you wish to withdraw your -- your petition, you
may do so, otherwise --
MR. JENTGEN: Hay I just say one thing? When you said, one of
the conditions, the last condition was just mentioned about starting
the landscaping immediately. I would -- if this building permit is --
is available within a week or two, which I think it will be, certainly
you'd want to do the landscaping toward the tail end of the
construction so I would like to do it at that time, rather than try to
put it in in the next couple of months ahead of construction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll -- I'll stipulate that the motion
entails that -- that statement then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assuming construction begins. I mean,
we ought to put a time frame there. If he -- if something happens and
construction didn't begin for two years, then it kind of defeats the
purpose of what we're trying to achieve there. Hopefully -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it goes forward but stranger things
have happened.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to leave it consistent with
construction because if nothing happens, at least the chain-link fence
gets removed and there aren't boats sitting out there facing the
roadway. So, that's at least a step in the right direction. So, I'm
going to leave it consistent with construction.
Okay. That's the lengthy negotiated motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is seconded. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KILLEN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Mr. Killen, just as -- in the future,
your PUD master plans, a little more detail on them would be helpful
to us just to show us what exists sometimes.
MR. KILLEN: What made it very difficult is the existing project
in the middle of all of this which -- which has to be brought up to
standard at a later time once -- once it's torn down. So, it was very
difficult to get all the staff satisfied on how we put it together,
so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. We just --
MR. KILLEN: Well, I'll just leave more of a bubble -- bubble
concept so that it can -- it triggers when -- when the minis come down
and everything is brought up to -- to the latest standards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just that we see you every now and then, so I
just wanted to mention that, that it might be helpful. Thank you.
MR. KILLEN: Thank you.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 97-278 RE PETITION AV-97-002 VACATING A PORTION OF TRACTS
H-1 AND H-2 AND ALL OF TRACT H-3 BEING PRIVATE ROADWAYS AS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT OF CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT EAGLE CREEK (COMPANION TO THE PLAT OF
CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT EAGLE CREEK REPLAT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item is Item 12(C)(1), Petition AV
97-002. This is to vacate a portion of Tracts M-i, M-2 and all of
Tract 3, being private roadways on the plat of Crystal Lake Terraces
at Eagle Creek.
Mr. McNees, do we have any speakers on this?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do we need to swear in everyone on
this one?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you do not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. In that case, this kind of looks
like a no-brainer, Mr. Mullet. Is it?
I see him nodding yes, that it's a no-brainer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Once again, quite the convincing argument, Mr. Mullet.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 97-279 RE PETITION SNR-97-5, RUSSELL M. LAZEGA OF WOODWARD,
PIRES & LOHBARDO, P.A., REPRESENITNG GULF BAY 100, INC., REQUESTING A
STREET NAME CHANGE FROM CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE TO CLUB CENTER BOULEVARD
WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN THE MARCO SHORES UNIT 30 GOLF COURSE PUD
SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(2).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, do you know if there's
any objection to the street name change?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record.
No, there's no objection to this and the other two items that
follow after it. All the roads are contiguous.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all three of these are -- EHS is
okay with it and the postal service is okay with it?
MR. CAUTERO: We have no objection from any agencies.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we take the items collectively or do we
have to take them individually, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Individually, I'm afraid.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Individually.
On Item SNR 90 -- SNR 97-5, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Petition SNR --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 97-5.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about four?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm on Item 12(C)(2), taking them in order.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: One more?
In regard to all these prior questions, are there any homes
located along these streets?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any what?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Homes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Homes.
MR. CAUTERO: No, ma'am, there aren't. There are only two
establishments that we are aware of that are -- would be impacted and
there's no objection from them then -- from them, a driving range and
the Fitness Creek -- Creek Clubhouse. There's an RV park under
construction but the addresses have not been assigned yet to my
knowledge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Seeing none.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 97-280 RE SNR-97-2, RUSSELL H. LAZEGA OF WOODWARD, PIRES &
LOHBARDO, P.A. REPRESENTING GULF BAY 100, INC., REQUESTING A STREET
NAME CHANGE FROM TOURNAMENT BOULEVARD TO FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAY,
LOCATED IN THE MARCO SHORES UNIT 30 GOLF COURSE PUD SUBDIVISION -
ADOPTED
And on Petition SNR 97-2, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve SNR 97-2.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll be the second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion by a commissioner. Do we have a second
-- by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Do we have a second?
She beat you to the punch on it by the way.
Second? Hello?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Come on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Seeing none.
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 97-281 RE SNR-97-4, RUSSELL H. LAZEGA OF WOODWARD, PIRES &
LOHBARDO, P.A. REPRESENTING GULF BAY 100, INC., REQUESTING A STREET
NAME CHANGE FROM MARRIOTT CLUB DRIVE TO CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE LOCATED IN
THE MARCO SHORES UNIT 30 GOLF COURSE PUD SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
Petition SNR 97-4, I'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve SNR 97-4.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Discussion on none of them? Just
kidding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #12C5
RESOLUTION 97-282 CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE
FINAL ROLL AND ADOPTING THE SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES, WITHIN THE NAPLES PARK AREA
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGE
Seeing none, we're on Item two -- or to Item 12(C)(5),
recommendation to adopt a resolution confirming the preliminary
assessment roll, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for the Naples Park
Area Drainage Improvements.
Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, Stormwater Management Director.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Other than doing an absolutely fantastic job
during construction and working on this diligently to achieve a cost
less than the bid amount initially, is there anything else you need to
add to this item?
MR. BOLDT: Fortunately, for the clarification of the record, our
finance people want to modify our recommendations ever so slightly, so
I'd like to ask Mr. Finn to address that issue. MR. FINN: Edward Finn.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do and I did also forget to mention the
ahead of schedule part of the project.
MR. FINN: For the record, Edward Finn, Operations Director.
Recommendation C, staff would like to amend that to read: "Set
the repayment period of 15 years at an interest rate not to exceed
eight percent per annum on the unpaid principal or one percent above
the long term financing, whichever is less"; change the period to a
comma and add the words "and cost of collection period."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, would it be out of order
to have a proclamation that Ed Finn has the coolest tie in the
building.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it would.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Just checking.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And personally offensive, but that's -- no,
I'm just kidding.
Mr. Finn, I have a question on the financing. I received a
letter today and I'll just take the opportunity to ask it today.
If someone misses that 30-day window, they could still pay for
the -- pay the project off minus the interest other than what has been
accrued to date; in other words, if they pay it?
These people are out of the country during that 30-day period.
When they return, they want to be able to write a check for their lot
and -- but they don't want to pay 15 years of interest. They don't
have to pay the interest accrued to date; is that correct?
MR. FINN: The -- after the 30-day period, the first year's
payment will appear on their tax bill. They can pay the balance of
the principal off with accrued interest but they will be required to
pay the amount that appears on their tax pill.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They will pay that one year of interest on
those lots.
MR. FINN: Yes. After 30 days plus the accrued interest between
that period and whenever they do pay their principal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You'll be getting a letter on that
so --
MR. FINN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FINN: And I -- Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think Mr. Weigel
wants to make a similar adjustment to the ordinance itself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, please do so.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Yes. As to the resolution, at the bottom of Page 4 of the agenda
packet and top of Page 5 is a rather long sentence. I would request
that at the top of Page 5 at the end of the second line terminating in
the area -- in the words "stormwater drainage system comma if." If
you would get rid of the comma after system, put a period, capitalize
the I for if and then that sentence will continue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Which I are we
capitalizing?
MR. WEIGEL: The I on if --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, Tim.
MR. WEIGEL: -- at the end of the second line -- pardon me. I
got engrossed in what I was reading here.
And continuing, it says -- where it says in that sentence two
lines further down, "but paid," those words would have substituted "it
shall be paid in annual installments."
Getting down to the very last line of that paragraph that reads
"on the unpaid principal period," that would state, "on the unpaid
principal," getting rid of the period and adding the words "and costs
of collection period."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve Mr. Weigel's changes and
Mr. Finn's changes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve Mr.
Weigel and Mr. Finn's changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I -- I -- I failed to -- I'll
reopen the public hearing. I failed to check that.
Speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Flo Mortensen, and your second public speaker is
Ella Schallenberg.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are either of those individuals here?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. We have a motion on
the floor.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Once again, Mr. Boldt, thank you. A job well done and you and
your department deserve a lot of credit.
Item #12C6
RESOLUTION 97-283 REDUCING THE REGULATORY ASSESSHENT FEE FROH FOUR AND
ONE-HALF PERCENT TO THREE PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUES EFFECTIVE OCTOBER
1, 1997 FOR NONEXEMPT PRIVATELY OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER
AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY TO ADJUST WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES
ACCORDINGLY - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, on the next item, if
you'll close the public hearing, we've had discussion throughout the
budget hearings on it unless there are public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We just confirmed that in budget.
Do we have any speakers on 12(C)(6)?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. You have none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the
item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Seeing none.
Now, we're to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Proof positive we can actually lower
costs when you bring things back to local government instead of
Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This advertisement brought to you courtesy of.
Item #13A1
PETITION A-97-2, RICHARD JAKLITCH REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PETITION BD-97-11 ON HAY 15,
1997 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 8, BLOCK F, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES,
UNIT 3 REPLAT - APPEAL DENIED, CCPC DECISION UPHELD
We're to Item 13(A)(1), advertised public hearings, Petition
A-97-2.
The folks involved with this application had the misery of
watching government in all its splendor today as they sat through a
lot of discussion, so for that my apologies to you, but we are finally
arriving at your item.
This is Richard Jaklitch requesting an appeal to the -- of the
Collier County Planning Commission approval of boatdock 97-11. Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, we need to swear everyone in.
All members that are here to speak on this item, whether you're
members of the public or petitioners, please stand and raise your
right hand.
Madam Court Reporter?
(The court reporter placed the witnesses under oath.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services.
Before I introduce this petition, Harjorie Student would like to
make a statement for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, Assistant County
Attorney.
I just want to remind the board that you are constrained by two
standards, that this isn't really a complete rehash of what the
Planning Commission did, but you're constrained by having to make
findings as to whether their decision was based upon competent and
substantial evidence as it goes to each of the criteria, and,
secondly, whether their decision was contrary to the land code or the
comp plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Consistent with public disclosure
requirements, I have met with the petitioners of -- that originally
filed BD 97-11 but I'll base my decision on the information presented
here today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had no outside contact with them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Reischl, if you'll continue,
please.
