BCC Minutes 08/26/1997 R TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, August 26, 1997
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. We welcome everybody back. We
call to order the August 26, 1997 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have Reverend Les
Rengstorff with the Sunrise Christian Church here with us for an
invocation. Reverend Rengstorff, after the invocation, will be
followed by the pledge of allegiance.
REVEREND RENGSTORFF: Let us pray.
Loving God of heaven, we come to you with thanks for the many
blessings that you bestow upon this land, and we just thank you and
praise you for all of them. Father, we pray that you will make us
your people to be aware that these good things we enjoy have come from
you, but that you did only lend them to us. Impress upon our smugness
that knowledge that we are not owners but that we are stewards.
Remind us, so that we do not become filled with conceit, that one day
a reckoning will be required of us. Sanctify our love of country and
community, that our boasting may be turned into humility and our pride
into a ministry to men everywhere. Father, forgive us that we talk too
much and think too little. Forgive us that we worry so often and pray
so seldom. Most of all, 'O Lord, forgive us that so helpless we are
without you, that we are so unwilling to seek your help. Give us
grace to seek you with our whole heart, and finding you, may we do
your will. Help us to make this God's own country by living like
God's own people. We ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ,
our Lord, Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Rengstorff, thank you for taking the
time this morning to be with us. We certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Fernandez, good morning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have in the way of changes this
morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have a number of changes this morning, Mr.
Chairman. The first is to add item 8(C)(1). This is the
authorization to apply for a grant in conjunction with the Collier
County Public Health Department, Naples Community Hospital, Collier
Health Services, Incorporated, and the Marion E. Fether Medical Center
to provide better coordinated indigent health care. The next is add item 9(B).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hearing add and no continues, that's not good
news today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll get there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, we have one continue. Nine(B) is the
Memorandum of Understanding, Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under county
attorney.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask a question? Who added that,
and are we going to get any backup? When might we --
MR. WEIGEL: I added it under county attorney for discussion
purposes. There may be some backup, but it's really a report to the
board as to where we are right now in --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to see a copy of -- MR. WEIGEL: -- the next meetings.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- where we are right now.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That also was consistent with our last meeting
before recess also. Everyone was told that would be back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I just want to see some backup.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is add item 10(I), Tourist Development Tax
Discussion. Mr. Hancock requested.
The next is add item 10(J), which is the Waiver of Permit Fee,
Wishing Well Foundation, Commissioner Berry.
We have a request for a continuance on item 12(B)(3). And --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those that may be in the audience,
12(B)(3) is Petition PUD-82-33(1). This is the request for a fezone
in Wiggins Bay to a seven-story residential building. I know there
may be people in the audience here to speak on that. So I wanted to
just clarify that that's the item we're discussing. That has been
continued.
Is that a time definite continuance?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe the request was for four weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four weeks. Okay, so four weeks from today,
that item will be back on our agenda.
Anything else, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, four weeks.
The next is -- we had a request to delete items 12(C)(3), (4),
(5) and (6). Those all relate to a petition from Caroline Spounias
requesting name changes for a number of streets.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll correct that. That's actually a
continuation as opposed to a complete deletion. I don't have a
definite date on that, but we'll see with the advertising requirements
what it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume there's just a lot of controversy
surrounding it that hasn't been resolved, or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More controversy this morning,
surprisingly enough, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one more item, item 8(B)(5). Mr. Weigel
has requested that we ensure that that item is heard after 10:00, due
to the availability of a speaker on that subject.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the time certain is to be after 10:00 a.m.
on 8(B)(5).
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. In fact, if I may add, Mr. Chairman
and the Board, after 10:00, preferably before noontime, Mr. Giblin
(phonetic) is coming in from Tampa this morning to address the board
on the Naples Park Stormwater Project.
And in regard to the continuance of those items, 12 -- four items
12(C), several items, (3), (4), (5) and (6), it would be incumbent
upon the Board to continue to a date certain during the course of
today's meeting. It's not necessary to do it at this point right now,
but so that the record will reflect from today's advertised meeting
date a definite continued date within five weeks --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, for now let's say five weeks,
and then if we can change that in the meantime, we will. But let's say
five weeks so we meet the advertising --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, that's just fine, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I think five weeks puts us September
30th, which is the fifth Tuesday. You'd better check that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quick with the calendar there, aren't you?
There's a question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five weeks or five meetings is the
legal --
MR. WEIGEL: It's five weeks.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we'll say the 23rd and then
again, if we have the opportunity to change it in the meantime, we
will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, so it will be four weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have been reminded, I do have one more that I
overlooked --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and that is item 16(B)(7) on consent. That
there was a request to remove that from the agenda to give us a little
more time for review.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Okay, further changes, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, just I thought that was a great
idea you had about posting the changes, you know, so if people come in
late, they know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think that came from a resident.
We just decided to do it. So --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we're following up on a --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully these in addition could, you
know, be posted. Thanks. Nothing else. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just let the record reflect I'm abstaining
on 16(A)(2).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I also have no changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we amend
and approve the agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing
none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JULY 22, 29, AND AUGUST 5, 1997 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the minutes of July 22nd regular meeting, July 29th regular
meeting, and August 5th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
(No response.) Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION ENCOURAGING CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF
THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five(A), proclamations. Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. If we could have Susan Pareigis with
the Economic Development Council, she's the executive director, please
come forward.
MS. PAREIGIS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good morning.
Susan, I'd like to read the proclamation, and when we finish, if
you have a few words that you would like to say in regard to this
proclamation, then we'd like to have you do that.
You want to come up here in front and you can face the camera.
Susan is here on behalf of Everglades City Mayor Sammy Hamilton
this morning. The proclamation reads:
"Whereas, the Everglades National Park was authorized on May
10th, 1934 by the United States Congress and was established on
December 6th, 1947; and,
Whereas, on December 6th, 1947, President Harry S. Truman
formally dedicated Everglades National Park in a ceremony held at
Everglades City; and,
Whereas, the dedication of the Everglades National Park in 1947
culminated more than two decades of efforts dedicated to making a
national park in the Florida Everglades a reality; and,
Whereas, Everglades National Park is also recognized as
significant to the world community; and,
Whereas, the Everglades National Park has been set aside as a
public park for the benefit of the American people; and,
Whereas, the intermingling of plant and animal species from both
the tropical and temperate zones, plus the merging of fresh and
saltwater habitats, provide the vast biological diversity that makes
the Everglades National Park so unique; and,
Whereas, a celebration of the rededication of the Everglades
National Park will be scheduled, as it was in 1947, in Everglades City
signifying the 50th Anniversary of the Everglades National Park.
Now, therefore, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, encourages all citizens to participate in the
celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Everglades National Park.
Done and Ordered this 26th day of August, 1997." Signed by
Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman.
I would like to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I~ll second that.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Carries five zero.
Tell Sammy he can send an envoy anytime.
MS. PAREIGIS: Anytime.
Mayor Hamilton thanks you, the Everglades City Council thanks you
very much. WeTre very eager to celebrate December 6th of this year in
recognition of the Everglades National Park, and I would like to save
the balance of my time if I could for Chuck Mohlke. He serves on a
committee with me for this celebration. Thank you again.
MR. MOHLKE: If it please this honorable Board, we have prepared
for your information, and Administrator Fernandez has copies that he
could, as he sees fit, distribute for your information, a strategic
plan for the celebration to be held this December 6th, 1997.
You as a Board will be hearing about this periodically, and we
thought it entirely appropriate that you have in your possession those
basic materials that will keep you timely informed about the plans for
the ceremony that will be held at the park that Saturday, December
6th.
We very much appreciate your favorable consideration of this
resolution and look forward to working with the Board and
Administrator Fernandez and others in fulfilling what we hope will be
an extraordinary celebration of the century of this remarkable park
facility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Mohlke.
Mr. Mohlke also made a brief presentation to the Tourist
Development Council, and there may be a potential role there also, and
wewll work with you in whatever way we can to honor the celebration.
Thank you.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are up to service awards. It's always a
pleasure. And I do it a little backwards, starting with our five-year
young 'uns and working up to the veterans.
This morning I would like to recognize Mr. Karl Boyer from OCPH
for five years' service. Karl?
Also with five years' service is Bonnie Buchholz in the library.
Also in the library -- we had a good hiring month that year --
Fran Hays for five years' service.
Also with five years' service, Donald Holt, from Water.
And also with five years' service for EHS, Alan Pitts. Alan is
obviously in the back of an EHS truck right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even as we speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even as we speak.
Recognized this morning with ten years' service, Milton
Killibrew, from Road and Bridge.
I love the name tag, Killer. Does that scare any of the residents
when they see that? It says Killer on his --
And with utilities, David Steit, ten years' service with the
Department of Revenue.
And especially this morning, someone I think everyone has had
some involvement with, and all on the positive side, for 25 years'
service in DOR, Pat Cookson.
To everyone, thank you. Service awards are always an enjoyable
thing to do to recognize county service.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 97-328, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF
DRAINAGE INTERESTS BY EASEMENT AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO INCREASE AND
PROTECT THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM CAPACITY OF THE WATERSHED AREA WITHIN THE
WIGGINS BAY BASIN DRAINAGE AREA - ADOPTED; REGIONAL STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR WIGGINS BAY BASIN - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item on our agenda, we're moving
lightning quick all the way to item 8(B), Public Works. Request
approval of regional stormwater management study for Wiggins Bay
Basin. Good morning, Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. My name is John Boldt, stormwater
management director. I'm here this morning to discuss with you the
Wiggins Bay Basin area. This is a 2,300 acre area out in the
northwest part of the county. That includes even portions of Lee
County, Spanish Wells area, drains down through Sterling Oaks to Old
41 and ends up down in the area of concern for us. We've had
complaints up there for a number of years, but it kind of came to a
head in 1995, during our big rain event. At that time water was
backed all the way up from the system from Wiggins Pass Road all the
way up through the Tarpon Cove area, the Retreat, Bentley Village, all
the way up the Audubon. We checked it all out. All the lakes in the
whole system were all staged up and weren't bleeding down like they
normally would.
I walked the whole area and I started out down in this portion
just north of Wiggins Pass Road in about calf deep water and ended up
in ankle deep water. So there's a sheet flow area, whole area there.
The water elevation down just north of the road was about
elevation eight. It works its way down south of the road through some
wetlands and down the end of West Lane to tidal area. So we had eight
foot north of the road and we had tidal south of there, what's eight
foot of difference in elevation, which in Collier County is a lot of
fall. But water was not moving.
And so we determined we have a pretty severe problem with
congestion south of there. And this whole effort is to get control of
that through the study, and gear action so we can prevent that
happening in the future.
With your approval we did hire Agnoli, Barber and Brundage to
provide a stormwater study. I had provided that to you under separate
cover earlier, if you had a chance to look at it, and it analyzed the
hydrology and hydraulics of the system and determined that the
limiting capacity of the system is -- Wiggins Pass Road, there's a
series of culverts there that can only handle certain flow, and by
determining what that was on a per acre basis, it worked out to be .13
CF per acre. So one of our recommendations is that we're going to
suggest to you that any future development in this area be limited to
that discharge rate by ordinance, and we'll get into that in a minute.
Also, they evaluated the natural flow-way south of Wiggins Pass
Road, and there is an established natural system that winds its way
down north of the Wiggins Lake condos, passes down through some
property at the end of West Lane, and it goes through the future
citizens property, also through a natural channel. And they rated the
capacity of that channel and then determined how much additional flow
was needed in the area to be able to handle the total storm flow.
And that leads up to the recommendations that we do need to
construct a swale system on the south side of Wiggins Pass Road to
pick up all that water, and then to run it south along the east side
of the Diocese of Venice property and then along the western side of
the Future Citizens property.
The cost estimate to do all this, including all the contingencies
and engineering, et cetera, is estimated, including both phases, to be
$274,000. That's to do the work south of Wiggins Pass and also
ultimately in the future to make improvements up through the system to
deliver the water properly down there.
You will recall back in 1996, Westinghouse Communities, WCI, came
in on the Tarpon Cove project, which is at the intersection of 41 and
Wiggins Pass. It's the large projects under construction at that
point. And because of its potential impact on the overall system,
they were requested to make a fair share contribution to the possible
improvements to the flow south of Wiggins Pass. And that was done
through an agreement that they approved back in 1996 that called for
two things: Basically just the purchase of the property done at the
western side, the south end of West Lane. That's where the water at
this point is all accumulating and pinching down to a flow area for
some sheet flow of only about 12 to 15-foot wide. So we've got this
2,300 acres draining down through there, and it was being necked down
just to -- you know, like from me to you; area across there, just a
natural flow. And there was some property there that had the
potential to be developed. Somebody already started to fill it. And
that just made the situation worse.
So with Westinghouse's -- WCI's approval and cooperation, they've
purchased half of that property and have given us the warranty deed
for lot eight and north 30 foot of lot nine. And they were
unsuccessful in negotiating with the other property owner for the
southern portion of that. But in accordance with the agreement, they
did give us a check for $30,000 that the county can use then to
purchase that piece of property.
To this point we've also been unsuccessful in negotiating with
that particular property owner, but we hope to correct that in the
future.
So our recommendations are this: First of all, we'd like to ask
that you move for approval and adoption of this reasonable stormwater
master study as prepared by Agnoli, Barber and Brundage; we'd like to
have you direct us to prepare an amendment to Ordinance 90-10, which
is our basic water management ordinance contained within the Land
Development Code, to limit discharge rates in this area to this .13
CFs per acre. And by the way, I'm going to be making a similar
presentation to you someday on the Harvey Basin, which is four square
miles out in the -- near 951 and 846, and I'll have a similar
recommendation for a limitation on discharge rates there that we
probably should work together on one amendment.
I'd also like to have you recognize that WCI has fulfilled their
commitments on this Tarpon Cove project by purchasing that one portion
of the property by the deed and giving us the thirty thousand dollar
check.
And then I'd like to have you approve this day this resolution,
authorize your chairman to sign the attached resolution which gives
staff the authority to move ahead with the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interest in getting these non-exclusive
drainage and flow easements that we need for the total system.
And finally, to make this all work, we need to have your approval
for a work order with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage for the engineering
services we're going to need for both phases one and two, not to
exceed $37,000, with the authority for budget amendments and purchase
orders in the future. And that's my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, part of this acreage is in Lee
County, the Spanish Wells development?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is Lee County participating financially, or
have they been requested to participate financially on a pro rata
acreage basis?
MR. BOLDT: No, sir, we have not made that approach.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I know the answer, but I think we
ought to at least ask. MR. BOLDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that because it creates the
problems that really in our neck of the woods we would be the first to
initiate the issue, but last time I checked, water knows no political
boundary.
MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So maybe Lee County can help us participate.
So I think we should at least make that request.
MR. BOLDT: Okay, we'll initiate that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Subject to that inquiry, I'd like to move
support of staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there
a second?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have anyone registered on this, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, thank you very much.
Item #882
DIRECTION RE PLACEHENT OF DIRECTIONAL AND OTHER INFORMATIONAL SIGNS
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF TO BRING BACK
RECOHMENDATIONS RE UNIFORMITY
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(B)(2), request the board provide
direction to staff regarding the placement of directional and other
informational signs within public rights-of-way. Good morning, Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners. This is an item that is
pretty straightforward. We tried to give you some background in the
executive summary.
We get a number of requests from organizations requesting
directional signs, requesting signs that would aid people in noticing
where they are or in leading to them. Organizations such as
developments, churches, clubs, other types of private organizations.
We also have a number of occasions on which we put directional
signs for public facilities. We also get requests from some other
quasi governmental agency, such as a water management district, for
signs for directional purposes.
We've given you some examples at the back of the executive
summary of the types of signs that we believe would be conforming to
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. We've also given you
some examples of the types of signs which we do not believe conform.
And we're asking for the Board to consider -- to direct the staff
to consider requests for private nonconforming signs on a case-by-case
basis, that any such nonconforming signs to be placed within the
public right-of-way be subject to a right-of-way permit, along with
any special conditions appurtenant thereto; that the staff also be
assigned to review any existing signs not consistent with the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices subject to our resource
limitations. And if we find that they are a hazard, to give us the
ability to remove those signs.
One of the major problems we have is that, as you're probably
aware, we get a proliferation, occasionally cries of sign pollution.
And one of our problems is we don't want the signs that have to be out
there to be intermingled with the signs that are maybe nice to be out
there or maybe are not really needed. So this is a policy issue that
we would like to get the Board's ratifications and direction on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could this request be interpreted as
making the current sign ordinance for what's allowable in the road
right-of-way more liberal?
MR. KANT: No, sir, I don't believe so. Right now the sign
ordinance is a part of the Land Development Code. The work within the
right-of-way ordinance governs what we permit or don't permit within
the right-of-way. Typically we try not to permit anything within the
right-of-way. Typically we try not to permit anything within a
right-of-way that's not subject to a permit or does not meet the
manual, but there's a lot of stuff out there that we haven't got a
handle on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, you're just trying to clarify,
you're not trying to make it easier, you're not trying to -- MR. KANT: That's correct, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just seems like a good idea, common
sense idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, then Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant, who's going to make the decisions
on this? Is this going to be a purely administrative decision?
MR. KANT: At present, the way it's presented, it would be an
administrative decision. Frankly, I'm prepared if necessary to bring
every one of these back to the Board, but I'm not really sure the
Board wants to be involved in a lot of those decisions. But we'll go
with what you think is appropriate.
We believe that we can make the administrative decision based on
the regulations both in ordinance and guideline, and obviously,
anybody that feels aggrieved or feels that we're not being fair or
impartial has the right to come back to the Board and plead their
case. It's pre -- as I say, we believe it's a pretty straightforward
process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is a question I've had for some time.
But looking at the signs that you have put in our books here, is there
any way that other than the road directional signs, things that are
necessary for transportation, that there can be a conformity that we
can state that all signs -- if it's going to be a church sign or if
it's going to be -- you've got one in here for a country club,
whatever -- if those signs can be uniform and different? I mean, you
go to other communities and you see this, and frankly, I think it
looks a lot better than this group of signs that you have pictured
here. I mean, not your signs, but the signs that are pictured here.