MR. REISCHL: This is an appeal to a decision made by the Collier
County Planning Commission to a -- to allow a 35-foot extension for a
total protrusion of 55 feet into the waters of Little Hickory Bay.
The site plan in your executive summary shows that -- the subject
lot at the end of a peninsula with a wide expansive waterway. The --
on Page 6 of your packet, you can see the location of the dock on the
subject lot. It's 32 feet from the property line. The required
setback is 15.
And without going into the rehash that Mrs. Student wanted us to
avoid, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Staff recommends that
you affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the question for the petitioner would
be which of the criteria do you think was -- that -- for approval do
you think was not based on substantial competent evidence?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, before that question, I
-- I think there's one thing we need to know.
Mr. Reischl, was Mr. Jaklitch present at the Planning Commission
hearing and did he voice his concerns at that time? MR. REISCHL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, on an appeal such as this,
can new evidence be introduced or isn't an appeal based on the
testimony given at the Planning Commission?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it's just based upon what was given at the
Planning Commission. This is a review of the Planning Commission
determination.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. I just wanted to set the
parameters so that we could go ahead and proceed with the appeal.
MR. REISCHL: And for the record, staff has not received new
evidence since.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Before getting to Commissioner
Hac'Kie's questions, Mr. Jaklitch, did you have a brief presentation
you wanted to make?
MR. JAKLITCH: Well, I basically just had sort of a summary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. JAKLITCH: I didn't know how prepared you were, you know, in
knowing anything about this at this point, so I was prepared to give
you an update, try to bring you up to speed on the -- on the subject
as I see it.
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you identify yourself for the
record?
MR. JAKLITCH: Richard Jaklitch, owner of Lot 7 on Bonita, Third
Street West.
If I could ask you to go to Page 5, it says location map on it.
Here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. JAKLITCH: It's -- it denotes the subject lot out there. I
just wanted to be sure that we understand. It sort of had a big
context picture of this.
This is a finger street that goes out into Hickory Bay. It's a
man-made street. The seawall was put in there about 30 years ago and
that area of the bay around that finger that looks very, very straight
and -- and orderly was dredged and that land was man made.
The reason I'm bringing the appeal or wanted to appeal was
because I came out of the board hearing not really quite understanding
the logic of how they came to the conclusion to approve the way they
did.
And that's why in the executive summary I -- I said that I was
appealing based on preparation and handling of the matter which
ultimately led to the decision.
The preparation basically starts, the applicant makes his
application. The planner gets the information. He deals with it
accordingly. He generates his report. Then an advertisement goes out
where everyone else is brought into the picture.
I got to the board and pretty much like you folks have been
saying in here today, you rely a lot on your staff and your counsel
for guidance in -- in how these decisions are made.
You know, at your point, obviously you can't go out and scope
everyone out yourself. So, I think that Mr. Reischl's report, when it
was finished, got quite a bit of great weight put on it when we came
in there.
I think the board looked at it and said, hey, this is the final
word. I know that Mr. Reischl has limited time and I know he has
resources. He's got a lot of these things he's got to do. But I have
-- I -- I just have real difficulty understanding how the decision to
approve this was completely made when you code -- when the code has
basically ten items in it that Mr. Reischl follows and the applicant
submits his information on those same ten items.
Of those ten items, I've got about three here that I'd like to
bring to light and ask that somebody enlighten me how the decision was
done.
Without numbering them, and I don't know if you have them, the
first -- the first item that I questioned was the applicant when he
makes his application is supposed to define the water depth where the
dock facility is to be located and the distance to the location of the
navigable channel.
I had some difficulty with that and I also had some difficulty
with Item 4, the land contour; i.e., bottom profile of the property on
which the dock facility is to be located.
If you would look at -- if you would look at Item 7 or Page 7 of
the final report that Mr. Reischl made, it shows a diagram, a real
nice picture, showing bottom contour and that sort of thing, but both
the second item and the fourth item, the depth of the water and the
bottom profile, I think, are taken in in this one -- one diagram here.
The drawing is really nice but it doesn't accurately reflect the
-- the water bottom. It doesn't reflect the contour down there at
all.
If you -- and they're -- they're hard to read, the dimensions
here, but basically saying until he gets out past 40 feet, he doesn't
reach water depths that are 39 inches.
That's just not so. When the area was dredged, there is a trough
out there and the trough surrounds that street. Water depths get as
much as ten, maybe 13 feet.
And, so, I had difficulty with the fact that when we went on to
Item Number 8 in Mr. Reischl's report, which is, the applicant must
determine the distance to adequate water depth, and there it is
defined as three feet mean low water as compared to the -- the
requested extension, I find that the applicant himself is request --
is saying in his own application that he reaches that three-foot mean
depth at a distance out from the end of the seawall, a distance out of
36 feet.
So, the question was, well, why do you need to go to 55? Again,
in the applicant's application, he allows 11 feet further for the --
the dockage of his pontoon boat. So, I said, well, if you went 36 and
added 11 more feet for the boat itself, that would take you to 47
overall. The question still remains; why 55?