To me, this is what in my opinion contributes to pollution, sign
pollution. I think it looks much better, other than your road
directional signs, which almost are a kind of uniformity in
themselves, though they're -- you know, depending on the information
you have to place on them. But to me it would be much better if any
kind of a sign other than a directional sign was in a uniform size and
had a definite appearance that it was something other than a
directional sign.
MR. KANT: Yeah, I would submit that during any kind of review,
again, if it's the Board's direction that we go along that road, that
we would try to make that conform as close as possible to what's in
the Land Development Code or what's in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. We didn't go out and try to pick the worst ones. I
just -- I asked somebody on my staff, just get me a dozen pictures
typically, and that's what we came up with.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not insinuating that. I'm just looking
at it from a community perspective that I think our roadways would
look a little better if we had some kind of uniformity in terms of
these other signs other than the road directional signs.
MR. KANT: That's what we would strive for, and --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And do we need to change -- Mr. Chairman, do
we need to change the Land Development Code in order for that to
happen?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're all one step past me. I'm wondering
why we should be allowing the signs in the right-of-way in the first
place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm with that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I agree, but I also know -- you know,
I'm just looking at when you travel, you go to other communities -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we're going to do it, it needs to be
uniform --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- wood posts instead of metal.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, let's do things that are consistent
again with quote, unquote community standards.
My concern is -- and I'm not picking on the Glades -- but the
public isn't really served by the Glades Country Club sign, the
members of the country club are. You know, I'm just wondering, if we
can't differentiate between whether a directional sign is needed or
not, we're going to receive a proliferation of signs. Right now the
reason we don't have more of them out there is because I believe
they're not permitted. Is that correct?
MR. KANT: That's correct. If I may be permitted, it's what's
called the fast bureaucratic no as opposed to the slow yes.
It's easier, frankly, if it's not in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices at this point. However, because of the volume
of requests, and because of some of the types of requests, which do
come from, as I say, some quasi public agencies, we felt that it was
imperative to bring it before the Board and make sure that we're going
in accordance with the Board's direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I follow up with that in that we all want
to sit up here, and we see the church signs, and no one wants to say
no to a church, but that means that a real estate development, if we
say you can put signs in the right-of-way, they'll come in and get a
permit for union signs that say buy now, turn left or you're going to
miss the opportunity of a lifetime. And that's sitting in the
right-of-way.
MR. KANT: That's what prompted this request, that type of a
request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When I go to other communities, I see all the
signs littering corners, and we don't have that problem right now.
And I don't know that I want to open the door -- and even though they
may be a uniform style of doing that, open the door to that problem.
Maybe there's a difference in not for profit versus for profit.
I don't -- you know, maybe that's the way to go about it. Because
there are things such as hospice and so forth that you certainly want
people to find, and they're in locations that aren't on major
roadways.
MR. KANT: If I may also, I did receive a call from the executive
vice president of the Collier Building Industry Association, who
wanted -- who had read this and wanted to be reassured that we were
not trying to limit political signs or like their signs for Parade of
Homes. And it was important to remind him that their Parade of Home
signs and those type of things are done under permit, and they're
temporary and we make sure they're removed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. And those temporary permits would
continue.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Funny he should mention political signs,
because that certainly is one that I would like to see this Board
address before the next election.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's two votes for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again? Do we have to do it every two years?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm sorry, but I'll tell you, I think
this last one, which I certainly happened to participate in, I think
it got out of hand, because there's so much up for interpretation on
signage. But that's another matter. We're going to stick to the
topic, Mr. Chairman, but -- and here again, if we don't have to -- I
was under the impression that we had to allow these signs. If we
don't have to, then I think maybe we ought to look at it from that
consideration. But if we have to, then I want to go for uniformity.
MR. KANT: Typically the only thing that we allow or put in as a
public body ourselves are signs which conform to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices or are otherwise required by law or ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask, if you're getting sufficient
direction it sounds like from at least the majority of the Board, and
I bet from everybody, that what we'd like you to do is make some
recommendations to us about what's the least -- reasonably the least
amount of signage we can allow, and then have uniform standards for
those with some acknowledgement for public purpose signs that have to
do with not-for-profit agencies like hospice and churches. But other
than that and street directional signs, give us some recommendations
on how we can limit them and to the extent we have to have signage,
some uniformity.
MR. KANT: We could do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a reason -- I mean, that's kind of
where I'm going. I'd prefer not to have them at all, but I think
that's unreasonable. I think there are some good and positive uses, I
just don't want to open up the box and end up with a sign on every
corner in this town.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then perhaps the reasonable thing to do is
to make sure they pass the Public Service Test -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- public purpose, and that would -- in all
likelihood is going to limit us to nonprofit organizations, that sort
of thing. I can go along with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we do have an issue. I think
there are some signs out there that have been there for 10 or 15
years. We may have to also include in that, that those are quote,
unquote grandfathered but may not be replaced. There's some that came
in before we said you can't do it that are still there. There was a
time when we changed that. You used to be able to do this, and then
at a given year, if I read your staff summary correctly, we said you
cannot. And those that were already in place were left. MR. KANT: That's correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to define that year. And those that
were there prior are allowed to continue.
MR. KANT: I don't believe that was by ordinance or resolution, I
believe that was simply by direction and -- as I say. So I'm not sure
I can hammer it right down to the year, but it's been within the last
five or six years that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I'm not sure how to deal with that, but
there are going to be some issues surrounding that, I'm sure we're
going to hear from maybe, you know, country clubs or others that have
had more than a little metal sign in the right-of-way.
MR. KANT: If I may, just to recap then, we will return to you
within the next few weeks, hopefully, with some recommendations for
some uniformity and for the types of organizations that would qualify
under that uniform code, and also with a recommendation as to how to
handle the so-called grandfathering of existing signs, and also public
purpose organizations or signs. We can do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that sound consistent with Board
direction?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, thank you --
MR. KANT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Mr. Kant.
Item #883
AGREEHENT WITH R & 1 INDUSTRIES FOR THE RECYCLING OF AGRICULTURAL
PLASTIC MULCH AT THE IHMOKALEE LANDFILL - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item, item 8(B)(2), request -- I'm sorry,
that's the one we just did. Item 8(B)(3) is recommendation that the
Board approve an agreement with R&L Industries for recycling and ag.
plastic mulch that we've heard so much about, Mr. Russell. MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything you feel the need to get on
the record, Mr. Russell?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes. Item number six in the main components of the
agreement is -- it's an incentive that goes beyond the scope of the
RFP that basically says if you have -- to the contractor, if you have
completed removing these 55,000 tons of plastic, have some time
remaining in your contract, that you could continue to recycle
additional plastic coming in for the remainder of the contract period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And what's the contract period?
MR. RUSSELL: Three hundred and sixty-five days.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He neither.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a motion. I believe a second on
the floor; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll call the question. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Russell, thank you. It's
going to be nice to see that problem taken care of.
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, I'm looking forward to it myself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure you are.
Item #8B4
EXTENSION OF THE IHHOKALEE DISPOSAL COMPANY WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AREA NUMBER TWO - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(B)(4), recommendation the BCC consider
an extension of the Immokalee Disposal Company Waste Collection
Franchise Agreement for Service Area Number Two. Again, Mr. Russell.
Anything unusual on this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like it's the same thing we did for
Waste Management we're going to do for the contractor there, and based
on staff report, motion to approve.
MR. RUSSELL: It basically keeps the contract periods the same.
The fundamental difference is the fact that a standard container
system for that franchise, due to the generation rate, wouldn't work.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not practical.
MR. RUSSELL: And it seemed to be the best thing to keep the
collection service type as it is now.
Additionally, their commercial rates, after the -- are still
cheaper than Waste Hanagement's after that 25 cents per cubic yard
reduction. That gets them just about the same within a couple of
percentage points, so I propose to leave their commercial rates as
they are.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, continue as is on service area number
two then.
MR. RUSSELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Did I hear a motion from Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #885
RESOLUTION 97-329, TO AMEND AND SUPPLEHENT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, AND TO AWARD THE BONDS TO BARNETT BANK, N.A., NAPLES - ADOPTED
Item 8(B)(5), adoption of resolution to amend and supplement the
resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds will be at 10:00 a.m., so
I'm going to wait for about 15 minutes on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're just too darned fast.
MR. WEIGEL: Our people are here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're here?
MR. WEIGEL: They may be breathless, but they're here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have all the players here on this item?
I see county suits.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have everybody, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe we do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In that case, let's go ahead and do the
adoption of resolution to amend and supplement the resolution
authorizing the issuance of bonds for Naples Park Area Stormwater
Improvement Project.
Good morning, Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Edward Finn, operations
director.
That is in fact what we are seeking today.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
This was the project that came in -- what was it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll say it again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- under bid and on time; something like that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Early and under bid.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Early and under bid. I just wanted to make
sure I got that in there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I knew you did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I've got to give Mr. Boldt and OCPH,
both of your departments, tremendous credit. Excellent work on this
project.
Is this the last time we're ever going to see anything on this?
MR. FINN: You will adopt the annual assessment on that every
year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, darn it. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, as we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: As we conclude this item, I note that -- and thanks
for the expeditious review. I have here and will be providing for the
reporter a copy of the resolution that you will be approving, are
approving here with this item, and the original will be provided you
for signature posthaste. There is a request by all of us appearing
before you with this item that we could meet with you a few minutes at
noontime to sign off on closing documents, with you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think from that standpoint --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It had been requested earlier to take a quick
recess and me go ahead and sign those documents -- MR. WEIGEL: That would work fine too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to get these folks on their way so they
don't have to sit around waiting further.
If it's okay with the Board, I'd like to take five minutes so I
can get the documents signed and we can get them out of here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I'd just like to thank these
gentlemen for coming down here for this brilliant presentation, and
have a good trip back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Wait a
second. Excuse me, folks. We have one order of business to take care
of. A motion and second were made, but the question was not called.
My fault. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carried, four-zero. Thank you.
Recess.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #886
REVIEW OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN, RESULTS
OF THE WATER-SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY, AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE UTILITY
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCES - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting. Folks, if I could have your attention,
please. That means individual conversations need to move outside in
the hallway. We're trying to conduct a meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go -- we're to item -- we just heard
item 8(B)(5). We're on 8(B)(6), review of Collier County Water-Sewer
District Financial Plan. Mr. Finn, good morning again.
MR. FINN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Edward Finn, public works
operations director.
I've handed out a brief presentation outline for the Board and
for the manager. There are some outside on the table. We also have
an overhead here or a flip chart for the public and the camera.
This morning we have a brief presentation -- and I do hope it's
going to be brief -- covering the financial plan for the water-sewer
district, covering streamlining of utility administrative ordinances,
and a discussion of the utility rate study. The rate consultant, Mr.
John Mayer, is here. He's going to present the results of his study
and answer any questions you may have.
On page two of your handout, I'll tell you the objectives of
today's presentation, to review and approve the March, '97 rate study
and the recommendations as provided in the July, '97 revisions to the
rates; review and approve the proposed five-year financial plan for
the water-sewer district as a financial operating plan; and allow the
staff to move forward with necessary budget amendments for next fiscal
year; authorize staff to consolidate the administrative ordinances of
the three utility districts; and generally give us direction to
publicly advertise and hold public hearing to make the necessary
amendments to the ordinances.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So this is a hearing on basically a
presentation that goes with documents we've already received, and
we'll make a final decision on September 23rd regarding any rate
changes.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our only decision today is to go
forward to that hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. We want to get the information, pose
any questions to staff we might have in the interim, and then a final
decision will be made on the 23rd.
Okay, let's go ahead and begin the presentation.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir. On page three, I'm going to talk briefly
about the financial plans, some of the critical aspects of that, the
major areas, operational expense projections. We've adjusted those
for what we anticipate in inflation and growth aspects of the utility.
The FY '98 operating budget for the utilities, about 21 million
dollars. We anticipate by FY '03 that's going to grow to about 28.7
million dollars.
Revenue and reserve projections, we assume a five percent
customer base growth. We do not anticipate an increase in water or
sewer rates in the near future. Carry forward is going to be reduced
from the current level. The fund currently carries a substantial
amount of carry forward balance in it. The current level is
approximately seven months of operating. Our goal is to reduce those
general reserves to about 2.6 months of general operating, or about
4.7 million dollars.
Capital projects: We have a substantial capital program over the
next six years. The total of that currently is about 135 million
dollars. Some of the major projects in that include for next year an
expansion of the North County Water Treatment Facility, as well as an
expansion of North County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The total of
those two projects is about 41 million dollars.
The Board recently approved the back flow prevention program.
The cost for that over the next six years is about 4.3 million
dollars. In year 'O1 there's going to be an additional 8HGDRO plant
constructed, along with well field and storage. That's estimated the
cost at this point 26 million. We also have in our plan in FY '02 an
expansion of the South County Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Next slide, page four, to go along with the capital plan, we need
to do a little financing. The new financing includes substantial
amount of new debt. The new debt anticipated during this period is
about 92 million dollars; the water total is about 37 million, the
sewer total is about 54 million. Part of the new debt involves a
concept of interfund loans, where we're using some of the existing
general utilities fund balance to cash flow the water treatment plant.
That money would be paid back into the general utility fund via impact
fees over the next several years.
User fee revenue requirement: The assumptions are based on the
'97 budget. We have about a nine million dollar interfund loan to be
paid back from water impact fees. A new debt service is to be repaid.
Certainly in the short run, as long as the nexus continues to be a
valid matter, to be paid with impact fees. Annual renewal and
replacement funding is going to be four million dollars. I mentioned
the five percent customer base growth and reserves to be reduced to
2.6 months of manual operating.
The result of these assumptions and the assumptions in the plan
indicate that no increase is necessary in the combined water and sewer
rates.
Last thing we looked at was the impact fee requirement. We do
have a study that's ongoing there. We have funded in the plan, at
least, all of the growth-related needs with impact fees. The water
and sewer capital programs are essentially as adopted in the master
plans recently approved by the Board. It is our assumption or our
thought at this point that impact fees may require a slight increase,
and it's our intent to report back on this matter in November to the
Board with a full presentation.
Next slide, page five. The second aspect I'm going to speak on
is the ordinance consolidation. We're seeking direction from the
Board to appeal numerous existing ordinances that govern the
administrative functions of the three utilities, combine them into one
ordinance. Revise and update the district procedures, rates, user
fees and charges. And the action here is to direct us to consolidate
those and bring those back when we bring back the proposed rate
changes.
Next slide, page six, I'm going to introduce to you Mr. Mayer.
Mr. Mayer conducted our rate study. I think he's done a tremendous
job for us, and feel free to ask him any questions you may have of a
technical nature.
MR. MAYER: Good morning. My name is John Mayer. I'll try and
be brief. I know you've got a very full agenda today.
I've conducted a study of both the Collier County water-sewer and
tense utilities, in addition to the Goodland water utility and the
Marco Island sewer utility.
Let me first talk about the Collier County water and sewer
utility. The rate development process is really quite simple. First
you have to determine how many dollars you need to raise in order to
operate the utility. And the second thing is you have to design
utility rates in order to generate that amount of revenue.
The amount of revenue is what we call a revenue requirement, and
it usually consists of two major categories: Operating and maintenance
expenses, and capital costs. Operating and maintenance expenses are
very straightforward. What it takes to pay your people to operate the
utility to maintain it.
Capital costs has to do with the purchase of capital assets.
They usually take two forms: Number one, you can choose to pay for
something with cash or you can choose to borrow and pay off the debt
service. Both are viable.
So what we did is we developed the revenue requirement of the
dollars needed and we separated that into three components: Those
dealing with or related to the water utility, those relating to the
sewer utility, and those relating to tense. It gets a little bit
complicated, since your budget is consolidated. Some things are not
broken out. When it comes to debt service, we had to go through each
individual debt issue to determine the components as it relates to
those three specific entities.
The one component in the capital portion that was a decision was
the amount of capital you want to fund through rates for renewals and
replacements. In my original study that was dated in March of this
year, I established three million dollars for water, three million
dollars for wastewater as the amount of capital you want to generate
through rates. In the study, that involved a slight increase in
rates. As you will see later on, we had recommendations from the
staff to reduce those numbers to essentially make the combined water
and sewer utilities revenue neutral or basically no change in the
aggregate.
Can we flip one more page here?
The result of our analysis here, when we looked at all the cost
and did our best to assign cost to the respective utilities, indicated
that the water utility revenues generated a lot more revenue than it
had expenses. Conversely, for the sewer utility, it generated a lot
less revenue than we needed to pay sewer utility expenses. So the
first recommendation in the report is let's adjust this. Let's have
water revenues pay for water expenses and sewer revenues pay for sewer
expenses. Very simplistic.
The direction that we had from staff, as they reviewed it, they
said they wanted to keep the rates revenue neutral so it would reduce
the amount of capital that we wanted to generate through rates. And
also, they wanted to retain the same rate format. In my original
study, I had recommended changes. I still consider these valid; I
still think they should be considered by the commission at a future
date. But to keep the rate format the same, we made the changes in
the amount of revenue for water and sewer by basically an
across-the-board adjustment, straight percentage adjustment.
We also had direction to limit the increase for tense water for
bulk users to 20 cents a thousand gallons.
So to reiterate, what we want is -- the goal here is to establish
some cost based rates. What this meant was to try and determine as
best we can the cost to serve -- provide water service, sewer service
and reuse service. The result was that water revenue should decrease
by about 3.2 million, sewer revenue is increased by about 3.4 million,
and that we would effect the changes by an across-the-board percentage
adjustment to your existing rates.
What that means is that water revenues would be reduced about 17
percent; it means that the average -- or the fixed rate for the garden
variety water meter would change from $14.20 to $12.00, that the
volume rate would be reduced from $1.75 a thousand gallons to $1.45 --
that would be for the first ten units -- and that the average
residential bill would change from $31.00 to about $25.92, or about a
16 and a half percent reduction. The reason it's not exactly 17
percent is just due to rounding. I have a philosophy about fixed
charges in that we don't include pennies; we need to have even dollar
amounts. These studies are not that precise.
On the sewer rate end of it, sewer revenue is needed to increase
by about 22 percent. It meant that the fixed monthly charge would
increase from the current $13.90 to $17.00, and that the volume rate
would increase from $1.60 to $1.96 a thousand gallons. Average
residential customer would increase from about $29.26 to $35.82, about
22 percent.