That was brought up at the hearing, and Mr. Reischl, according to
the transcript that I've got here, didn't have a -- a quick answer
back to that. He didn't really understand -- or that he could give
back. I apologize.
In looking at the final report that is given to the -- to the
Planning Board, of the ten items that are listed out here almost -- I
didn't look at every one of them, but 95 percent of them when the --
when the Planning Board looks at it, the -- the item is described and
it says the petitioner describes or the petitioner states or the
petitioner says this or that, as opposed to Mr. Reischl stating, hey,
this is what's out there or not out there.
And this is why I said I understand he has limited resources and
time. He doesn't walk through the water, that kind of thing. He
takes a quick cursory overview, walks out there and says, hey, this
is, like you said, a no-brainer. You just walk out. It's wide open.
I came to the board asking only for what I thought was a -- a
legitimate and -- and doable compromise. I asked the board, and I
think it was Mr. Thomas, I said, what I would like -- he asked me. He
said, "What do you suggest?"
And I said, "Could you ask the petitioner to move his dock down
the seawall an additional 40, possibly 45 feet?"
And if you look at the petitioner's -- in his application, he
shows a plot drawing, and I think Fred's got that. You've got some
pictures and -- and a plot.
I -- I took some photographs to help the board and I also
included on it a plot of the Grassi property. And I drew some red
lines on there and basically tried to extend that from the 32-foot
point down from our property line, what it would like if he moved his
dock down an additional 40 some feet.
And this is Page 21 that I'm looking at and also is the material
that I think you'll see when it gets passed to you.
I basically asked for a compromise, the compromise being could
you move the dock down to approximately 77 feet? If put down there,
the water is actually deeper closer to the seawall. And that would
allow, I thought, would allow the -- the applicant to have everything
that he wanted in the dock providing -- provided in closer to the
seawall, his cost for building would be less, that sort of thing, and
the item that seemed to have drawn a little attention at the board
meeting was the seventh item in the ten items there, which -- what
will be the impact -- what is the impact of the extension and what
will it have on the view of the waterway by adjacent waterfront
property owners?
So, I said, yes, it will impact me. It isn't going to be a life
or death kind of thing, but I thought that what we were doing here was
basing the decision not solely on view but also on the issue of water
depth, adequate water depth being three foot, and whether the -- it
was necessary to put a dock out 55 feet, when in fact if you came down
just a little bit further, you could accomplish everything you were
doing. You wouldn't have to go out so far in the waterway. Yes, it
would help my view, and it would lower the cost in -- in producing it.
And I just came out of the hearing -- obviously, you know, I was
shot down, but I still didn't understand and I felt strong enough to
come here and appeal.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I was just reading the transcript
where, you know, I was sort of following along with what you're saying
right now --
MR. JAKLITCH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- with what you said at the Planning
Commission on the same point. And the best I can see is that the
response was that there is -- there was a pathway and existing
utilities.
MR. JAKLITCH: Yeah. Well, I don't know about existing
utilities, but in the material there that Commissioner Constantine
has, I have one photograph where I show the -- the steps that Mr.
Franse described. They're basically a couple of pieces of PT, 6 two
by 12. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'm wondering in the -- this is
totally out of my jurisdiction, as Miss Student will be prompt to
point out, but just in the good neighbor department, isn't there a
reason -- is there a reason not to do it that way?
MR. JAKLITCH: Well, I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I was actually --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't think Mr. Jaklitch is the one
to answer that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just posing the question, so that his
neighbors --
MR. JAKLITCH: Mr. Nelson -- Mr. Nelson brought that up at the
hearing and that's in the transcripts there. And he said, hey, why --
looks like maybe we could draw a compromise here. And I think the
language of his -- of his comments were -- basically, it says maybe
both the homeowners would be happy, maybe neither one would be happy,
but at least we have something in the middle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- you know, on the surface it sounds
like you're saying, look, could you make it smaller and just move it
further away. And that doesn't sound unreasonable to most people.
One thing that this board has done on boatdock extensions and
boathouses is we try and look at what the existing conditions are on
the street, in the neighborhood, who's got what. We don't want one
person to be granted something that is an abuse to the character of
the area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. JAKLITCH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What that led me to was your property in which
you have a boatdock that goes out 55 feet and it's 15 foot offset of a
property line; in other words -- MR. JAKLITCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the person directly to the north of your
property, 15 feet away, has a substantial structure that goes out 55
feet.
MR. JAKLITCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now --
MR. JAKLITCH: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I guess it would have been neighborly to
bring that in because according to you the boats can come closer. It
doesn't have to be 55 feet because there's a -- you said there's an
area there that's closer to shore and the neighborly thing would have
been to make that dock a central feature on your property.
MR. JAKLITCH: You're right. You're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, how could I tell them --
MR. JAKLITCH: The common -- the common boundary line between
Grassi's and my property, if you go either way from my property to
Grassi, it seems to be the apex of shallow water there.
I'm down at the far -- at the north most end, 15 feet away,
because I was trying to minimize the necessity to go out far. I don't
have my dock out there because I like to have it out there or a
statement of, you know, size or anything like that. I would have
loved to have it in closer.
Turfell and Associates did the study for me because I was
concerned about it right from the get go. We were looking at real
shallow water as we go south toward Mrs. Grassi's property.
Had we located the dock down there, we would have had to come in
here and request an extension that was even greater than the one that
we now have. And -- and I was unhappy with what we had to do at the
time. And, in fact, when we eventually put the dock in, we -- we
actually pulled it in a few feet. You know, we found that when we
really got to putting it in and the boatdock guys got in there and did
it, and said, hey, you can get away with this, so come on in. It's
fine, you know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, one -- one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me, you just said
you were looking down near their property and that would have required
going out even further.
MR. JAKLITCH: It --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't follow the logic of -- of --
five or ten minutes ago you told us down by their property, the water
gets deeper sooner.
MR. JAKLITCH: No. If -- the water is shallowest --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to be contradictive.
MR. JAKLITCH: -- at the -- at a line -- if you could kind of
extend a line out from where our two properties join, that's the
shallow most area. If you walk away from our joint property line down
on my property, the water -- and the -- the -- the bottom profile
tends to get better for me.
The same thing occurs with Grassi as he goes toward his property
further on down his property. He has about 190 foot of seawall.
I find it a little bit amazing. I don't know why the sand and
silt is built up right there at that height but obviously I, you know,
could have put my boatdock further down on my property toward our
joint -- 15 foot away from our joint property line. But I would have
had to come out and request a big, huge extension because it's so
shallow there. I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well -- and that's -- that's a localized
condition that you adapted to and that apparently you were authorized
to do.
MR. JAKLITCH: Yeah. We basically --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's fine.
MR. JAKLITCH: We basically went there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess there are two points that -- that make
this dock request not that bad to me, and one is that you mention, you
know, how the -- and we all know the bottom conditions vary and bottom
conditions --
MR. JAKLITCH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- change.
MR. JAKLITCH: You bet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if we limited everyone to the bare
minimum, whether it was the moment you hit 36 inches of depth, boom,
that's where your dock --
MR. JAKLITCH: That's where your --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're done.
MR. JAKLITCH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All we get is one or two storms and the next
thing you know, we've got 30 inches of depth and the 32-inch draft
boat is now high and dry at -- MR. JAKLITCH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- low tide.
MR. JAKLITCH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I think an extension beyond that to allow
for reasonable shifting of bottom material is -- it's pretty standard.
We don't draw the line right at 36 and say, no more, and that's why
it's --it's a minimum in our -- or there's a kind of a standard in
there but not an absolute. MR. JAKLITCH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It can go further. So, I think that's -- it's
reasonable to go a little beyond that just because bottom conditions
today may vary.
MR. JAKLITCH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we're looking at an appeal on these
things, we have to base it on factual information. The petitioner is
required to submit information that is factually correct. If they
mislead this board or misinform this board --
MR. JAKLITCH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- or misinform our staff, we assume that
they're not --
MR. JAKLITCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- because they have to hire professionals
that -- that do this.
MR. JAKLITCH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have a bottom depth survey that -- that
contradicts what the Grassis have submitted?
MR. JAKLITCH: No. The only thing that I can provide to you, as
we stand here, is the fact that we achieved -- on my dock, we achieved
the 36 inches that we're talking about, that three foot mean out low,
out about 36 feet, 37 feet, somewhere in that range. I don't have the
exact, but it's right there.
And that correlates almost identically to where Mr. Grassi in his
application says he finally achieved three foot.
All I did, quite frankly, was go out there and took a -- a
swimming pool skimmer pole and had it marked at three foot. I knew
what my depths were. And I went walking with a tape measure from the
seawall around on his property and got deeper readings as I went away
from our common --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, I do have Mr. Jaklitch's application
and profile if you'd like to take a look at that.
MR. JAKLITCH: Okay. I didn't -- I didn't have it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other -- well, the question that we have
that can't be answered is one of utilities. You don't know where the
Grassis' utilities are and they have identified that it would be
additional money to extend utilities further down the property. And I
think that's a -- that's realistic, like it or not.
I keep coming back to, I know sitting in the position you're in,
if I were your neighbor to the north -- MR. JAKLITCH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and you were permitted to be where you are
but yet the -- you know, which is extending out as far with a larger
dock, closer to the property line, yet the next person was required to
move theirs --
MR. JAKLITCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I guess it's -- it's a question of where
you're standing and what you're asking for that I try -- I'm trying to
find a fairness issue here.
MR. JAKLITCH: I -- I understand what you're saying and it -- and
it certainly has that look and it certainly takes on that character.
But I also ask you that if we based our decision to put the dock,
fortunately or unfortunately, it works out best for us at the location
where we're at.
It wasn't governed by the issue of aesthetics or, gee, I wish I
could move it down further so the neighbor to the north is not -- we
were -- we were really concerned with not being able to get the
adequate water depth and the fact that the 20 foot -- or going beyond
the 20 foot is really a problem. That's the indication Turfell gave
me.
So, when I saw that, I thought, gee, the main issue here is the
three-foot low -- mean low water issue. And if one can, in fact,
achieve that by going down a few more feet, not significantly, because
I realize it does impact their -- their view, but when I drew those
lines out and I scaled the drawing, I did not feel -- because those
are bedrooms there and doesn't really affect the main portion of their
house -- I did not think that that was an issue.