In the aggregate, the bill for the average or typical residential
customer increases $1.48; from about 60 dollars and change to about
$61.74.
Again, what we're looking at is the average residential customer,
not the average customer. So again, if we're doing things on
averages, it always tends to mislead you.
For the reuse utility: We determined there was a need to
generate about a million dollars in order to pay expenses. And in all
likelihood, that level of expenses is pretty conservative. The
current level for reuse rates generates about $300,000, so, in other
words, about 70 percent of the cost to run the reuse system was being
picked up by the other users through water and sewer rates.
What we're proposing is to raise the revenue materially, but they
will still only pay about 76 percent of the cost to run the reuse
utility.
We are increasing where we really created two levels of service;
one we call bulk user service. That rate would increase from really
the current level of -- well, it's -- there's contractual agreements
right now, but it would increase that to 20 cents. And a bulk user is
essentially a large user. It does not -- it would be providing
service at a delivery point at pressures that he must repump, that he
must store and that he must maintain the system, and we're contrasting
that to a full service which is essentially retail service where we're
providing constant pressure in a distribution system and we're
maintaining the system.
The key benefit of this, and the only real change again is that
we want to adjust the way that we're collecting for revenues, so have
water revenues pay for water expenses, and sewer for sewer. And this
involves a change.
That's really the total I have for Collier County. Let me just
touch briefly: Goodland water. Goodland water utility buys water
from Southern States Utilities -- or actually the name is changed.
They pay a certain fee for the water that's delivered. Currently, we
are buying water from Southern States Utilities at an effective rate
of about $3.92, and we're turning around and selling it to the
Goodland people at $2.18. Essentially we're subsidizing it. All of
the revenue from Goodland Water will pay for about 88 percent of the
cost just to buy the water. It pays for none of Collier County's
cost. Essentially again, everyone else in Collier County is going to
be picking up the difference. What we're doing here is we're saying
that we really should increase rates and have the Goodland water
revenues pay for all the expenses.
We are also incorporating for Goodland water a purchase water
adjustment clause, and what this means is a simple version that you
don't have to hire someone like me to come and adjust the rates. It's
a formula. So every time a new rate from SSU or their successor
company gets approved and implemented, that those increases would
basically get passed through dollar for dollar to the rates for the
Goodland water users.
Marco Island sewer: We examined the rates. The rates were
recently increased for Marco Island. I consider the rates to be
adequate. I am only proposing a wastewater adjustment clause for this
same reason; because the wastewater treatment is provided by SSU, and
as those rates are changed, even if nothing from Collier County
changes, it only makes sense to pass through those costs. They're
things that you have absolutely no control over, and they certainly
are legitimate to be paid for by the users of that system.
The very last step I have here is the next step and that's that,
you know, ultimately I think that the rate formats should be changed,
I think it's something that should be considered, and that all of the
recommendations that I made in my report, even though only I'd say
half of them have been taken at this point, they should be at least
put on the shelf and reviewed at some point in the future.
At this point, anyone have any questions about anything? And I'll
do my best to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, let's continue.
Does that wrap up the presentation, Mr. Finn?
MR. FINN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy to restate the
recommendations out of the executive summary, if you'd like. We're
seeking the Board to review and approve the March, '97 rate study and
the July revisions to that rate study, with the recommendations
contained in your executive summary; review and approve the financial
plan that was presented to you in brief today; and make any
adjustments, particularly in the capital side in the '98 budget. And
essentially you would see those adjustments when you do your public
hearings on the budget for next year. Authorize staff to consolidate
the administrative ordinances of the three utility districts; and
direct staff to amend the ordinance in accordance with the recommended
rates and advertise and schedule a public hearing for September 23rd
to review and adopt the recommended rates and the consolidated utility
administrative ordinances.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are -- in a discussion with Mr. Finn and
Mr. Ilschner yesterday, we did discuss some points, and I want to
bring those out as elements that I requested you look at so the
balance of the Board knows them.
One is the increase in cost of tense. What impact would that
have on a project of small or moderate size in maybe considering a
tense system for irrigation? In other words, the developer goes in,
builds a system, and then they're out within a couple of years, if
they're lucky, on these smaller projects. What I'm concerned about is
they don't put a tense system in because of the interim cost of
installing a second system. Because it's really -- it's a second set
of lines. Installing a second set of lines is more costly than what
they'll save in the short term that they are marketing the units.
So that scenario, I don't want to discourage new development from
using tense. And in those small to medium size projects, I want to
make sure that that doesn't happen by the rate adjustment.
The second item is one that -- we are required by several
different permits to have a tense water system. If we're going to
have a potable system, then we've got to have a tense system, and the
two are linked in many ways. By using more tense, we can drop the
demand on potable and so forth.
There's a cost of I'll call it doing business of having a tense
system. The cost of doing business should not be something the rate
payer supports, but the maintenance and cost beyond that, I think the
rate payer has the responsibility to. And I've asked Mr. Ilschner to
look into what that cost of having the minimum as required by the
state is, and that the rate payer not be held responsible for that,
because of the permit condition that our water system requires.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And instead of the rate payer, who would
be responsible? I don't understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, both things. I think it folds into the
water cost also. You and I or anyone as rate payers in the water
system. It's kind of like if you get a permit to build a widget, and
part of that permit is doing something extra, that's folded in the
cost of building that widget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I see what you mean. You mean
that the reusers -- the rate payers and the tense system shouldn't be
the only payers. It should also be the water rate payers. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, because we have to have the tense
system by virtue of the potable system anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes sense.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just want to make sure we're not
double-dipping there, we're not charging one for the other.
And the last is to look at a phase-in or delay. And the reason I
put the word delay in there is that if this goes into effect October
1st, there are condominiums and homeowners' associations and entities
that have already prepared their budgets for next year, and a rate
increase of any significant amount -- which we're really not talking
significant here -- but they've already done their budgets for next
year, and this is an impact to those budgets. So whether we would
either delay for one year or phase in over a couple of years I think
are options we need to look at. And I've asked Mr. Finn and Mr.
Ilschner to develop a couple of proposals that include those.
So that was a result of our meeting, and I just wanted to put
those out there so that the -- our constituents knew that we were at
least looking at those as options.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you brought
that subject up, because that was the same one that I had some
concerns about. I certainly don't want to get to the point where we
discourage tense water, because we still have to dispose of it, and
then that costs the entire rate base. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So what we want to do is to be able to sell
all we can, but if 20 cents a thousand is a reasonable price and
people don't object to paying that, then fine.
As to your concern about a smaller development, perhaps not going
with it, without pushing the pencil on the numbers, it would seem to
me that the capital cost is far and away the major expense that a
developer would have in a reuse system on a small development, so I
don't assume that they would be overly concerned about the rate
thereafter, but that's just without trying to analyze the number.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. And I asked Mr. Ilschner to push his
pencil, or Mr. Finn to do it, either one.
MR. FINN: The reuse issue is a difficult one, and there's
several different ways it can be looked at. And really it comes down
to what the Board wants as an approach to how to pay for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Any further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Finn, Mr. Mayer, thank
you very much.
MR. FINN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll see you on the 23rd.
MR. FINN: We have direction -- I'm not sure we've taken a motion
on the recommendations.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There were several recommendations back
there in the back that I believe --
MR. FINN: Yes, sir. I believe I stated those for the record.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pardon me?
MR. FINN: I believe I stated those for the record, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did state those for the record, and
I'll make a motion that we approve staff's recommendations, but with
the understanding that we want to look at the reuse question in a
little more depth when you come back.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, we'll bring back some alternatives for you.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again.
Item #888
WORK ORDER CEC-02 WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO CONDUCT
A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED HALDEHAN CREEK BASIN
RESTORATION PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED WITH ADDITIONAL
DIRECTION
We are -- 8(B)(7) has been deleted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 8(B)(8), approve a work order with Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc. and the associated budget amendment
necessary to conduct a preliminary feasibility study for the proposed
Haldeman Creek Basin Restoration Project. I smell a Huber project
coming on.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Am I mistaken, or was this, you know, when
we got our draft agenda on consent? Was it on the consent agenda?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let's ask Mr. Huber.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No?
Was it, Mr. Huber, on consent at some point?
MR. HUBER: For the record, my name's Harry Huber with the Office
Capital Projects, a Public Works division.
Not to my knowledge. I think it was always on the regular
agenda.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. HUBER: This item is approval of -- consideration of approval
of a work order to conduct a preliminary feasibility study for
requested improvements to Haldeman Creek. Primary improvements would
involve dredging the creek. There may be some -- will also be
evaluating some associated improvements such as exotic removal and
shoreline protection; also to develop a cost for those improvements.
The extent of the project basically would be from U.S. 41 to the
confluence with Naples Bay, including the connecting canals.
One item -- you know, the proposed funding source to conduct this
study included in your agenda package was .325, which is stormwater
management fund.
One item I think we need to discuss here this morning is this --
you know, we don't really address reimbursement of the costs
associated with this study in the event that the project does not
proceed. So I think we need to discuss and receive direction from the
Board as to how you want to handle that particular matter. So if there
are any other questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This came from a request from residents along
Haldeman Creek; is that correct? MR. HUBER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, we've had over the years
probably about once a year that some of the residents have the concern
about perhaps trying to get together and see what we can do about
dredging this out. It's supposed to be -- I mean, you see some pretty
big boats up in there, so it's supposed to be navigable to even fairly
deep-draft sailboats, I believe. But it's silted in so much.
Mr. Huber, there was a question; I'm trying to refresh myself on
this one, because we spoke about it maybe four years ago or so. But
was there a question of the ownership of those canals back in there?
Are they private canals or am I thinking of something else?
MR. HUBER: I'm not sure. That -- possibly Mr. Boldt might have
some information on that. But I do know a portion of the Haldeman
Creek itself, we do have a right-of-way for that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we? Okay.
MR. HUBER: I'm not sure about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's an important question, because we
don't want to be doing -- spending public funds on anything that may
not be under the -- you know, that's under private ownership.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I may be thinking of a different area, but
there was one area that was -- came up with a similar request one
time, and it's been so long that I don't remember whether it was this
one or no not, but it turned out that it was a private canal. We had
a little jurisdictional problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. HUBER: Host of the -- I think talking to Mr. Boldt, the
canals involved a platted subdivision, and so, you know, more than
likely there's right-of-way associated with the majority of the
canals. And then the area of the Haldeman Creek that would possibly
be outside the area that we already have right-of-way for would be the
state's -- you know, the water of the state. And of course we have to
get a permit for that also.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The bottom line is navigable or formerly
navigable waterways are public waterways. We know that. And these
aren't, you know, just little canals. This is a natural -- you know,
the natural system that's at least formerly navigable, needs to be
returned. So I don't think there's a question of, you know, access
rights.
And point out that this is a community-driven request, and
request to get some basis on which they can decide to tax themselves
to improve their property. They're not asking for big general fund
dollars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions on this item? We have a
speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, let's hear from them.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Speaker is David Carpenter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is Mr. Carpenter the only one?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
MR. CARPENTER: Morning. I'm Dave Carpenter, president of East
Naples Civic.
The Haldeman Creek Basin area is a key to redevelopment of
Bayshore. A lot's been done on Bayshore in the last couple of years
-- in the last few months. The sheriff's office has put a tremendous
amount of emphasis on the area. The area as far as a criminal
situation and a hotbed of illegal activities, that's been -- basically
been cleaned up. It's a lot safer, it's a lot nicer. The drug sales
have gone to a point from a casual thing on the street to minimal drug
sale activities, and the same with prostitution. So a lot's been --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or so you hear.
MR. CARPENTER: A lot's been done on that area.
The people in the area are trying to get together. There's also
right at the moment a private group forming to handle meetings on
Bayshore south of 41. But one of the keys to really get Bayshore up
and coming and redeveloped is going to be getting Haldeman Creek
dredged. What you have is a potential there of taking the lots on the
west side of Bayshore and giving them legitimate Gulf access. Now,
you all know what that's going to do to those property values.
There's some beautiful homes back in there already. If we can get it
dredged so a person with a usual type of craft can navigate up into
there on a normal basis and not have to wait for high tide to try and
even approach this system, we can do wonders for the type of housing
and the type of infrastructure in that area. I think what you'll see
is a real explosive situation as far as upgrading the area. There is
no reason why those streets -- and most of them are connected to those
canals on the west side of Bayshore south of Haldeman Creek -- can't
begin to resemble Royal Harbor within a very short time. So I think
this is a real key critical project for that area. The people got a
tremendous response when they did their survey in the area, the people
-- the landowners in the area, and I think this is a really -- well,
just a wonderful project for east Naples. And I can't think of
anything better the Board could do for the Bayshore area than to get
this study underway and get this started. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Mr. Carpenter.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion, but with perhaps an
amendment to your motion that we make sure that we have researched the
jurisdictional issue on the -- concerning those canals, because we
don't want to just jump in there and start doing something that -- if
there needs to be some legal remedy to the jurisdiction on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly agree to that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, I'll second that then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Did you have something to add, Mr. Huber?
MR. HUBER: Well, I was just wondering whether there needs to be
some kind of direction relative to the reimbursement of these costs
associated with the study in the event that the project doesn't
proceed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we're not going to go forward with the
project, we're not probably -- it probably costs us more to set up an
MSTU to reimburse than what the cost of the study is. So really my
suggestion is probably if the study shows we're not going forward with
the project, that we're just out the money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's not too many options.
Any questions? Call the question. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Huber.
MR. HUBER: Thank you.
Item #8C1
AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR A GRANT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL, COLLIER
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND THE INDIGENT HEALTH CARE - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're to item 8(C)(1) under Public Services.
Request for grant regarding indigent health care. Mr. Olliff, good
morning.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, public
services administrator.
First I'd like to thank you for your indulgence in adding on this
item. This was added primarily because of some grant deadlines.
There is a letter of intent that is required to be in Tallahassee on
the 5th of September, and unfortunately on the 2nd of September, most
of the agencies involved had people out of town, so we really
appreciate you adding it to your agenda this morning.
The grant that we're discussing this morning was actually one
that was only made available in this past legislative session, and the
reason it is in front of you is because the way it was structured, it
can only be awarded to counties. The way the proposal has been
structured, it's one where the Public Health Department of the county
would actually be the administrator of the grant, and as such, I've
asked Dr. Konigsberg, your health director, to come in and give you
some of the details about what the actual proposal for this grant
would be.
MR. KONIGSBERG: Good morning, commissioners. I'll be brief and
just add a little bit to what Mr. Olliff just told you. The 1997
session of the Florida legislature passed Public Law 97263, which
created what is called the Primary Care for Children and Families
Challenge Grant, an interesting title.
I won't go into a great deal of detail as to what this grant is
about. Your backup material has some of that. But the idea is to
foster the development of a coordinated system of primary care at the
local level. Legislature's feeling was that local communities knew
best how to do that, which I would certainly agree. The legislation
emphasizes volunteerism, cooperation and public/private partnerships.
The interesting thing about this grant is that it targets what I
would call the working poor. The grant doesn't use that term, but
when they talk about people who are not eligible for Hedicaid who are
below 150 percent of the poverty level, that's what we're really
talking about. And we have some of those in our community who are
working, yet do not have health insurance. It's one of those gaps.
As Mr. Olliff has indicated to you, what we're talking about here
at this point is a letter of intent or pre-ap. From that the
Department of Health, which is the agency at the state level that's
handling the grant, will determine who they want to invite to apply.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to cut to the chase here.
We're trying to apply for a grant to get some money to help offset
essentially what we're doing through Healthy Kids, which is deal with
the indigent care for kids. It's a similar type thing. It requires a
match, that match will be picked up by private industry, not by the
taxpayer.
MR. KONIGSBERG: That is correct, Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know why we wouldn't apply for
that if we're not going to impact any local tax dollars anyway. If
it's out there, we ought to get into the game and try to get it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Dr. Konigsberg. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #BE1
LEASE AGREEMENT (AND SHORT FORM LEASE AGREEMENT) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND PRIMECO PERSONAL COHMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're to item 8(E)(1), approval of a lease
agreement and short form lease agreement between Collier County and
PrimeCo Personnel Communications.
I see Ms. Herritt heading to the microphone.
MS. HERRITT: Good morning. For the record, Jean Herritt, office
of franchise administration.
Our office is here to recommend that you approve and execute a
lease agreement between Collier County and PrimeCo Personnel
Communications, a Delaware limited partnership. The company has
requested the use of 2,000 square feet of vacant county owned property
at the North Naples Wastewater Treatment Plant for the installation
and operation of a 150-foot monopole communications tower. The
company will be responsible for all costs associated with the
construction, operation and maintenance of the tower. At the same
time, the company will be required to remove an existing antenna no
longer in use at the site and incur all associated cost.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Herritt, the height of the
existing antenna is what?
MS. HERRITT: It's about 50 or 60 feet, I believe.
The proposed tower is the same type of tower PrimeCo installed at
the Vineyards Community Park, and you will recall the lease for that
tower was approved by the Board on Hay 27th of this year.
The North Naples Wastewater Treatment Plant site is ideal, as it
is insulated from any residential area by the wastewater plant
property on the south, east and the north, and Veterans Community Park
on the west.
Our office has served as a point for multilateral coordination
and has been the contact and facilitator of the process. The term of
the lease is for 15 years with one option to renew for an additional
five years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question?
MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I appreciate the fact they're
trying to get away from residential property. MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection, you used the example
of the Vineyards Park --
MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- approval. My recollection is one
of these selling points of that approval is with the overpass by the
interstate and all, the 150 feet really only appeared to be 60 feet or
70 feet. The visual appearance or the visual impact was considerably
less than 150 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there were ballpark lights --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- right next to it that were already of
substantial height.
MS. MERRITT: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- I'm trying to find the
-- do we have a similar situation here?
MS. MERRITT: Yes. I believe that Mr. Ciarfella -- do you have
the diagram of that, Mr. Ciarfella, when we introduce him in a moment?