If one is trying to achieve three foot at 20 foot out or 25 foot
out, which they would be very capable of doing there, then why would
one want to go to 55? You know, just -- why work in a -- in an area
which is more difficult to work in when you don't have to?
That was my -- that was why I asked for the compromise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there further questions for Mr. Jaklitch?
Okay. Seeing none, let's go to the balance of the speakers on
this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Jaklitch.
MR. JAKLITCH: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have Mr. Charles Franse, a speaker.
MR. FRANSE: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Charles A.
Franse. I speak for myself and for my wife, Lola Grassi Franse.
And we located the dock in the position that is pointed out there
in your material simply because of our storage. On the west side of
our house is all of our storage. We have a double garage there that
we use for storage and we have an air conditioning room there that we
use for storage and we have two storage sheds that we use for storage
there and there's a pathway from the storage areas down to the
seawall.
And we thought it only logical to just extend that pathway out
onto the dock. We also have electricity and water there in that
location. So, that made it easy for us to decide that that was the
perfect location for it.
Then we, of course, measured to the property line to make sure
that we were well over the 15 feet requirement and it turned out to be
32 feet, so we thought, no problem.
And that's exactly why the location is there and -- and we would
like to keep it there. We would not like to move it further away from
our storage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Franse, who prepared your side view
regarding water depth?
MR. FRANSE: I did the same as Mr. Jaklitch. I walked in the
water with a stick and a measuring tape and literally measured it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have competing professionals.
MR. FRANSE: And you do achieve 36 inches at 36 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FRANSE: And when -- when the tide is low, there is no water
against the seawall. It's a very shallow bay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since we don't have either one prepared by a
professional surveyor, I'm not sure one cancels the other one out or
one has more credibility than the other.
Typically that's the benchmark in these types of elements is if
you have a professional surveyor verifying it, then you -- you know
one way versus the other. Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Student, can you repeat for us
the two criteria we have to consider?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. I certainly can. It's whether or not the
decision of the Planning Commission was based upon competent and
substantial evidence.
And I'll just share with you a little bit about that. And when
we have a certiorari going to the circuit court that appeals one of
your discussions, we always tell the Court pursuant to the case law
that you -- it's not up to the Court to reweigh the evidence. As long
as there was some competent and substantial evidence to support you,
then, you need to not second guess the decision maker.
And the other standard is whether or not the decision was
consistent with the land code or the comp plan. I don't believe
there's a comp plan issue here, so it would be the land code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me the answer to both of
those is yes, so, I'm not sure we have a whole lot of ability --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The only thing I would argue is the
competency of the substantial evidence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was a question for who prepared what.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not competent, so that's really an
example of something that doesn't count but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, but neither --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- there are other things that take it into
consideration as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: True. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No other speakers. Okay. I'll close the
public hearing.
If I had a -- if I had a professional surveyor's diagram where I
could say, okay, here's 36 inches, his is a little beyond it, this is
the minimum distance required.
The other idea -- the other aspects of location being beyond the
15 foot setback minimum and the fact that there's -- they've testified
that water, electricity and a storage shed are on that side of the
property, I think, is -- makes sense to have the dock closer to that
side than further away.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to deny the appeal.
Is there a second on the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
I just think that the -- whether that particular document was or
not, the Planning Commission did have competent and substantial
evidence and I think we'd be hard pressed to overturn according to
those two criteria.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries five, zero and the appeal is denied.
I've a third -- yeah. Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They're switching?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Take a little two-minute break here where we
can switch court reporters.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Please remain seated.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners'
meeting.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 97-284 RE PETITION CU-97-10 ROBERT DUANE, REPRESENTING
SEACREST SCHOOL REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "4" OF THE ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A SCHOOL ADDITION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7100 DAVIS
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
We are on Item 13(A)(2), Petition CU 97-10, one of our swearing
in items.
Would all members of the public, petitioner and staff here on
Item CU 97-10, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you swear them in?
(The court reporter placed the witnesses under oath.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, presenting
Petition CU-97-10; Robert Duane representing Seacrest School. They're
requesting conditional use "4" of the estates zoning district to allow
for an addition to an existing school facility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any letters of objection on this one?
MR. BELLOWS: No letters or objections.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any changes, stipulations, concerns that you
feel has not been answered throughout the process? MR. BELLOWS: None.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A really good school. I thought I'd put
that in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it setting you back anything or --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, not yet but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of staff on
this item?
Mr. Duane, do you have a lengthy presentation you'd like to
embark upon?
MR. DUANE: No. I'm ready to conclude it right now. Thank you,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Who says you don't want to be on a long agenda?
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 97-285 RE PETITION V-97-3, CHARLES HOLLAND REQUESTING A 16.4
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 13.6 FEET FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2721 VAN BUREN AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS
38-40, CRAIGS SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
13(A)(3), Petition V, 97-3. Variances we do not need to swear
in, is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You do.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, we do. Okay. I'm still getting that
down. I should have it down in about six months.
Everyone here on Item V-97-3, please stand and raise your right
hand.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That would be the staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam Court Reporter.
(The court reporter placed the witnesses under oath.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a variance -- a variance, a lot
of petitioners.