As I said, the lease is for 15 years with one option to renew for
an additional five years, and the annual rent for the property, prior
to the installation of the tower, will be $1,200, to be paid at the
commencement of the lease. And once the tower is installed, the rent
shall be increased to $14,000 annually for the first five years. The
second five years, the annual rent shall be 16,800, and for years 11
through 15, the rent shall increase to $20,160 annually, making the
total rent payments over the life of the 15-year lease amounting to
$254,800.
In addition, there are co-location provisions, as well as an
allowance for county placement of facilities on the tower. The office
of the county attorney, the wastewater department, our office and real
property management, have all reviewed the lease agreement. The
proposed use and the lease of the property was advertised pursuant to
Florida Statutes.
Staff recommends approval. As I said before, a representative of
PrimeCo, Mr. Mark Ciarfella is also here to respond to any questions
and make a few comments that you might have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll go ahead and frame it. I believe
Commissioner Constantine has already, but this is different. I
believe the Southampton residential community is immediately adjacent
to this tower site.
MR. CIARFELLA: Good morning, My name is Mark Ciarfella and I
work directly with PrimeCo Personal Communications.
One of the things that we've done is we've posted an aerial here,
and if you will, the tower site is immediately within the North County
Treatment Facility itself. Immediately to the east of that facility
are lighted ballfields. I believe they are lighted. So it's a very
similar circumstance to what we've had in Vineyards Park to what we
have here. We've got all -- we've already got tall structures in the
general vicinity. And in fact, the distance from the nearest
residential lot to the base of the tower is over a thousand feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the height of the ballfield lights?
MR. CIARFELLA: I don't know. I believe they're 90 feet. They're
just standard outfield ball lights, same as the Vineyards, 90 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our local expert, Ms. Berry, said that 90 feet
is typical. So we can confirm that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Olive was also nodding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And you say it's 1,000 feet to the
nearest residential -- now structure or lot? Because there's some
undeveloped lots in Southampton --
MR. CIARFELLA: Residential lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CIARFELLA: Residential lot to the southeast. And if you'd
like, I can pass this up. If you can see it from there or you want to
see it closer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the distance at the Vineyards?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we need you on the microphone to respond
to that.
MR. CIARFELLA: I don't recall. I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: More or less?
MR. CIARFELLA: I just don't know. Perhaps Mr -- I believe it
was a quarter of a mile from the property line. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Similar distance.
MR. CIARFELLA: So it's a similar distance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I have just a general
question. How many of these towers do we currently have in the area?
It seems like that they are popping up. And how much more will we
have? It's just a general question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's valid, because PrimeCo is a new
company seeking service in the area, either not able to find or not
willing to pay for the tower space that's available, so they're
erecting new towers, if I'm correct.
MR. CIARFELLA: If I could reply to the Commissioner's comments.
PrimeCo is a new carrier. We are proposing to launch our network here
within Collier County in the first quarter of 1998. We do take
advantage -- every opportunity, we do take advantage of existing tall
structures within the horizon. And in fact, I can -- I have some maps
here to show you of our surrounding sites. And you'll see -- and
actually the Vineyards' site is on here, the Vineyards Park site.
Every other site that's got -- there's five sites that I'm showing
you. Three out of the five we've co-located on existing structures.
We are not a tower building company, we don't want to build towers.
We are a service company, we want to provide service. So when there
are tall structures already that exist within the general vicinity
that we're seeking a site, we take advantage of those structures first
and foremost.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask an ignorant question then. Why
is it that the existing providers can provide their services without
the construction of new towers and you have to add towers to provide
yours?
MR. CIARFELLA: Well, I think you've answered your question
inherently. They're existing. They've got their towers already
within the market that have provided service for years.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why can't you use -- so why can't you add
on to their towers?
MR. CIARFELLA: In fact, we have, ma'am. There's three of them,
actually.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The three of them you have -- my question
is, why do you need two new towers? Why can't you add on to their
towers in every case?
MR. CIARFELLA: Because of the design of the network, the types
of frequencies that we use. And we're a little bit different than
cellular. Cellular, they use a different frequency band. Their waves
travel further than ours do. We use PCS; they are a different
frequency band. They don't travel as far. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got you.
MR. CIARFELLA: So that's generally one of the distinctions.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Merritt, since this item was advertised,
have we received any phone calls of objections from any of the
neighboring properties? I assume this was advertised?
MS. MERRITT: Yes, yes, it was. And to my knowledge, we did not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a requirement -- we do have a
speaker. Is there a requirement of notice to neighboring properties
similar to fezones on these that a tower is going in next to you?
MR. CIARFELLA: Not if itws an allowable use. If it has to go
before a PUD amendment, then it has to be -- property owners have to
be notified.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even then itws 1,000 feet to the nearest lot.
Iwm not sure that it would extend that far anyway. Okay.
Further questions of staff?
(No response.)
Letws go to the speakers. I think we have one.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Speaker is Paul Rodinsky.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, just one.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Iwm sorry, therews another.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, we have two speakers.
MR. RODINSKY: Commissioners, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my name is
Paul Rodinsky, I live at 11231 Trinity Place. I was at this
commission meeting in w89, w90 and w91. We set up a workshop in w91
to try to regulate the tower industry. I have nothing against this
particular tower that they want to put up. I just wanted to know what
the insurance factor is on these towers. We had regulations that were
for tower sharing and now it seems like theywre popping up in school
yards. I have letters here from GTE. Therews a certain cone area to
these towers that draws lightning, which 1,000 feet is pretty good for
a 150-foot tower. But when theywre constructing these 300-foot towers
or even 150-foot towers and putting them next to school grounds and
where children play, it seems in my records that youwre telling me
itws safe around these particular towers. So what do we tell our
children, to run under these towers where itws safe?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, your child would be trespassing, Mr.
Rodinsky.
MR. RODINSKY: Therews a cone area to these particular --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. RODINSKY: And therews been all kinds of new research.
Collier County is number one for lightning strikes. And theywre
finding out that the main lightning hits the direct tower and therews
always a branch off of it. So if youwre over here and youwre 300 feet
away, youwve got a child over there playing baseball, itws not raining
out, he can be killed. Whows responsible? Wewre getting $1,000,
letws say, a month from these cellular industries, and theywre making
millions. GTE made 1.2 billion dollars in 1990 and get to turn around
and borrow 500 million from the government at five percent. Wewre
getting nothing. Wewre getting nothing for our money. GTE, on this
workshop, tried to bribe the county and say wewll give free tower use
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whoa, whoa, wait a second.
MR. RODINSKY: Iwve got it on record right here, and itws on the
Collier County record. Brian Milk was at the meeting, and all these
people were at the meeting when they stood up and offered free tower
use to the Sheriffws Department and to the Collier County
Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So thatws a bribe?
MR. RODINSKY: I walked out of the meeting because I was upset,
as far as I was concerned, because we were trying to set standards to
hold these people back. Now that theywve got a foothold in and they
stuck one next to a park, they want to stick them all over next to
parks. People donwt -- thatws not -- Iwm not even worried about the
lightning. What about gamma rays, electromagnetic fields, microwaves,
radio waves. All these things you're sticking in the middle -- near
parks and their residential areas.
I was trying to establish a cone area, which is fine for 150-foot
tower for 1,000 feet, but when they start sticking these things on top
of first base -- and then I'd like to say something else, that Mr.
Curistein (phonetic) from GTE from Tampa base told me -- I never got a
chance to answer questions here, he says, gee, Mr. Rodinsky, do you
have a microwave oven? Well, those towers are no more dangerous than
your microwave oven. Do you know anybody that sticks a microwave oven
under their bed and lets it run all day and all night while they stay
in bed? And that's what's happening. We're being microwaved. We're
getting all kinds of diseases from these things over the course of 20
years. We must keep the children a certain distance away from these
towers to protect them from the lightning. And when somebody does get
killed in Collier County, who's paying? Is PrimeCo going to pay?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Paul, you had indicated you had a
letter from GTE acknowledging there's a cone area. MR. RODINSKY: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they suggest what that distance is?
MR. RODINSKY: They suggest it is -- is the height of the tower,
which it's not. I mean, what can I say? I've been before the
commissioners so many times.
The main facts have been hidden from you, mainly by the staff in
Collier County, which Mr. Norris took out of context when I was trying
to speak to him, that he didn't get all the facts. Because there's
still people that work here that were working doing the same thing in
1991. And these people know that these things are a threat and a
danger to our children. Twenty years down the road, silicone
implants, tobacco, radiation, I mean, we can go on and on. I mean,
food, everything's a danger, but we don't find out until somebody is
killed or 20 years down the road when they're all coming down with
colon cancer. Breast cancer has tripled. All these diseases have
tripled. What's causing it? Our food? Or is it the air? Or is it
the stuff we can't see, we can't smell and we can't taste? Oh, we've
got some knew microwave stuff here now. It's not microwave and it's
not digital. What is this stuff?
Is this -- what's happening to this whole community that we have
people working for our government that don't even tell you people the
truth? We have stuff that's on the record from 1990 -- my wife wanted
to speak but she couldn't stay. Can I get another five minutes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir.
MR. RODINSKY: Well, this is my problem. I can't get the truth
out to the public. The Naples Daily News will never put one thing
derogatory about a tower because they don't want to lose their two or
three million dollars a year in advertisement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Rodinsky, your time is up.
MR. RODINSKY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Merritt, is there anything within
a hundred -- this is proposed to be 150 feet.
MS. MERRITT: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The tower is proposed to be 150 feet
high. What is within 150 feet distance east, west, north, south of
the tower?
MR. CIARFELLA: The aerial photograph that you may have may
clearly depict what's there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any ballfields?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One inch equals 600 feet on this. I assume
this was just reproduced at the same size the aerial was?
MR. CIARFELLA: Yes. In fact -- yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it may be -- the outfield may be
within 150 feet.
MR. CIARFELLA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing that concerns me, if we
have something from one of the builders of these who indicates there's
some minimal danger area, and we're within 150 feet, in this case, the
equivalent of the height, then I do have a concern if Billy's playing
outfield and he's within that area, then --
MR. CIARFELLA: Certainly. By danger area, you mean by falling
down or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The cone of --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Lightning cone area, I believe was the
reference made.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we need is we need some documentation to
weigh rather than -- I don't believe Mr. Rodinsky is experienced in
either physics or meteorology. I don't know what his experience is,
but we need to go on what is known and what is fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see his letter from GTE.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I would, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's really what I was
referencing, if there was a letter from GTE.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Give it to Mr. Weigel, sir.
MR. RODINSKY: I'd like to show you a picture of the tower in
back of my house.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you please give it to Mr. Weigel, Mr.
Rodinsky?
MR. RODINSKY: Do you want these letters, too, that I wrote to
the commissioners --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, we want the letter from GTE.
MR. RODINSKY: I'd like to give you them, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is an acknowledgement from a
corporation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If we're going to start looking at this,
then there are other towers that probably are going to fall -- not
your particular tower, but other towers in Collier County that you
want the same information on. There's one located at Lely High
School, okay? I mean, it's right there on the school property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I think we need to do is --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So let's don't go on fear, let's get some
facts on this whole thing before we start reacting out of fear and
innuendo and everything else. I want the facts. I can't deal with
somebody that comes in and says -- and starts the scare tactics.
There was a big fear a long time ago about electric power lines. This
went on for several years, it came out recently that the -- that was
kind of a fuzzy area, and it wasn't what the first thoughts were about
it, so I'd like to have the same thing done here, and let's get some
good information on this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry if I need to be clear,
that's what I am suggesting is if there is a letter from GTE that
indicates there is a danger within the height, then we ought to look
at that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than making that determination today,
it may be in our best interest to continue this item for one week and
ask our staff to contact GTE, to contact the FCC, to contact the
federal bodies that have the responsibility for monitoring and
advising on these issues to find out if that's a concern, because we
do have a ballpark right next to this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, guys, let me read you this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we don't need to worry about it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: "As for lightning, our tower will attract
lightning in the area, which should act as a deterrent to lightning
strikes. The cone of protection around the tower is a radius equal to
the height of the structure." The cone --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So Billy needs to play within 150 feet of the
tower.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
MR. CIARFELLA: Mr. Chairman, if you would, I would also like to
submit to the record, you know, this is clearly not the first time
these issues have come up. We hear these issues time and time again.
And so what we've got here is I've -- this is something that we've
done for Lee County for a site that we're going to propose in one of
their parks. There is -- I have a report here from a lightning
specialist, and his name is -- he's from Lightning Masters. He's out
of, I believe, the Tampa Bay region, and I'd like to submit that into
the record, and basically to summarize what you said, it basically
arrives at the same conclusion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're going to need is -- Mr. Rodinsky
may want that back, so we're going to make a copy for the record and
give Mr. Rodinsky his original back. If we could have somebody do
that, I'm sure he'll want that back.
MR. CIARFELLA: And also for the record, just so you know, the
type of facility that we are proposing here, the wastewater treatment
facility, is a monopole facility. It's not a self-supported
three-legged tower. It's just a plain sphere like we've done it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you pass that up too?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not one of those red and white ones that
ended up behind Monterey? And that's why I asked about the distance
is I think it is important -- maybe not ten years ago, but one went
behind -- not Monterey, behind the Crossings. I mean, it's right
behind the wall. It's in an industrial park with permitted use, but
the people in the Crossings, the property owners were never told it
was going up, it just started being erected one day. So I think we do
need to look at a distance of notification, or at least community
notification when these are being erected. I think that's important.
My guess is the people in Southampton don't know about this, but if
you looked from their position across the 90 foot ball lights to a
150-foot tower, it's going to be a line of sight that is very similar.
So I don't think it's going to have an adverse impact. If it did, I'd
be very concerned.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as I read the letter from GTE that
Commissioner Mac'Kie just had in her hand, it seems to me that what it
was trying to point out is that if a lightning strike is being
generated in the vicinity, that this pole will attract it; therefore,
making sure that nothing in the vicinity is going to be struck except
the pole, which is not going to hurt anything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The old adage, in a lightning storm you want
to be the shortest guy in the group?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll need to get that for the record.
MR. CIARFELLA: Mr. Chairman, one other item is that the ballpark
there, the park, Veterans Park, has an early warning lightning system
installed in which they warn all players and stuff if lightning is in
the vicinity. I believe it's a horn or something, similar to a golf
course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't know we had that there. Thank you,
that's nice to know.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And this letter from Lightning Masters that
the gentleman has passed to us says the same thing. "From a practical
point of view, locating a tower in any given area should tend to
benefit people and other structures located in that area. The tower
will, by virtue of its elevation, tend to attract strikes, which would
normally terminate at other structures or possibly at people, thus
providing a form of protection." So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If Billy's shorter than the tower, Billy's
safer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have another speaker on the side, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Rodinsky's wife, Patricia, was registered,
but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But not here.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- he's indicated that she's left.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second on the
floor for further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'll also ask if it's consistent with the
Board's direction that we try and look at some type of notification
process of, I'd say, properties within 1,000 feet. Because we're
really talking about a line of sight here, so we need to have some
level of review there; I'm not sure what that is. So if you could
work on that, Ms. Merritt --
MS. MERRITT: Yes, we will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Okay, we're getting close to 11:00. Let's take a 10-minute
recess.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 97-330 AUTHORIZING THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A MASTER
FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH GE CAPITAL PUBLIC FINANCE, INC. ON BEHALF OF
NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCINGTHE
PURCHASE BY THE HOSPITAL OF CERTAIN MEDICAL AND OTHER EQUIPMENT USED BY
THE HOSPITAL IN ITS HEALTH CARE OPERATIONS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting. We are to item 9(A), as I read it, which is a
request by the Industrial Development Authority for approval of a
Resolution authorizing them to enter into a master financing agreement
with GE Capital Public Finance.
The famous, infamous and also always attentive Mr. Pickworth is
here. Do we need a presentation on this, or is this about as
straightforward as it looks? And I'll just ask Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: It is absolutely straightforward.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In that case, I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: And I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
(No response.)
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three-zero.
I assume three votes is all that's necessary there, Mr. Weigel?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let's make it four, just to be
safe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine weighs in, that was a
four-zero vote, including Commissioner Constantine.
Mr. Pickworth --
MR. PICKWORTH: It must have been my persuasive skills that did
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you could refine all your presentations to
that point, I guarantee success. Thank you.
Item #9B
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - PROGRAiv~iATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT PROJECT - U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - CHAIRMAN TO CONTINUE
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 9(B), memorandum of understanding of the
PEIS. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Since the
Board's last meeting prior to recess, county attorney had been
instructed to receive any comments from our commissioners in regard to
the draft memorandum of understanding that had been presented to the
Board of County Commissioners, assimilate those comments, and provide
my own and provide a document to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Since that time, I did review the document myself. I didn't
receive any comments from individual commissioners in regard to issues
or questions or revision requests of the draft memorandum of
understanding that had previously been brought to the Board.
I noted myself that there were a few places where there could be
some clarification. These were relatively minor, but they were -- and
some format suggestions to make the agreement more facilitative to
review and reference in the future.
I sent a memo to the Board of County Commissioners indicating
those points. I also mentioned that I'd be working with the Lee
County attorney in that regard. And since my memo, I did receive the
information from the Lee County attorney as to what has transpired in
Lee County in regard to the same memorandum of understanding. They
too had worked with Mr. Allen Reynolds, I think it's the Economic
Development Council -- I get my chambers and councils mixed up
sometimes. But Mr. Reynolds, who had assisted, had been working and
putting together the initial draft memorandum of understanding for the
Corps and for the counties, had in fact received from Jim Yeaget, the
Lee County attorney, the -- and I have now received the information
Mr. Yeaget provided their board. On August 12th, the Lee County Board
of County Commissioners essentially authorized a few of the changes
that Mr. Yeaget had suggested. And if Mr. Fernandez will assist me
and pass out the memorandum and actual copy of documents that show
changes.
But in a nutshell, what Mr. Yeaget was looking to achieve in the
memorandum of understanding was that the counties -- that this
document reflects that the counties retain their sovereignability,
unmitigated sovereignability in regard to any adjustments or
amendments to their individual comprehensive plans. Now, that exists
outside of any additional language to this agreement. But I think
it's laudable to put that in as a protective measure. Again, this is
a document that was reviewed by many people in agencies, both at the
state and national level.