Sir, are you a petitioner on V-97-37
Okay. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear this
gentleman in?
(The court reporter placed the witness under oath.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Bellows, let's go again.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm Ray Bellows, Planning Services.
Charles Holland is requesting a 16.4 foot variance from the
required 30-foot rear yard setback to 13.6 feet for property located
at 2721 Van Buren Avenue.
The applicant is proposing a 585-foot addition and screened
breezeway to a detached garage and dwelling. The existing detached
garage was built in 1978 with Building Permit 1593. That had a rear
setback of ten feet which was permitted at the time.
It should be noted that a portion of this detached garage was
converted into a residential dwelling unit without a building permit
by the previous property owner. The current property owner now wishes
to correct the -- the situation by improving the nonconforming of the
dwelling by adding additions to make the dwelling meet the minimum
floor area requirement. The proposed addition will not increase the
current encroachment.
Staff has not received any letters for or against. The Planning
Commission reviewed this petition on July 5th and they recommended
approval by a six to zero vote. No letters for it have been received.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, could you refresh
me a little bit? We went through a discussion about guest houses in
the estates a couple of years back. Can you refresh me on what we
decided to do back in those days?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the -- I remember the
discussion specifically had to do with two things. One was homes that
were -- what spurred the conversation was homes were being built and
permitted as a single family home but given multiple facilities and
being used as dual residences.
I think on the guest houses though, we had opted -- tried to opt
away from that or tried to limit that as much as we could.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In order to avoid this being used as a guest
house, it would appear that one driveway and concrete slab would have
to be eliminated because right now there are two entrances from the
street and it's a little concerning to me to add or make an addition
to, first of all what -- I understand it was a previous owner but --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I'd just like to point out in Zone RMF-6
which --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And this is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And, frankly, I hate to
penalize this guy because he's coming forward and trying to do it
right.
MR. BELLOWS: And yet he does have the minimum lot area required
for a duplex.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, basically, what -- this is -- this is
a little different from the estates question because -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if the density is -- is less than
what's permitted, we're improving an existing condition and I hope
aesthetically. It's hard to tell from these black lines but I hope
doing something aesthetically positive for the area. You won't be
surprised to know that Bay Shore is also seeking some redevelopment
activity, and so we want to do what we can to encourage that.
So, is there -- is there anything you can tell us about whether
or not this property will look better or worse?
MR. BELLOWS: Based on the conversations with the applicant and
the elevation drawings, the -- and the site visits to the site, the
addition will create a more unified look to the complex, improve the
type of residents living in the unit because it will be more of a
duplex instead of an outparcel guest house type of feel. It will
improve the overall appearance and it also increases the minimum size
of that garage dwelling to be in conformance with the minimum floor
area requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looked like a positive --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to me.
MR. BELLOWS: That's why staff had recommended approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of staff?
Does the petitioner wish to add anything to the record?
MR. HOLLAND: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The petitioner has indicated no. I'll close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second for approval. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Thank you for your patience today, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for doing the right thing, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 13(A)(4) was continued. Darn. I wanted
to see that one today.
Item #14A
BUDGET DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 3e COLA TO BE GRANTED ON OCTOBER 1,
1997 IF POSSIBLE
We are to BCC communications.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I've reviewed the transcript relating
to the budget discussion we had concerning the three percent COLA's
and it was indeed proposed as a deferral which would mean that we
should, to be consistent with what we -- the action that we took the
prior year, we should go ahead and grant the new COLA on October 1st.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without requiring Mr. Fernandez to find
another $170,000 worth of cuts otherwise in the budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know about that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's -- it falls back into the
priority list. Let's take a look at what Mr. Fernandez comes up with.
I would like some assistance in accomplishing that, just, you know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to come up with some
ideas for you, but I just -- I think if we -- we as a board had said
we want to try to go ahead at his suggestion and give the raise, and
I'm glad you -- you pulled that out of there, but I don't think that
suddenly means we should hit the taxpayer up for a hundred -- an extra
170 if we don't have to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think what we can look at is -- is as Mr.
Fernandez looks at the least painful ways to do that, if we agree with
those, we'll go with those. If not, we'll find other ways to do it
and I've got my list also.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That looks familiar.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Has it anything to do with the airport,
your list?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I really don't want to talk about it at this
point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. 95
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's start with A and go down.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talk to you about it in four weeks,
right?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. We'll see you after vacation.
Anything further, Commissioner Norris?
Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those of you that will be at the HPO
meeting Friday, I will not be. I know Commissioner Hancock will not
be. I need to just --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I will not be.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I will be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there is an HPO meeting Friday,
reminder --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got your letter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In order to meet the transportation
disadvantaged state deadline, we need to have that by August 8th, the
next month, and I think everybody was aware of that and I just wanted
to make sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I also want to make sure if you're unable to
make an MPO, make sure you contact Councilman Van Arsdale, who's the
chairman and copy the MPO office on it, just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we know if --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to cover enough bases.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we have a quorum.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe I sent a memo around earlier that
I would not be here on Friday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know they know it's close because they
told me I'm needed for the quorum, so I'll be there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even though I'm going to be on vacation, my
brand new huge dog with a bad attitude will be staying home while I'm
gone, so I just thought I would --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who put the bars up last night?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- mention. The bars, the security system and
the dog were all purchased last week based on Sheriff Hunter's advice,
so -- so that was taken care of.