Since that time, I've been contacted by the Corps of Engineers,
particularly a Mr. Bob Varen of the Jacksonville office who has been
suggesting a meeting to occur to consider the comments of Lee County,
Collier County, and, as he said, the hundreds of pages of comments
they have received from everybody else.
You will -- you may recall from the memorandum of understanding
that was -- the initial draft that was provided the Board three weeks
ago, that there are in fact the county -- Lee County and Collier
County in the Corps signing on as principals, but there are also
places for at least acknowledgement of approximately 40 other groups
or individuals, most of them kind of public sector or not-for-profit
or environmentally sensitive types of groups and homeowners'
associations. They are actually not parties to the agreement, per se,
but obviously as part of the public, they'd be invited to participate
in the formulation process of the memorandum of understanding.
What has been proposed by Mr. Varen of the Corps of Engineers is
potentially, if the schedules permit, an additional meeting on
September 2nd, which happens to be a board date for both the Lee
County and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. And in
that meeting they'd be looking for Mr. Yeaget of the Lee County
Attorney's Office and myself, or substitutes from our offices for us
to meet with the Corps and discuss the proposed changes to date,
including the recommendations that they have received from the various
letters and transmittals from other groups and persons.
Their suggestion then s that if schedules will permit, that an
individual from this Board, ostensibly Mr. Hancock and Lee County
Commissioner Albion, if his schedule permits, would be available the
following day for a discussion and further direction, but not
necessarily a wrapup of the continuing formulation of this memorandum
of understanding.
In my memo to this Board of County Commissioners, I mentioned
that typically a memorandum of understanding is not a contract, per
se, it is a document of intent among the parties. This is not a
document that shows specifically consideration. It does have some
target dates for things to occur. It is not essentially contemplated
as a document for litigation purposes or things of that nature. It is
what it is to be and should be acknowledged to be what it purports to
be, and that is a memorandum of understanding between different
agencies or sovereign authorities.
With that, I'm ready for any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, did you say you hadn't received
any comments from the commission on the HOU? MR. WEIGEL: No, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we last left this item, it was my request
that we send it to the Corps as a draft document, not necessarily with
Board approval. In the interim, the first Tuesday we were gone, I
believe, Lee County looked at it and their action was to revise it and
send to it to the Corps; is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have those revisions in front of us now.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's being requested is that a
representative of this Board, along with Commissioner Albion and
representatives of the Corps, sit down and discuss those differences.
I would like to include the County Attorney's Office in that, simply
because you're the individuals that need to do -- perform the legal
review of the document. It would make sense that you'd be there.
I don't know at this point other than choosing a member of the
Board to be part of that negotiation, if you will, is necessary, but I
do feel the need to remind everyone that one of the main reasons we're
at this point is because the Corps has the authority to do the study,
period. And if they wish, they can take four years or five years or
ten years to complete the study. The only way in which we have any
authority or way to direct the study is to propose an agreement or
understanding that they will sign on to. It's the only way we have to
try and protect the varied interests, both environmental and property
rights, and try to put all those considerations into one place.
So at this point I think our direction is choose a member of the
Board to suit those negotiations, if that's the desire of the Board.
If it's not, then we need to choose another direction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree that we should participate and
should try to effect the agreement. However, I guess I wouldn't say
quite so strongly that we have no choice, no participation, and the
Corps can do whatever they want, because ultimately if it turned into
a ten-year process, I suspect all our Representatives of Congress and
others could and would get involved and it would alter that process.
I think clearly the Corps has a little more strength, a little
more leverage on the issue than we do, and we need to participate, but
I just don't want a blanket statement that there's not a darn thing we
can do about it anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. And we do have the support of Connie
Mack who has said they need to work with the local commissions and
local business industry, so I think that's obvious.
My point being that we can accomplish some positive things here,
not just the negatives. We can, you know, urge the Corps to establish
consistent permitting rules for development that do protect the actual
systems that we know need to be protected without spending a lot of
wasted energy and a lot of wasted time on stuff that doesn't really
have a net positive affect on the community. Those things can be
accomplished, and we can protect business and private rights all in
one, and I'd rather try and push that as a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And your point is the only way we can
do that is by participating.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I agree with that as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I'll just ask if it's the Board's
direction to authorize me to continue in the discussions with the
Corps and with the county --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to arrive at hopefully a final document.
And again, this is a working piece. If any of you have concerns
over the document the way it's drafted now or is in the future, please
get those to Mr. Weigel or to me -- but I would say Mr. Weigel first
-- as quickly as possible so that we can incorporate those concerns
before that meeting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, your professional credentials
and qualifications make you the obvious choice to be the designate for
the Board, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a nice way of you saying you don't
want to do it, John, or --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's one of the ways.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, let's go to speakers. Mr. Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is an
accident that I'm speaking to you on this issue. I actually came
because I found a proclamation that Ms. Berry read objectionable, and
by the time I got here, apparently my objections were voiced by other
people and the issue dropped.
On the other hand, I have an opportunity here to speak out once
more against what I consider kind of an insidious effort among the
environmental groups to enforce a form of socialism on us. And to be
honest with you, these guys always sitting here, they are well paid
professionals. They speak better than I do, they look better than I
do, and apparently you guys pay more attention to them than you do to
me. Certainly the newspapers will cover them very kindly because they
fall into the same agenda.
Mr. Hancock, you have mentioned before that it is a possibility
for you to fit into what the environmental people are looking for.
And I would like to mention the fact that according to the various
sustainable documents that's out and available, you don't. The entire
peninsula was drained by the Corps. For you to accommodate them is
for you to move out of here. And if they can force you to do that,
apparently that's exactly what they're looking for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, I'm not putting my house up
for sale, Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: I haven't, either. On the other hand, I happen to
live in the next stage of the acquiring urge, and -- you know,
northern Golden Gate Estates -- and I have a number of lots for my
children; I have a good number of them. And I would feel a little
safer if I don't hear this constant attack somewhere along the line
about our culture, about our environment. They kind of said it in
such a way -- I have told you guys this many times before, I came from
a Communist system. And not too long ago, someone told me that,
you're no longer there, as a counter argument. And that got me
thinking, I'm not quite sure whether that's not where we're heading.
One other issue I'd like to bring up is the standing of Mr. Fran
Stahling. From the information I have read, common knowledge, the
gentleman was instrumental in the ethical probes, and, as I
understand, there's a meeting tonight about the ethicality in
government, and I looked at the panel and I sometimes wonder what the
media representatives sitting on a table like that have anything to do
with ethics. I mean -- but that's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Probably a better place for that comment
somewhere in our agenda today.
MR. AGOSTON: Okay. I also understand that Mr. Stahling was
instrumental in inviting the Army Corps of Engineers. This gentleman
is not a voter, not a -- not part of this county. Why does he have
this kind of a power? Why are we paying this kind of attention to
him? I understand he's making most of his living out of Collier
County activity. I mean, is that the way we do business? Somebody
gets paid well so they perform well in front of you? Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to frame the environmental side of
this, because I am serious about -- there are systems out there that
need protection. I'll give a perfect example. It's within the
Pelican Marsh community; it's called the Cocohatchee Strand. It's a
235-acre freshwater system, that when they went through the
development process, they were required to set aside and improve, to
go and remove all the exotics and so forth. And it actually is a good
example of how systems can be preserved and improved among
development.
The problem is the rules changed every 90 days on how they were
supposed to go about preserving and improving this system. So I think
we can maintain that priority, but make sure the rules are consistent
from time to time so landowners know what they're dealing with going
in the front door. That's kind of my goal. Not to pick a side but to
make sure that it works for as many people as possible and certainly
not for the extremist.
Any further questions on that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have another speaker, Judy
Leinweber.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You want to take a recess while you get to the
mike, Judy?
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber. County commissioners, as we
all know, Colonel Rice was also on sustainable Florida south -- south
Florida. He was also on the Keith Arnold committee. The Donovans and
I went to Keith Arnold committee meetings.
We need to make sure if you do go into contract with them, that
it's nonbinding. This is what the Lee County Commissioners did for
the Keith Arnold committee. In fact, they turned down just about all
the recommendations from the Keith Arnold committee. Like we all know,
he's going to do this survey whether we like it or not. Big Brother
is going to push it down our throats. The only thing I ask is that
you take heed of it and don't let Big Brother run us over.
Our county commissioners, you are the trail blazers and the
pioneers of tomorrow. I just hope you stand up for our rights and
really think about the recommendations. Some of them may be good, but
in my opinion, like Lee County, a lot of them aren't going to be good.
But what happens in this state is going to happen in the rest of the
county. As we know, Racine, Wisconsin also has sustainable -- Racine.
And it's almost identical to south Florida sustainable.
Thank you, that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Leinweber.
Are there any further Board comments on that number? Seeing none,
we'll go to item -- and by the way, Mr. Weigel, thank you for putting
that on the agenda today and your work on that. I appreciate that.
Mr. Weigel, do you have any other items?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll bring it up under Board communication.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
Item #10A
APPOINTHENT OF BOARD HEHBERS TO THE VALUE ADJUSTHENT BOARD -
COHMISSIONER BERRY SELECTED FOR EACH DAY; COHMISSIONERS HANCOCK, NORRIS
AND HAC'KIE AS NEEDED AND SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 26 AND 29, 1997 SET AS
HEARING DATES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(A), appointment of board members to
the -- I believe it's been called the valve adjustment board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Valve adjustment board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Value Adjustment Board. This is one of
the better times you can have in county government.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Berry needs to be on this.
COHHISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COHHISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
believe --
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
I've been there before.
But not representing -- Not from this perspective.
-- the Board of County Commissioners. And I
I would just love to serve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll take a day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, as much as I'd love to
be there, I'm going to be in northern Ohio on the 24th through the --
actually, through the 28th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are the king of scheduling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you so much.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: He is. He did this last year.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'll volunteer. I'll be the
first one to step up and say I will serve if you would like me to
serve. I would be more than delighted to serve in that capacity.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would be delighted but unwilling.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The rookie rule is in effect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The rookie rule is --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Before I got drafted, I thought I'd
volunteer, you know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, let's do this: I'll make myself
available on whatever day somebody is necessary. How many
commissioners do we need?
MS. FILSON: I need three commissioners and two alternates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think that boils down to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This year -- it usually takes usually two
days, sometimes three, and I don't know if this year is going to be
that far apart, so why don't we do this: We have four commissioners
that have said we'll serve. So Commissioner Berry gets priority.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Rookie rule.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rookie rule.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Rookie rule.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And so let's not give her all three days, but
maybe two of the three.
Someone from the Board does need to be there for three days
because they act as chairman. So Commissioner Berry, are you willing
to serve in that capacity?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I would be delighted to serve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My God, the public service.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So Commissioner Berry will be there --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nauseating.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as necessary. And then just plug
Commissioners Hac'kie, Norris and Hancock in to fill out the three
positions as needed. I don't believe I have any schedule constraints
at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Chris would know if I do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a great time to get to know some east
coast attorneys. It's really super.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's amazing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, anything else necessary on that? Okay,
10(A) is completed.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-331 APPOINTING JOSEPH A. HANDY TO THE UTILITY AUTHORITY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ten(B), appointment of member to the Utility
Authority.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, this Joseph Handy appears --
he's a professional engineer, appears to be eminently qualified. I'll
nominate him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to continue to support Mr.
Coletta. I think the community has shown a great deal of interest in
his serving.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second for Joseph Handy.
Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one. Joseph Mandy is
selected.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 97-332, APPOINTING STEPHEN L. PRICE, ERNEST SPINELLI, MONTE
LAZARUS AND RICHARD W. ANDERSON TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: The next one, Mr. Chairman, we
coincidentally have four members and four applicants. Motion to
approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't we also have a memo?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second that, just to be
consistent with what we've done. I did have some correspondence with
some comments on that; however, what we've tried to do, if we have
enough applicants to fill something and they are qualified, we've gone
ahead and done that, traditionally. I understand there's a couple of
points on this one, but I'm just trying to make sure the Board is
consistent in what it does long-term.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did ask that Mr. Drury or a representative
be here to discuss this, because we originally had a note that all
applicants were qualified and then it becomes secondary review. We
received a memorandum -- or Ms. Filson received a memorandum stating
that Mr. Anderson -- when compared to the ordinance requirement, there
was a concern that he may not meet the qualifications. I guess I'd
like to know -- we do have a motion and a second. If someone from the
Airport Authority is here to discuss that, I would like to hear why
that -- there may not be a consistency in the qualification there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Spinelli?
MR. SPINELLI: Put me on the spot.
Earnest Spinelli of the Airport Authority. I'll answer any
questions you have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know of the specific reason why we were
advised Mr. Anderson may not meet the qualifications?
MR. SPINELLI: Well, I don't know if he specifically does not
meet the qualifications. It was -- in the ordinance it says at large,
and he's from Immokalee; we already have a representative from
Immokalee. So the ordinance states at large. And the only experience
Mr. Anderson has on there is that he's getting a private license.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So he's working on becoming a pilot.
MR. SPINELLI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the -- how many members sit on the
Airport Authority?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Seven.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The guy's -- under military service, it
says Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, flew 14 med-evac missions.
Does that mean he has --
MR. SPINELLI: He flew in a helicopter, I assume, as a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. On in-flight patient care as a
staff sergeant in the -- he was an air medical technician.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's basically an EHT on an aircraft.
MR. SPINELLI: I guess our request is that you reopen that
appointment for advertisement again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To see if there's someone of more specific
aviation --
MR. SPINELLI: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- background to serve in that at large
position; is that --
MR. SPINELLI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the crux of the request?
MR. SPINELLI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I understand that, but again,
that happens from time to time. We've had that on a couple of
environmental boards, we've had that on probably half a dozen of the
boards where the board will come and say, well, maybe there's someone
else out there. But we've tried to stay consistent that whomever took
the time and effort to meet the deadline, and if they meet the
qualifications.
MR. SPINELLI: You remember the original thrust of the ordinance
and the Board here -- Tim was there -- was that we have aviation
experience primarily considered.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I understand your point, and why don't
we just go ahead and call the question. Because I would like to see
someone who at least has a pilot's license serving or who has flight
experience serving other than -- I mean, I've ridden in Coast Guard
helicopters numerous times, but it really doesn't qualify me to state
aircraft operations either one way or the other, so I can understand
your point.
Let's call the question. We have a motion and second. All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries, I assume, four to one. I only
hear about three --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four to one. Mr. Anderson is
appointed. And you're correct, that's consistent with what we've done
in the past. I don't disagree with that.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 97-333 APPOINTING DAPHNIE BERCHER TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, on this next, parks and rec.,
I'd like to ask Mr. Olliff a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Olliff?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Ernie.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, one of the applicants for the
parks and rec board here has in her narrative of her experience,
points out that she has several children that are involved in parks
and recs programs. Is this going to cause some sort of a conflict
somehow, in your opinion, or is this something that needs to be
considered, or just totally immaterial? What would be your opinion on
that?
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, I think we encourage the people who have
participated and have children, hopefully they have a better insight
about how some of the programs run and things. But generally the
parks board, we try to keep them at a policy level, and they don't get
involved in daily operations of issues like their particular programs
and their particular children's programs. So I think as long as we
keep them focused on policy, there wouldn't be a conflict.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In that case, I'll nominate Daphnie
Bercher.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 97-334 APPOINTING BARBARA SCHIERING, CHARLES J. HUTTINGER
AND GILMORE P. SCHOLES TO THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT ADVISORY
COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to appointment of members to the Marco
Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee.
Question. Since it's all coming out -- okay, we had that
discussion before. It's all coming back to me now. Never mind. I
don't want to relive that one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will nominate Schiering, Huttinger and
Scholes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we have a motion and second. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just a question I need to ask.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or if you have a question, please go ahead and
ask. Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I'm not familiar with these, but are all
of these people scattered around the area, or -- as far as --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we electing a condominium, or appointing a
condominium?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I just need to know -- I just want to
know for my own benefit, because I think it's important that -- and I
don't know. I can't tell enough by --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Charles is single-family, Huttinger is
condo. What is Schiering?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Schiering is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Multi-family?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know whether she's multi-family or
not. I know she lives in Hideaway Beach, but I don't know whether
it's in a condo or not. It's the opposite end of the island from
Huttinger, I can tell you that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So they are scattered -- as far as you're
aware, they are scattered throughout the island? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely, yeah.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, that's my only concern, that there's a
good representation and not just --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Huttinger lives almost all the way on
the south end, and of course Hideaway Beach is up on the north end.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of course, it's tough to get geographic spread
on Marco, but --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So -- I mean, but my point was that they
don't all live --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right next to each other.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- right next to each other along condo row
or what have you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
We have a motion and second. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 97-335 APPOINTING DAVID LINDSEY TO THE IHMOKALEE ENTERPRISE
ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
Next is appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the applicant Mr.
Lindsey.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR WORKSHOP ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 - EDC
WORKSHOP TO BE ATTENDED BY COMMISSIONERS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're at item G, discussion regarding request
for workshop on September 30th, and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is our productivity committee requesting
for a workshop not to last -- I believe it's 90 minutes, Commissioner
Berry? Were you at that meeting?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was not at the meeting, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a thought, but both
you and I have been active with the productivity committee prior to
our terms on the Board, and tried to stay active as far as encouraging
their -- it's certainly been beneficial. However, you've done a heck
of a job keeping the majority of our meetings fairly short this year,
and I just wondered, with the exception of those just before or just
after our recess, most of our meetings are done by noon. If this
might not be a better place, we could still give them the full time,
but better placed on a regular Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree with that entirely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a matter of fact, I think they even have
our attention even better at the conclusion of a meeting. We're kind
of in a mode then. So for the productivity committee, if -- Mr.
Fernandez, we project out and look at what may be a potentially short
meeting, we add them on as a 90-minute presentation at the end of that
meeting. But enough weeks out that they can make sure that their
members are available to attend that are at least key to the
presentation. Do you think that would be acceptable by the committee,
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so. I will be meeting with them on
Thursday.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We had to reschedule the meeting because we
were recessed, and so they rescheduled to this coming Thursday. I
certainly will discuss this with them. Because I think there may be
another issue that they want to discuss at that time, so the regular
meeting --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would be good to know, one of the reasons
we had the vice-chairman appointed as liaison is that's one of our key
committees that has really done some positive things in the past --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and it would be good to know at that
presentation, just give us five or ten minutes on what they're working
on, if they're seeking direction and, you know, if you would pass that
on to them, I think --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second item is from Susan Pareigis,
executive director of the EDC. I know some of you have taken
advantage of the industry tours. I've tried but have been unable to
schedule one. But she's requesting a round table discussion with Mr.
John Anderson. I'm looking for Susan out there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's gone.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm trying to recall what Mr. John
Anderson is or does. He's the president of Enterprise Florida.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He was a former congressman that ran for
president one time.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think part of their -- if I just might
add, I think part of their concern here is to show to the commission
some of the businesses that are going on, you know, high-tech kind of
things that are going on in Collier County, and then kind of get a
consensus among the Board, you know, the encouragement, the direction
for businesses, this type of business that you would see if you went
on this tour and encouragement for Collier County, and to continue
that effort. I think that perhaps is part of -- not all, but part of
what they're trying to accomplish.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I'd like to suggest it may be more
appropriate, since we don't have a Board meeting that day, Board
members be available then, when otherwise they would not. If they
want to have an industry tour in the morning and a round table
discussion as a part of that, the Board members that are available can
make that. I'm just looking for some direction. I don't want to
leave here and just say, well, no, we're not going to have a workshop
for that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to do it, and I'm certainly going
to participate if they -- you know, if they put it on for an as
available. Because like you, I've been trying to get there and
haven't been able to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't each of us try to
communicate with Susan and see what we can line up, and if we can get
enough of us to make it worth their while, then go ahead and --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've done the tour, and I know that they are
going to maybe expand it a little bit. But it's basically the tour --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's hear from Ms. Greenfield.
MS. GREENFIELD: Jean Greenfield with the EDC Chamber Coalition.
Maybe I can help you out a little bit. The tour would go from 8:30,
as I understand it, till about 2:00. And the builders' round table
would be about 2:00 to 3:00, and if you could all attend, that would
be wonderful.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's happening whether we go or not is
what you're saying, basically.
MS. GREENFIELD: Yes. But naturally we'd like the support of the
politicians, and I think it's something that you all need to see and
you'd really enjoy it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, I think they need to know if more
than one of us is going to be on the tour, for advertising purposes,
particularly if there's interactive discussion. We don't want to have
-- if there's going to be a point at which ideas are going to be
exchanged and more than one commissioner's there, it needs to be
advertised publicly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ideas can be exchanged as long as it's
not the commissioners that are exchanging them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if it's a presentation for our listening
pleasure, if you will, that's one thing. But if it's going to be a
round table in a sense that '-
MS. GREENFIELD: The round table would be from like 2:00 to 3:00,
just to get your input and help us out to see how we might --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it would be safe, if you get a
positive response from two or more commissioners, that that should be
advertised as a meeting.
MS. GREENFIELD: Okay, thank you.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 97-336 APPOINTING JORGE CHEHAS TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Took care of those.
Moving right along.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One vacancy, one applicant, motion to
approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10I
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX DISCUSSION - TDC TO FORM SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY
FUNDING APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are at item 10 whatever, (I).
This is something I added, Tourist Development Tax Discussion. And
when Ms. Edwards from the paper yesterday asked me if there's anything
new tomorrow, I told her no, and behold, the story showed up today. So
I apologize for that being in the paper before I had an opportunity to
discuss this with you.
What has been a consistent theme in category C expenditures,
which are the special events, are either a failed event -- in the case
of Fantasy and Fire -- or questions about where money did or didn't
go. All of this that has surfaced has caused me to review -- and
about the only successful events that we have had are those that we
spent less than $60,000 on. The Key Marco Cat was successful. The
little leagues that bring in teams and have tournaments in the middle
of summer are successful.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bowling tournaments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bowling tournaments have been successful,
which -- you know, my concern is that the size of these events and the
amount of money that's being requested by them and the hundreds of
thousands of dollars is probably not what was anticipated. It also
makes it very, very difficult in promotion and advertising to attract
the dollars. And I honestly feel like the rate of success -- Fantasy
and Fire is a perfect example. The event simply wasn't successful.
It had been done elsewhere, the person who made the presentation was
-- appeared credible, yet the event simply didn't happen. And that
history is all too common in category C events.
My concern is that we have 15 percent of all tourist taxes going
toward those events. It simply may be too much money. I think the
pot is building to a point that reasonably we are not spending it
effectively. And it's because government is not real -- present
company excluded, promotion and marketing is not a specialty of
government. And it's difficult when someone stands before us with a
two hundred thousand dollar idea or a three hundred thousand dollar
idea, and it sounds like a great idea, but we don't have the ability
to determine whether or not it has a very good chance of success. It
just hasn't been our strength. Ironically, the one that's talked about
the most is the only event that occurred with a degree of success,
which was the golf tournament. Whether you agree or disagree with the
dollars, or you have issues with that, the tournament itself was a
success for the community. Yet our participation in that is still
being called into question by some. So, you know, we look at the ones
who did know.
My request is that we ask the Tourist Development Council to form
a subcommittee, a balanced subcommittee. Not of just hoteliers, not
of just restaurants, but put some citizens on there that are not
involved in the industry, because there are things that we may be
allowed to do with that money that could be redirected and better
serve the tourism industry; whether it's increasing a share in
marketing, whether it's applying capital dollars to beach parking;
whatever the statute allows for, we need to review which of those are
true needs of the community and better serve tourism and whether we
can do that. And to make those recommendations back to this Board.
Now, I'm not saying we should alter that ourselves. I think it's
something that would be a ballot question in 1998, because it was the
voters that approved the current way in which the money was being
disbursed. But for my two cents, we need to recognize that category C
has not been the end-all for events that we had hoped it would be. I
think we didn't recognize that it is going to be very difficult to
turn that around to something, particularly on the larger events, and
the money simply could be better used elsewhere.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've certainly got my support with
that final statement that it would go to the public. Because my
concern when we have tried to take it away in the past is that it was
a voter approved initiative, and they voted on a particular formula,
and if we start changing that, then five years later it doesn't
resemble anything they that voted for. So I think the idea of looking
at what are some viable alternatives, I think your beach parking and
others may be the stuff that the public supports. But to put
something together and let the public say yea or nay I think is a
great idea. Because you're right, it has not worked. Many parts of
what we've done here, the majority of the tourist tax dollars have
done what it's been laid out to do, but some parts haven't, and we
ought to correct that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And '98 is an election year, so it doesn't
cost us anything to put it on the agenda. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only concern, though, is that I don't
want to lose the opportunity because they are dollar for dollar
successful efforts, and we have the bowling tournaments and the little
league and the soccer tournaments. You know, they -- a lot of moms
and dads come to watch those kids play soccer and they sell beds in
the summer, and without this money, they would not be able to put on
those events. I'm, you know, very well aware of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not suggesting we eliminate
those, are you?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, what I'm -- and the committee may come
back with something that I never envisioned, but at least gives us a
feel for what some industry professionals and citizens are looking
for. But I agree, we just had the -- I think it's the North Naples
Little League, they hold a tournament, and, I mean, 200 families come
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Swarm this place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- into town from all over the state, and they
stay two nights or so. And that's the kind of thing we're trying to
accomplish with these dollars.
What we're getting in a gray area with are the larger events
that, say, we're going to spend $200,000 on promotions. Well, give me
a break. If it only costs $100,000 to hold the event and you're going
to spend $200,000 on promotion, what's happening is projects that may
not be economically viable are becoming viable through the grant and
they're not succeeding. And Fantasy and Fire is the best example of
that. If a private lender won't give money to it, why should we?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, as part of that process,
the Board may need to just be stronger about saying no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I think. I'm saying I've got
no problem with the committee and studying it, but what I really think
is the failure is ours and mine, because I, you know, cast that vote
for the Fantasy and Fire. And I think, you know, we shouldn't have in
hindsight, but I think that except for that example, the other
failures have been where we have strayed from the guidelines by having
events in season and that kind of thing. So frankly, I think that the
job is really more ours than a subcommittee's to enforce the
guidelines the way that they were adopted by the public.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree there may have been some
mistakes along the way, but you don't have any objection to taking
some changes to the public and letting them make that decision, do
you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I want to be careful about it,
because frankly we -- I think that sometimes we take things to the
public and mistakes are made. I think that we need to be careful
about how the question's posed. I think that we asked the question
wrong on the bridge, for example, and that closed off some
opportunities for us that I wish hadn't been closed. I'd like not to
make that same mistake here so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume if there's a clear question
available to the public we don't object to that, because you're right,
on the bridge it changed six times in the six months that it was
present.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I'm willing to say right now is that
I'm willing for a subcommittee to study it. I can't tell you that I
am willing to send a question to the voters at this point, but I am
willing to let a subcommittee study it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I brought up the voter issue is
because I, like Commissioner Constantine, am not comfortable in making
substantial amendments to something the voters initially approved, so
that's why I brought that in. I think that's the end-all that I
envisioned.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One of the things I'd like the subcommittee
to look at is perhaps a dollar limit on category C requests on whether
it's $50,000 or 60 or 100 or whatever, you know, but let them worry
about that and not have these large Fantasy and Fire fireworks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two hundred thousand for that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They actually were asking for 300 to
start with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right, yeah, they asked for three to
begin with and we knocked it back to two and did two. But, you know,
maybe we need to look at category C events. When we look at the ones
-- a lot of the ones that have been very successful have been smaller
grants. Maybe that's what we need to look at. You take the -- what
was it we gave to the Lely band? I think it was $2,400 or something
like that and they brought in 100 outside families for their band
tournament?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, that was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great success.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a good one dollar for dollar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. I think one of the reasons we are
faced with two hundred thousand dollar requests is because we are
accumulating that money in category C. And what the general public
doesn't seem to understand is that we can't take that money and spend
it for anything else. It has to be spent on special events.
And quite honestly, I just don't think we should be spending
$200,000 in promotion of special events, because it is beyond our
reasonable scope. But that's my personal feeling. I'm not asking for
that. I just want a committee to look at this and bring back
recommendations. And I think yours is very much in line with what I'm
saying, don't eliminate category C, but instead of 15 percent, what
about five percent we cap requests and the other 10 percent goes to
things the public wants them to go for, according to state statute; we
can't go outside of that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let a subcommittee look at those and try to
figure out some new splits and caps.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask for half industry -- whatever
the number is the TDC decides -- half industry, half non-industry on
this so we can get citizen involvement outside of the industry. I
think that's a measuring or barometer that is necessary for this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay? At the next TDC meeting, Mr. Fernandez,
would you ask them to place that on the agenda for the next TDC
meeting? Not the short one coming out -- there was one that was
called last minute -- but the next regularly scheduled TDC meeting.
Thank you very much, and thank you, my colleagues.
Item #10J
REQUEST TO WAIVE PERMIT FEES FOR THE WISHING WELL FOUNDATION - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item J here, waiver of permit fees
for the Wishing Well Foundation placed on by Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - GLEN DONOVAN RE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are now to public comment and general
topics. Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Glen Dunavan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how many speakers do we have this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Only one in this category.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUNAVAN: I am Glen Dunavan, Commissioners. I want to
commend you on the wording change in the proclamation on the
Everglades National Park. Thank you.
One of the things that I want you to keep in mind on the PEIS is
I hope you keep in mind that the last paragraph of the revised
memorandum of understanding states it will be entered into the federal
register. If not contested by the congress, it becomes law. This is
what I want you to keep in mind. You can call it study if you like,
but it's a law.
Secondly, I would like to comment on public participation, not
only in PEIS, but in the South Florida Water Management and in the
decision of who's going to -- what public participation is allowed in
the Everglades and such meetings. And public participation is a
farce. Environmentalists are allowed to sit in on a participation.
Then when all decisions are made, then the real public, which is me
and whoever, then they're allowed to speak. And so it's really a
farce as far as public participation, because there is none. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Dunavan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dunavan, just to comment, I know
you and a couple other folks have been the subjects of Mr. Baten's
comments recently, and I just want to say, I appreciate you getting up
and sharing your thoughts with us. And while the five of us
unfortunately have to tolerate potshots from time to time, and that's
expected and that's just part of the job, I think it's a shame when a
member of the public gets up and shares their opinion on property
rights or anything else and the newspaper starts taking potshots at
them. All that's doing is discouraging the public from participating
in the process. And I for one appreciate your efforts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to add to that too that I met
with you-all privately, you know, from time to time and have never met
with anybody who's done the level of preparation and homework that you
have and have the knowledge in this area, and I sincerely join in
appreciating all the work you do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was actually Mr. Dunavan and his wife and
others that by pointing out these UN documents and I'll call them
world order documents, they were requested they be referenced in the
proclamation on the Everglades this morning, and I asked Mr. HcNees to
take them out, because this Board has not reviewed, adopted or in any
way agreed to those, and I didn't want to reference them in a
proclamation or slide them into a proclamation that was dealing with
just celebrating the anniversary of the Everglades. So it was that
point that brought it to our attention, and I for one appreciate it.
MR. DONOVAN: Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are going to go ahead and take a
lunch recess. We'll reconvene at 1:00.
(Recess held from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-36 RE PETITION PUD-97-8, BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING
SHOPPE, REPRESENTING NORTHBROOKE DEVELOPMENT, LTD., BONITA GRANDE HOTEL
CORPORATION, AND LAND TRUST 5404 , RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO BE KNOWN AS CYPRESS WOODS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. I'm going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners meeting for this day. We are to zoning
amendments, Item 12(B). The first is 12(B)(1), Petition PUD-97-8,
Bill Hoover representing Northbrooke Development. As we do on all
zoning amendments, I'm going to ask that everyone who's here to speak
to this item -- I'm sorry.
Before doing that I was asked to make a note here. Anyone who is
here for Items 12(C)(3), (4), and (5), the street name change issue,
that item has been continued for four weeks. It will be back on the
agenda in four weeks. So anyone who may have been coming in for that,
those have been continued, so your afternoon is yours. If you told
your boss you're going to be here, go do something else. Item
12(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You have the chairman's permission.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will carry all the weight it always has,
which is not much.
Anyone here on Item PUD-97-8, petitioners, staff, or registered
speakers, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I ask everyone as they speak to state for the
record whether you have or have not been sworn in so that we don't
miss anybody.
Mr. Nino, good afternoon.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record. The petition that's
before you asks you to fezone some 283 acres from agriculture to PUD,
or planned unit development, to facilitate the construction of a
residential -- mixed residential golf course community consisting of
799 dwelling units. The PUD will be referred to as Cypress Woods.
It's located along the east boundary of Interstate 75 and north of a
PUD that is yet to be developed, commercial, residential PUD called
Northbrooke Plaza.
Cypress Woods will be developed along the existing Northbrooke
Drive that runs from Immokalee Road to the south end of the Quail West
development. To the north of Cypress Woods we have Quail West; to the
east we have Quail Creek, in part, the north half of Cypress Woods.
The south half of Cypress Woods has the Huntington PUD, which I'm sure
you all know is a multifamily type of development. And to the south
along the north side of the Northbrooke Plaza, that PUD purports to
allow a multifamily type of development. So for all practical
purposes, the project is flanked by multifamily on about 50 percent
of its east and south perimeter.
Regarding the issue of -- of consistency with the future land use
element and the density provisions of the future land use element, by
virtue of it's location within the urban residential district,
rezoning of this nature is an anticipated action. The density rating
system provides for substantially greater density than this petitioner
is requesting. This petitioner is requesting a density of 2.83
dwelling units, whereas under the density rating system the project
would qualify for upwards of 1,370 dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That calculation is based on --
MR. NINO: Based on --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thirteen hundred is based on a density band
increase?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that would be up to seven units per acre.
MR. NINO: That is correct, sir, yes. So we have a project that
is consist with the future land use element of the Growth Management
Plan.
Regarding the traffic circulation element, we have a project that
would be consistent with the traffic circulation element if the
project is phased, and in your report you'll note that there is a
phasing scheme and the petitioner has consented to the phasing
scheme. We'll have more to say about that in just a minute.
In terms of consistency with the conservation and open space
element of the Growth Management Plan, we have substantially more than
the 60 percent that is a requirement of the Land Development Code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, short of the transportation
issue, is there anything on here that raises a question at all? MR. NINO: No, there is not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems kind of a no brainer.
MR. NINO: We think this is a good project. They've gone the
extra mile and provided that no dwelling in excess of two stories
would impinge upon the Quail Creek which is the most sensitive of the
relationships to the north. They're placing a single-family
development, and we will shortly be going to the Planning Commission
asking for approval of that preliminary subdivision plat which
indicates to us that they really mean that. They're going to put
single family there, or they wouldn't be asking for single-family plat
approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have probably a dumb question, but it
says 799, but then when we get into the phasing schedule, we get a
total of, what, 1200, 1300, 14 -- like 1500 units in this proposed
phasing schedule on page 8 of our agenda packet. I don't --
MR. NINO: No. It's cumulative. It starts with 125 and the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the total is more than 799.
MR. NINO: No, the total -- the total in the phasing schedule --
excuse me, Commissioner -- Phase III is 700 multifamily and 99 single
family.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what's phase one and phase two?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's cumulative.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You go from 20 to 60 to a total of 99.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I was adding them up instead
of --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I did, too, the first time, and it didn't
make any sense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't get it. I told you it was a dumb
question, but I didn't see how that added to 799. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Caution noted.
MR. NINO: Petitioner -- the petitioner raised an issue regarding
the -- the phasing schedule and how it would work, and they requested,
and actually this was approved or recommended at the Planning
Commission level, that in the event at the time of the first phase, we
do not have a deficient Immokalee Road that they could continue
building. You may recall that we allowed that same type of provision
in the Pelican Strand, and that issue was addressed at the Planning
Commission, and they recommended that it also be included in the PUD.
That never made it to the PUD that's before you, and before you is the
language that is suggested to cover that issue, and it comes to you
with staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Planning Commission -- the EAB reviewed this petition, and they
recommended your approval subject to conditions which are included
within the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended their
approval, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a substitute page, then?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Nino?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Nino, when you look at these projects,
and I know you have -- you've stated that this probably doesn't create
a problem in terms of traffic, do you look at this in relationship
with the rest of the projects that are currently there or are also
considering being put on the books?