Mr. Weigel --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you know, the dog only costs
about thirty cents a month for the life of the dog, so --
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: And that's Alpo.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's Alpo. Alpo will charge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, anything to add to this festivity?
MR. WEIGEL: Not at all. I'm happy to be here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Remind the commissioners to be sure to file
your disclosures before you leave the area by July 1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Assuming --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Financial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Assuming --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For everybody to read about it in the
paper.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Assuming you have any.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, best wishes for everyone for
a vacation and, Miss Filson, are we done? MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By gosh, we're done.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine and carried 4/0, (Commisisoner Hancock out), that the
following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted
with changes ******
Item #16A1
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE R.V. RESORT, UNIT TWO" -
WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AS SECURITY AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT EAGLE CREEK
REPLAT" (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #12C1) - WITH STIPULATION
Item #16A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PARK -
WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AS SECURITY AND
STIPULATION
Item #16A4
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE LADY"
Item #16B1
APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF THE HELl PROPERTY, IN THE TOTAL APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $230,329.00, IN ORDER TO MEET THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #1682
APPROVAL OF HID-YEAR ADJUSTHENTS TO WATER HANAGEHENT CIP BUDGET (FUND
325)
Item #1683
RESOLUTION 97-277 RE THE POSTING OF SIGNS PROHIBITING OPERATION OF
TRUCKS AND OTHER COHMERCIAL VEHICLES HAVING A RATED LOAD-CARRYING
CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF ONE TON FROM THROUGH MOVEMENTS ON PELICAN RIDGE
BOULEVARD
Item #1684
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 (FINAL) TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2628, MARCO
ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,190.00
Item #1685
AWARD CONTRACT TO HITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION COHPANY, INC., FOR BID
NO. 97-2674, TO CONSTRUCT THE RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE II
- IN THE A_MOUNT OF $1,132,915.51
Item #1686
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER WITH SALTSMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR S.R. 29 CANAL CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS, BID NO. 95-2320 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $25,265.62
Item #1687
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER #HHA-FT97-1, WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE COUNTY
RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM BACK-PRESSURE SUSTAINING VALVES - IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $23,000.00
Item #1688
AWARD BID NO. 97-2655 TO KARLE ENVIRO-ORGANIC RECYCLING FOR LIQUID
SLUDGE DISPOSAL FROM THE PELICAN BAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND
TO J & J BAKER ENTERPRISES FOR THE CAKE RESIDUAL DISPOSAL FROM THE
NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Item #1689
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER WHB&P FT 97-7, WITH WILSON, HILLER, BARTON AND
PEEK, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE RELOCATION OF WATER
AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES IN U.S. 41 THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FDOT
PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURES BETWEEN IHMOKALEE ROAD AND OLD U.S. 41 -
IN THE THE TOTAL A_MOUNT OF $24,000.00
Item #16B10
DIRECTION TO STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH R&L INDUSTRIES FOR
PLASTIC FARM MULCH RECYCLING AT THE IHMOKALEE LANDFILL
Item #16Bll
APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT AT THE
JUNCTION IHMOKALEE ROAD (RFP NO. 97-2636) - IN THE MAXIMUM A_MOUNT OF
$224,423.00
Item #16B12
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH BETTER ROADS, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $215,683.00, FOR PATHWAY WORK AND A CONTRACT WITH SHALLWOOD
LANDSCAPING, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000.00, FOR PARTIAL
IRRIGATION WORK FOR THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG VANDERBILT DRIVE
BETWEEN VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND lllTH AVENUE
Item #16C1
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FROM COLLIER COUNTY GROWERS, IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$12,000.00, TO BE USED TO PAY THE SALARY OF THE COHMERCIAL VEGETABLE
AGENT
Item #16C2
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER SC#28, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $199,443.00, WITH SURETY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENABLE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SKATEBOARD FACILITY AT THE EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY
PARK
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF TELECOHMUNICATION SERVICES AND
FACILITIES BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPRINT-FLORIDA, INC. AND APPROVAL
OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF SAME
Item #16D2
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF JUNE 7,
1997
Item #16D3
APPROVAL FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF COLLIER
COUNTY'S RADIO ~GvL~TEUR CIVIL EMERGENCY SERVICE (RACES) ~GvL~TEUR RADIO
LICENSE
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-278 AND 97-296
Item #16E2
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S RECESS
Item #16E3
APPROVAL OF MINOR LINE ITEM REVISIONS TO THE AMENDED 1997 AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES AREA ACCOHMODATION ASSOCIATION,
INC. FOR CATEGORY B, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
APPROVAL OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND PAYMENT, IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$13,500.00, IN THE LAWSUIT OF HARRY FINNIGAN, ET AL VS. COLLIER COUNTY
AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS
Item #1612
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTINUING RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES ON AN
"AS-NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A., TO
MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT UPDATE REQUIREMENTS
Item #1613
BUDGET AMENDHENT TO COVER THE COSTS OF UPDATES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THROUGH THE END
OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD - IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,500.00
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY: Debra Peterson
Rose H. Witt
Angela Poteet