MR. NINO: Yes, we do. The background traffic and all of the
other projects are taken into account and the -- however, you have to
appreciate that each and every project is measured on the basis of
five percent of the number of traffic movements that are represented
by LOS C irrespective of all the other projects.
That's a provision in the Land Development Code. It basically
says that every project will be allowed to impact a street to five
percent of what would be the traffic associated with the level of
service C standard, and when you take all of those projects together,
that may push the level of service to a deficient level. And when
that indicator arises, we ought to be recommending to you that there
be a phasing program until physical improvements are made to the road
to address that potential level-of-service deficiency.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: How do you and how often do you check
reality on these?
MR. NINO: The HPO, I believe, does that every year. We have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do traffic counts on an annual basis is my
understanding.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I guess it's -- I happen to live in
the area, and I know that it's becoming increasingly more and more
difficult. This involves this project but not this project per se,
but I am concerned that when this project comes on line, it's already
getting very difficult at that -- on that roadway. And I'm
particularly concerned from 1-75 east to 951 and certainly from 1-75
west to Airport Road. And I'm just wondering -- and as many times as
I've spoken about this, I don't see any -- any action or any way that
we can change anything with the HPO to make some changes there. And so
this is the only venue that I see that we can continually bring this
up and keep this up -- visibility -- that that road has to be
monitored, because I think we're soon reaching a -- or going to reach
a problem, particularly in 1998 when that new high school opens on
Immokalee Road. I see this as a potential problem. And I don't think
there's anything scheduled at that point in time for the widening,
four-laning, yet that's not to happen. And so that's my concern.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Every year we perform traffic counts,
particularly on major roadways such as Immokalee Road, and there are
segments listed in what's called our AUIR, Annual Update and
Information Record.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Inventory Report.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Inventory Report, thank you. Okay. Half and
half.
When we do that, the projections for deficiency are also changed
because those numbers are plugged into a traffic model, and we look
five years out at a minimum, and we check to see if that roadway is
going to need those improvements based on history and on projections
of projects that will come on line in that time frame. So that's done
every year. I think you may be pointing to a hole in that which is
what impact do schools have and have we plugged that into that model,
because that-- this is the second or third time you've brought it up.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And you're going to hear it a lot more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, my point is we can hear it time and time
again, but every year we review that and look at it, and the time to
insure that that corridor is getting its due is on the updating of
those annual numbers; that's when it is critical to make sure that
that's happening.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand, Mr. Chairman. My concern is
by the time that happens, you're almost to a point where you're behind
it. You're not -- instead of being out in front of it, which maybe
we're restricted and we can't be out in front of it. By the time this
is recognized that there's a problem, the problem exists, and we have
this continued problem until it can be fixed.
And I point not only to this, but just recently we approved a day
care with a church along there, I believe; that was something else
that's going to be coming on line. I know there's a project on the
other side of Longshore Lake that's -- it's been approved. I don't
where it is in terms of when it's coming on line. If you go on down
before you reach 951, there's another project on the other side.
My concern is that when all of these start coming on line -- and
I know it's not going to happen all in one fell swoop, but I can tell
you that right now, we are fast approaching, just from a practical
standpoint, of a problem being there. By the time this project comes
on, you're behind it. You can't catch up fast enough to address the
problem. That's when all of us and people down here in the county are
going to start getting calls as to why we don't take care of these
kinds of situations. And I don't have an answer for it other than
what you're telling me that every year we address it through the MPO.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And so my concern is that when we have a
project like this, are we continuing to look at the big picture, the
macro picture of this transportation? You're telling me we are, or
staff is telling me we are, but how can we project and stay ahead of
it rather than trying to play catch up?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are two ways, and one is by looking at
-- every time a new project comes on like this, we look at the
cumulative impacts of projects that are zoned already and affecting
the corridor, not just built. The second check and balance is that in
levels of service from A through F, they don't get to F before we do
anything. We get concerned at C, and then when they hit what we call
our adopted level of service, which is D or E, usually D -- MR. NINO: D.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- once they hit D, we know that within 18
months, two years, that roadway is going to be deficient; that is when
we initiate the design and construction. So it's that -- that we
watch the numbers every year, and as they approach a point at which we
said beyond that is not acceptable, that becomes a priority project
and gets the dollars.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. You just hit on a key item. From the
time you hit the design portion of it, where are you in terms of
service?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It depends on the roadway, but it's typically
D. The point I'm making is we have -- in the history of doing this,
we have not allowed a roadway to get to F. I think we had one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I think what is an important point to
factor into this, Commissioner Berry -- because you're right on target
-- is perhaps D is too low a level of service to have as the adopted
level when we're already feeling that there is some congestion on the
roadway and we know there's more to come. And if D is our red flag
day, maybe C ought to be red flag day. You know, that -- I think
that's how the system would change.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's part of the problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest two things. I'm certainly not
trying to brush this aside, because it's important. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we have the policies in place we need to
work on this today. What I would suggest is a meeting with the public
works director, Mr. Ilschner, and someone from transportation.
Because I worked with this for years in the private sector, so I
understand it. I'm probably the worst person to try to explain it to
you. Mr. Ilschner and someone from transportation would probably
better do that, and if you still have those concerns, then by all
means, let's talk about them, and maybe there's a policy direction we
need to take. So I would suggest you do that, and then maybe if we
need to bring it back to a forum in the HPO, then we can do it there.
Feel free to push the issue if you're concerned about it. I just --
MR. NINO: It's also important to appreciate that when the road
reaches the level of service D, which is the design level for
Immokalee Road, it's allowed to stay there for two years, and at that
be point in time, you have a responsibility to go through the process
leading to the moratorium on all projects in the rating.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to not get to the moratorium
part. I mean, that -- I don't think that that's necessarily good
planning either. I would rather address the problem ahead of it
instead of waiting until we get to the deficient --
MR. NINO: And the way to do that is, of course, you -- you have
the ability to do that simply by making sure that the widening of
Immokalee Road -- if you know there's a problem coming and you're not
-- you don't intend to widen it until the year 2000, which is the
current time line, when it needs to be done in 1999, that you
schedule it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's an
important issue we need to deal with. However, I think these folks
have brought forth their petition with the existing rules in place,
and while some changes may be necessary, we probably ought to hear
theirs in its -- in the context of the current rules.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I just -- I didn't want to brush that
concern aside, because it's a valid one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, I understand, and I appreciate that. I
know we need to stick to the topic, but I think that it does impact
down the road, and I think people have questions on why we are where
we are sometimes, Tim, in these projects. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there further questions of staff at this
point?
Okay. Let's go to the petitioner. And, again, state your name
and whether you were sworn in or not. It's stipulated -- Mr. Nino was
sworn in, even though you didn't say it, Ron. MR. NINO: I'm sorry, I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a black mark. We're going to remember
that.
MR. COOPER: My name is Frank Cooper. I'm with Bonita Grande
Hotel Corp., which is the general partner of the development entity.
I have been sworn in.
Commissioner Berry, let me start with your comment first, because
this was a very big concern of our project also, and staff or some of
those commissioners may correct me if I'm wrong, and if anybody from
HPO or transportation are here. We met with the HPO office,
transportation, as well as capital projects going through this, the
people down at the community development services. I can't remember
which department it is, but regarding the people that deal with the
traffic counts.
Immokalee Road right now, between 1-75 and 951, is scheduled for
2000. The design work has been completed. In your April capital
improvement proposed budget, which I believe you'll vote on officially
in October with the final budget, showed that road being moved up to
start construction in your fiscal year 1998. So they have already
addressed the issue unless somebody pulls the road off or determines
there's another need that -- but that road right now and pursuant to
your April report was one of the targeted roads to start work -- I
guess October of '98 they'll start four-laning that road.
And within our phasing plan, that would also -- you know, at that
point once that road is four-laned, it would at least -- eliminating
of our requirements under the phasing plan. If it was four-laned
right now, then we would not have a phasing plan on the project.
Obviously, your concerns between Air -- from 1-75 and Airport Road on
Immokalee Road, I can't address those issues. I know that road has
the capacity. Now granted at eight o'clock in the morning, maybe the
capacity is not what it is at ten o'clock in the morning, but anyhow,
the main segment I know we're -- you know, out in the two-lane
stretch.
Also, in our project we -- our entrance is going to come off the
Huntington Lakes Boulevard -- or I guess not Huntington Lakes
Boulevard, Oakes Boulevard extension -- which we're going to be in
shortly with a request to change the name of Oakes Boulevard
extension. But the road itself, Northbrooke Drive, does enter out
onto Immokalee Road. Transportation department -- Department of
Transportation has requested that we not use Northbrooke Drive to
enter Immokalee Road as our primary entrance due to changes in
transportation with 1-95 and the interchange -- or 75, excuse me. The
shopping center will still continue to use that road, and Northbrooke
has already been obviously blocked off. They put a little barrier
that you can go around, but they're trying to get people to go out on
Oakes Boulevard extension which is where the stop light is
accordingly. And so -- but at least from our traffic perspective,
there is only a very little area of the two-lane stretch that our
people would be utilizing and, you know, obviously, again, Immokalee
Road, once it's four-laned, should help that. Upon the four-laning, I
believe they would expand Oakes Boulevard and Immokalee Road
intersection and provide the necessary turn lanes in all the
directions. But I hope that alleaves (sic) a little bit of your
concern there and obviously ours.
The project itself, we have tried to do a good job designing. It
is a long, narrow parcel approximately a mile and three-quarters long
by 1500 feet wide. We have put the golf course in it. We've also put
-- we've met with South Florida Water Management and Army Corps of
Engineers, and they have basically agreed to the design of the site
plan, and now we're going in for the actual -- the final permitting on
it. We have met all our necessary environmental concerns in terms of
saving wetlands on site and mitigation. There is some off-site
mitigation on this piece, but everybody is happy with that. Actually
on site, again, as Ron as indicated -- or Mr. Nino indicated -- there
is a substantial amount of open space, however, as you know, the
permitting agencies do not consider golf courses as non-impact areas
or environmentally friendly areas. But from a natural point of view
and usage, you know, it is I think very friendly to the environment,
and we've all seen animals use our facilities or even your yards or
other courses. Otherwise, we have met the permitting hurdles, and this
is one of the final steps for this.
We believe the overall density request is well within reason.
The density band only applies in terms of, Mr. Hancock, your comments,
to the very southern parcel of the property. If you just applied --
and I think the normal agriculture zoning up there was the four or
five acres and, you know, we're sitting at 2.8 units per acre.
regardless of any of that, we're well under our limits.
The plan you have in your package is a bubble plan for the PUD
that allows maximum flexibility. The plan up on the wall is actually
the master plan that has been already submitted to the county as one
of the preliminary site development plans. And, again, the Planning
Commission will be hearing next week for the subdivision itself on the
very northern end.
We actually proposed probably to build around 754 units
consisting of a combination of 8-unit condo buildings with carports;
8-unit building with garages; 6-unit coach homes with attached
garages, double-car garages; 4-unit coach homes with double-car
garages; a section of duplexes, villas -- our typical villas; and
then a section of it on the very north end is the single-family homes.
There's various neighborhood community pools. You have a large
clubhouse -- or not large, you have approximately 11,000 square foot
clubhouse to serve the community, and then you have your pro shop, the
restaurant, et cetera, in there.
Northbrooke Drive, as Mr. Nino indicated, is a public
right-of-way right now. It will remain a public road. We're building
our projects off Huntington, which is off of the public road.
We have requested permission to go in there and landscape the
right-of-way. It's a hundred-foot-wide right-of-way now even though
it's a two-lane road. At the time it was built, it was proposed --
maybe in the long-term range, it may possibly be a four-lane road. I
don't think transportation thinks it will ever happen at this point,
but regardless the right-of-way remains there intact. We're just
going to landscape it.
We've also asked for the ability to put a -- Yes, sir, Mr. --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question, really. Everything you
did in here you did with staff and did with Planning Commission and I
don't have any question about. Mr. Nino indicated you-all had a
difference of opinion on what the Planning Commission had recommended
and what you'd like to do with the phasing. And I just -- if we
would settle that -- I don't know about the rest of the board -- I
don't think we have a question on the other parts.
MR. COOPER: Oh, no. We agree with basically -- I think, Mr.
Nino, and correct me if I'm wrong here -- is we needed a phasing
schedule, and we just basically discussed -- and it didn't actually
get put in the document in terms of basically letting us utilize --
put a schedule in, but use reality. And when it got to level of D
service, then we'd have to stop. And what we've actually -- the
revised document that you have sent out today -- or received,
basically, was more clear, basically, tying it to the road. The
reason for the phasing was, again, the level of Immokalee Road from
1-75 to 951.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're in agreement with the county schedule?
MR. COOPER: Oh, yeah. That's -- no questions there whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for you, has Northbrooke Development
done developments in Collier County before?
MR. COOPER: Northbrooke Development is a new entity for this
project. The principles of this project have done other projects in
Collier County. We just finished Club Marco down on Marco Island last
year. We had a smaller project done in the City of Naples. We have a
project up in south Fort Myers off of Daniels right now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said the principles; who are they?
MR. COOPER: The majority owners of the project are myself -- of
the development -- what we have is a land trust 5405, which owns
existing land, is a partner. The majority principles are the general
partner and myself and Dennis Frechette, F-r-e-c-h-e-t-t-e.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're not dealing with a spec project here;
you are going to be the developer?
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir. We are -- you will see our sales trailer
is already under construction at the corner of Immokalee Road and
Northbrooke Drive. We are the developers and builders.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you're willing to commit to that site plan
on the record today?
MR. COOPER: I cannot commit to that site plan. I believe that's
the site plan. Again, that's the site plan that has been filed with
the county, but from a PUD process, I cannot tell you, though, that is
the site plan for the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. By referencing it, you have entered it
into the record today. Your comments also are entered, so I
understand that.
Any questions for the petitioner?
Seeing none, let's go to speakers. Do we have speakers, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Thank you, Mr. Nino.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 97-37, RE PETITION PUD-97-4, BLAIR A. FOLEY, P.E., OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING EUGENE THRUSHMAN REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 36
VILLAS AND A RECREATIONAL POOL AREA TO BE KNOWN AS MARKER LAKE VILLAS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION, CONSISTING OF
12.06 ACRES - ADOPTED
We're at Item 12 (B)(2) which has been continued at the
petitioner's request. 12(B) (3) was also continued. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12 (B) (2) ?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. 12 -- you're talking about C.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(B)(2) I think is still alive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 12(B)(2) is still on the agenda, then. I'm
sorry. I knew that; I was just seeing what would happen.
12(B)(2), Petition PUD-97-4, Blair Foley of Coastal Engineering
requesting a fezone from ag to PUD. Again, I need representatives of
the petitioner, our staff, and anyone here to speak on this item to
please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Nino, hello again.
MR. NINO: Hello. Ron Nino for the record. I've been sworn in.
The PUD that's -- the petition that's before you, again, asks your
consideration to fezone land that is currently zoned agricultural to
the PUD planned unit development classification for a residential
development consisting of 36 dwelling units on 12.06 acres of land,
producing an equivalent density of three dwelling units per acre. In
that regard, the project is consistent with the future land use
element and the density rating system which provides for three
dwelling units per acre.
The project is located on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach
Drive -- Vanderbilt Beach Road and is surrounded on two sides by
Emerald Lakes development, which is a multifamily product of two-story
houses. To the north is the undeveloped portion of Pelican Marsh, and
to the east is some agriculturally zoned land and an approved
residential PUD called La Fontana, which is still vacant at this time,
for 120 units of housing.
Given -- given those contiguous land relationships and the type
of housing on them, I don't think there's any question that the
project calling for a multifamily product not to exceed two stories in
height is compatible with the -- with it's neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this the Proverbial no brainer, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: I hope so. And with respect to those other applicable
elements of the Growth Management Plan, staff has found that this
project is consistent with those applicable elements. That includes
the traffic circulation element and utility infrastructure and the
open space element.
Planning Commission heard this petition on July 17th and
unanimously recommended its approval. We'd be happy to answer -- the
PUD -- the PUD document that is before you includes all the concerns
that have been raised by staff and by other reviewing agencies, and
the standards are those that are typical of most standards for this
type of development.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Foley, you represent a contract
purchaser for this; is that correct?
MR. FOLEY: That's correct. Blair Foley for the record.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will this contract purchaser be the
developer? It's not a speculative deal?
MR. FOLEY: He will be the developer.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Has the current owner given his blessing to
this project?
MR. FOLEY: He has.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: It's the archbishop in Venice, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it was a real blessing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You don't mess around with this one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to approve. Strike that.
Those are all your questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I just wanted to get that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, just -- something has been done on
this project that I like. I lived in Lakeside for a little while, and
there's a perimeter road for the development. I would like to see
more projects do this, because it sets the building further away from
the property lines and is better circulation, and that's just simply
good design. So thank you to you or our staff or whoever had a part
in that, because it works out a lot better than the strips on both
sides of the street.
Any questions of Mr. Foley?
Mr. Foley, do you have a presentation for us?
MR. FOLEY: I'll be very brief. I just want to say this
developer has done other projects in Naples with similar designs
that's been very effective. In fact, we're planning to go to the
Planning Commission for PSP approval very soon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Foley?
Seeing none any speakers?
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Foley, thank you. Mr. Nino, again, thank
you.
Item #12B3 - Continued to September 23, 1997
Item #12B4
ORDINANCE 97-38, RE PETITION R-97-3, COHHUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO "E" ESTATES FOR THE ISLAND PINES GARDEN PUD LOCATED
IHMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY ON COUNTY BARN
ROAD, CONSISTING OF 10 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
The next item I'm fairly sure was continued.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 12(B)(4), Petition R-97-3, this is a
fezone from PUD to estates initiated from our staff. Mr. Reischl,
good afternoon.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services. This is the first of the PUD sunset reviews that
will be coming to you after no amendment. It's for the Island Pines
Garden PUD, which is located south of Davis Boulevard just south of
the County Barn. It's a ten-acre PUD that is currently zoned for 8
units per acre for a total of 80 dwelling units.
In 1988 the developer -- or the proposed developer of Island
Pines Garden proposed the fezone from estates to PUD bringing the
dwelling unit count from one dwelling unit per 2-1/4 acres to 8
dwelling units per acre, and at the time that was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
In 1990, after the adoption of the Growth Management Plan, ZRO
was initiated and the project was found to be exempt from zoning
teevaluation because of a valid site development plan.
Since then the site development plan has expired and, therefore,
the project was eligible for the PUD sunset review, and December of
1996, the board adopted a resolution requiring the owner of the
property to submit a PUD amendment by June 10th of this year. No
amendment was received. The LDC, then, calls for you to either leave
it as the zoning -- the PUD zoning today or to fezone it to what the
LDC calls an appropriate zoning district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wouldn't you call this a perfect example of
why we have the sunset provision?
MR. REISCHL: That could be, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do we need to establish any
findings other than what staff has presented and included in our
packet in order to take action on this item?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that in your motion you should indicate or
reference the findings or the report that's been provided you by
staff, and I think that will be sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
accept the findings of the staff that -- under the sunset provisions
of our LDC, we approve staff's recommendations to fezone from PUD to E
estates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, thank you.
Item #12B5
ORDINANCE 97-39, RE PETITION R-97-4, HARK RAUDENBUSH OF IDYLL HOHES,
INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RHF-6 TO RSF-6 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF PAN AM AVENUE AND GRAND CANAL DRIVE, LOT 1, GULF
HARBOR SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED W/CAP OF 4 UNITS
Next we are on Petition R-97-4, HArk Raudenbush of Idyll Homes
requesting a fezone from RHF-6 to RSF-6. And, again, I'd like to ask
all members of staff, the petitioner, and any member of the public
here to speak on this item to please stand and raise your right hand.
Is there a representative of the petitioner here?
MS. HURRAY: He was here at the Planning Commission. I don't
see him today, though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Madam Court Reporter, would you please
swear our one witness in.
MS. HURRAY: Two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two. I'm sorry. Mr. Hulhere, my apologies.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wonderful. Shall we get started?
MS. HURRAY: Okay. Susan Murray, planning services. The
applicant is requesting to fezone the subject site from RHF-6, a
residential multifamily at 6 dwelling units per acre to RSF-6, a
residential single family at 6 dwelling units an acre.
The site is located in the Gulf Harbor subdivision, which is
south of Wiggins Pass Road. The property has 169 feet of frontage on
Pan Am Avenue and 220 feet of frontage on Grand Canal Drive. Sorry
about that.
The Gulf Harbor subdivision consists of 164 plotted lots,
dimensions of which range from 50 to 69 feet wide and 108 to 115 feet
deep. This is the entire subdivision. There is one point of ingress
and egress from the subdivision -- or to the subdivision from Wiggins
Pass Road and that is via Gulf Harbor Drive to Pan Am Avenue. The
rest of the subdivision is surrounded on three sides by water, and
that would be to the south, east, and west.
The applicant plans to extend a canal which is located on the
southeast corner of the subject site -- actually this is probably
better right here. He plans to extend it north about 150 feet into
the subject site and then subdivide the property into four building
lots for single-family homes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Has the applicant ever received a permit for
something like that?
MS. HURRAY: At the Planning Commission he indicated that he was
in the process of applying for permits with the Army Corps and DEP. I
think there was a minimal issue he had with the DEP which he felt were
going to be resolvable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. HURRAY: The subject site is the only lot in the subdivision
which conforms with the dimensional requirements of the RHF-6 zoning
district. All the other lots in the subdivision are considered legal
nonconforming lots, and they are eligible to be developed using the
dimensional criteria of the RSF-6 zoning district.
Under the current zoning scenario, the applicant would be
permitted to build up to five multiple-family dwelling units, however,
it is important to note that the developed lots within the entire
subdivision are built with single-family dwelling units. There may be
4 multiple-family dwelling units out of 164 lots, and those consist
of duplexes.
The requested rezoning and subsequent single-family residential
development will be more compatible with the neighborhood as it exists
and how it will probably develop in the future and will allow the site
to be developed with the same dimensional criteria as the surrounding
properties.
I did receive numerous inquiries from neighbors about this
petition, and everyone I spoke to was highly in favor of the rezoning
so that they could insure that there would be single-family
residential development compatible with what is already in the
neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we, then, creating more legal
nonconforming lots?
MS. HURRAY: No, we would not be creating legal non-conforming
lots. These actually would be the only ones --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These are the only ones --
MS. HURRAY: Proposed dimensions will be actually the only ones
that will comply with the RSF-6 criteria.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously at its August 7th
meeting to recommend approval of the requested rezoning subject to the
stipulations found in the draft ordinance. No archeological or
historical sites were found as a result of the cultural resources
assessment that the petitioner submitted, and the board had no further
recommendations for conditions of approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The only question I have is, do we have
some way of making this contingent on receiving the permits to extend
the canal? Because, you know, there -- I think maybe there's a
potential here for putting the cart before the horse. I mean, if
we're going to give this approval when you don't even have the permits
to extend the canal and doesn't get those, then what do we do?
MS. HURRAY: I can't speak for the petitioner. The lots would
still be developable under -- they're developable now under the
current zoning, and they would still be developable under the RSF-6
zoning district; you just wouldn't have waterfront lots.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One option would be to limit it to four units,
RSF-6 zoning district for the maximum or cap of four units so that
that makes this plan possible but doesn't leave it open for a plan
that we haven't seen.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Good point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Miss Murray?
Again, I'm going to ask, is the petitioner here?
It would be nice if they were. Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None. Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing.
I'm comfortable with the RSF-6 with a cap of four units simply
because it doesn't make non-conforming lots, you know, possible, where
I think RSF-6 with six units, the lots would have to be non-conforming
to be done.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely, because it's less than an acre,
so I'll make a motion that we approve it as RSF-6 with a cap of four
units.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
I will second the motion. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Thank you, Miss Murray.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 97-337, RE PETITION AV-97-014, DANIEL DECESARE, AS AGENT FOR
OWNER, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING VACATION OF TRACT
"C" (LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF THE PLAT
OF AUGUSTA FALLS - ADOPTED
We're to Item 12(C)(1), Petition AV 97-014, Daniel Decesare, as
agent for owner of Vineyards Development Corporation, requesting a
vacation of Tract C.
I'll also need the petitioner or staff and any residents here to
speak on this item to stand and raise your right hand, please.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mullet.
MR. HULLER: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Russ Huller, and Item 12(C)(1) is a public hearing to
consider Petition AV 97-014 for the vacation of Tract C, a landscape
and drainage easement on a portion of the plat of Augusta Falls.
The site location is the north end of Arbor Boulevard. There's a
map of the proposed improvements that they'd like to make on page 24.
What they want to do is put in a swimming pool and pipe the drainage.
Letters of no objection have been received from all pertinent user
agencies and those responsible for maintenance. A resolution was
prepared and approved by the County Attorney's Office in accordance
with Florida Statutes 177.101. Based on the letters of no objection
and the replacement easement, staff recommends approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mullet, this is all contained within a
single subdivision; is that correct?
MR. HULLER: That's correct, and they have maintenance
responsibilities.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions of Mr. Mullet?
Mr. Foley, do you have a lengthy presentation for us?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. Just for the record I'm representing
the Vineyards on this case, and simply there was a drainage easement
and landscape at the original plat. We are going to put a drainage
easement around a specific type of drainage and put a pool facility in
for the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under today's standards, that would be a
lengthy presentation.
Okay. Do we have anyone registered to speak on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Only Mr. Foley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Only Mr. Foley. I'll close the public
hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
The motion was Commissioner Mac'Kie; second was Commissioner
Berry.
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries five, zero.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 97-40, AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-6, "THE UTILITY REGULATION
ORDINANCE" - ADOPTED
Hr. Foley and Hr. Huller, thank you very much.
Item 12(C)(2), request for board to consider adoption of an
ordinance amending Ordinance 96-6, the utility regulation ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is Commissioner Constantine bringing
back, I think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I'm sitting here looking at this
thinking -- is this -- was one you requested to be back on the agenda,
the utility regulation ordinance?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, it is. It's the one where
initially we had talked about making two different changes to the
utility regulation ordinance. One of them was to make all 5 positions
be required to have experience, and I thought in subsequent
conversations we did not do that. But as I said, that was my error in
not bringing that up the day of the discussion. I want to bring that
back. I think we should still maintain three of those people need to
have some utility experience, but having some general common-sense
everyday people who happen to be users of the system seems like a good
balance on there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So is the result we actually did not amend the
ordinance but gave direction to do so? And since that hasn't
happened, are you asking for direction to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I believe we did take action
that day, and that's what I'm saying, I was remiss in not bringing
that up. And that's when I asked us to reconsider the item.
And we had made one other change, you know, which I don't have
any problem with the other change in the regulation. But on this one,
I thought it was important that we still have two, if you will, at
large or resident-type members on there. There is a limited area in
the county that is served by private utilities and trying to make sure
that we have someone -- trying to make sure we have five people who
have expertise from those limited areas not only cuts out the common
sense aspect of John Q. User, but also may prove to be a little
cumbersome having five experts from a limited area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. So, Mr. Wallace, the ordinance,
does it -- what is the current requirement for qualifications of the
five members that sit on that? Has it been amended so that all five
must have experience in the utility area?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir, that was the first amendment that you
made.
For the record, Blue Wallace, utility regulation manager.
The original amendment went all the way to Tallahassee; so that's
in place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the request now is to reconsider
that amendment to go back to the original form in that area which
requires three members with professional experience? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, as amended. If it's correct in our
packet, what we did was say this -- this is the sentence as amended.
Although applicants for a lay member seat need not have experience in
any relevant -- any area of relevant utility service and management,
rate-making, utility regulation, or other endeavors. Although they
need not have it, they would be preferred by the board to be
especially beneficial to the proper functioning of the authority.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will be preferred is struck out on my copy.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So read it to me as we amended it
and sent it to the Secretary of State, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think this was a -- to all of us -- I wasn't
aware that there were three positions that needed the experience, and
so I was saying, well, we need to make that a priority. And the way
-- after it was amended, I then was informed that that means all five
have to have it, and that wasn't the intent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So would you read it to us as it was
amended and sent to the Secretary of State, please?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WALLACE: First, there were two changes in the original
amendment that went all the way to Tallahassee. The first one was in
subparagraph one where it stated that the change was executive
experience in finance, accounting, rate-making, or utility regulation.
In subparagraph two we added a preference for those with technical
experience, and it read -- the change read , applicants for a lay
member seat who have experience in those areas will be preferred. So
there were two preferences is what we sent to Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So not requirements. There were three
technical required and two with preferences for expertise? MR. WALLACE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now as I understand, Commissioner
Constantine, you're saying let's leave it with three requirements for
technical expertise and no preference for experience, just lay people?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct, making sure that we have
three people that have some technical understanding I think war -- is
warranted, but I don't know that we should cut out someone else simply
because they don't have that experience.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And does this -- is this the ordinance
that there was discussion about whether or not the person was a rate
payer in the system?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh.
MR. WALLACE: The original amendment that went to Tallahassee did
have a preference for rate payers. That stayed in there because this
board did not discuss that at your last meeting. You only addressed
the lay member qualification --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We amended it in two ways. One was to say
we would prefer you to be a rate payer. The other was to say we prefer
you to have some experience. We're taking out the experience
preference is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think we amended the rate payer piece.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
MR. WALLACE: The preference for the rate payer is still in
there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a second amendment; that
wasn't it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. What was the second amendment that
went to Tallahassee?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was the first one that you stated, Mr.
Wallace.
MR. WALLACE: The first one was that they would be an executive
-- have experience in executive, finance, rate-making, et cetera;
also, that a preference that they be a rate payer of a regulated
utility; and thirdly, the preference for technical expertise for lay
members. That's what went to Tallahassee.
What's before you today is reconsideration of that amendment
leading -- only leaving in the preference for the individuals to be
rate payers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Taking out the preference --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For experience.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for experience of the two remaining
positions. Have we surmised that correctly after -- MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So that's the question before the
board. Do we wish to make that amendment or not?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing, and we'll find
out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion by Commissioner Norris; Second by
Commissioner Constantine. Discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Commissioner Constantine, thank you for
bringing that back, because I was notified that that had a material
affect that I had not intended, so thank you for bringing that to us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for reconsidering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, just thank everybody.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-338, RE PETITION CU-96-21, GEOFFREY G. PURSE OF PURSE
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING R.H. OF NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR
EARTH MINING ON PROPERTY LOCATED 1/4 MILE EAST OF GREENWAY ROAD AT THE
END OF HARETEE ROAD - ADOPTED
Item 13(C)(2) is done. We're to Item 13(A)(1) under advertised
public hearings. This is petition CU-96-21, Geoffrey Purse of Purse
Associates representing R. H. of Naples, conditional use one of the ag
zoning district being requested for earth mining.
Again, members of staff, members of the petitioner's team, and
anyone here to speak on that item, please stand and raise your right
hand.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, good afternoon again.
MR. NINO: Good afternoon. The name is Ron Nino, and I have been
sworn in. The petition that you have before you requests your
approval of conditional use for an earth-mining activity in the rural
agricultural zoning district. The land in question is 42 acres in
size, however, the area that is intended to be mined is 16.5 acres.
The subject site is located north of Tamiami Trail east and east
of Greenway Road. This is Greenway Road (indicating), and you can see
the extent -- here's the Imperial Wilderness sub -- Trailer Park and
Paradise Point. The subject site is at the end of a street called
Maretee Street. This entire area is zoned agricultural. There are
some very sporadic house -- single-family houses along here. The
staff reports suggests that there are approximately four houses --
four or five houses on the line haul route from the site to its
intersection with Tamiami Trail. Incidentally, all of this property
to the south and east and north is all essentially vacant and
partially -- or at one time was an agricultural activity.
The future land use element to the Growth Management Plan allows
earth mining as a conditional use within the agriculturally designated
area. The petition was reviewed for consistency with applicable
elements of the Growth Management Plan. In this regard, we would be
dealing primarily with the conservation traffic and the future land
use element. And staff would advise you that this petition, if
approved, would be consistent with those elements.
This petition was reviewed by the EAB on April the 2nd of 1997,
and the EAB recommended approval subject to the inclusion of certain
conditions of approval, which, if you decide to approve this, have
been incorporated into a resolution which you have in your agenda
package.
The Planning Commission heard this petition on May the 15th,
1997, and by a vote of six to one recommended that this petition be
denied. Their findings of facts are included with your executive
package --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In a nutshell, their reason was?
MR. NINO: And their opinion -- their reason was the question of
incompatibility. They didn't feel that earth-mining activity would be
compatible with the houses that are affected by this petition.
For the record, we would have you appreciate that staff -- staff
had recommended approval of the petition and -- and in support of
that, its findings suggested a preponderance of the evidence suggests
that this petition should be approved, however, that was not supported
by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, let me ask you a question
along those lines. You said they raised the question of
compatibility, yet as I read the staff summary on compatibility, it
says the predominant use of property in the area -- that farming is --
of farming is verified by aerial photography. The residents are --
residences are sporadically located on roads interconnecting with
Greenway. There would not appear to be more than a dozen homes in the
area lying west and north of the subject property. No homes lie east
or south. In terms of compatibility, we are of the opinion this
assessment lies primarily with nonfarm land use, but not exclusively.
Do you still stand by all of that?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to find -- if all
that's accurate, I'm trying to find where the incompatibility is that
the Planning --
MR. NINO: I can't answer that for the Planning Commission other
than to report that that was their finding. But we stand by our
assessment of the petition.
We'd also have you appreciate that the draft resolution of
agreement -- draft resolution, if you should approve it, contains some
extensive conditions of approval. This excavation would be limited to
13 -- an excavation depth of 13.6 feet, which is obviously not -- over
16 1/2 acres is not an exorbitant amount of aggregate and material
that's going to be extracted.
There was a concern raised at the public hearing that this
petition not export water. That stipulation is also in here that
there be no exportation of water, there be no blasting unless the
county staff approves blasting. And there are substantial
improvements that the petitioner would have to make to Maretee Road
and to the intersection of Greenway and the Trail to facilitate the
movement of trucks in connection with this operation; and that there
is also included in the resolution a limitation as to the hours of
operation; and finally that the earth-mining activities would not
continue beyond a period of three years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need to ask -- and we may all need to do
this. I received correspondence from Mr. Hardy that outlined some of
those issues which I will enter into the record. But other than that,
I've had no contact on this matter. There may be some mail back there
that I didn't get to in my long day yesterday trying to catch up from
vacation, but to my knowledge, I don't have any other contact on this
item, and I'll base my decision on what's presented here today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've requested -- I've gotten
information from both sides of the issue and -- however, as required
by law in the State of Florida, will base my decision solely on that
information provided in this public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have request -- or I have received
information from the petitioner, but I, too, will base my decision on
what I hear here today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have received some correspondence, but I
will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, in a nutshell, as I understand it,
the concerns outlined in the Planning Commission regarding blasting
have been resolved in the sense that blasting is not anticipated. If
done, we have a, I believe, some 60-odd-page county ordinance that
regulates blasting.
MR. NINO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that requires preconstruction surveys and
all kinds of goodies that are important. MR. NINO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Noise, we're not talking about a drag line
operation here. I have information that states that a backhoe will be
used. We'll need some information from the petitioner on that.
Export of water, can't do it anyway. It's not allowed.
Road problems and impacts. They're going to be actually
improving the roadway to a 60-foot typical section where now
approximately a 30-foot roadway exists?
MR. NINO: Maretee is for all practical purposes at times of the
year probably impassable.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a lime rock, isn't it -- a not very
well maintained lime rock road. MR. NINO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So there's not -- not only are they not going
to -- well, they may have damaged the roads had they not done this,
but by actually paving the roadway, it's tough to say there's going
to be damage from the project.
MR. NINO: Which will be rehabilitated upon completion. I think
it's important to recognize that upon completion of the mining
operation, whatever damage is done to the road system, they're
required to go in and repair it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are they going to be paving it before
they start hauling on it? MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And then whatever damage --
MR. NINO: The improvements --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The road they pave they have to come back
and --
MR. NINO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And wildlife, this is a formerly
cleared agricultural area; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. The petitioner -- I'm
sorry. Any other questions of staff?
Okay. Is the petitioner here? Again, I ask everyone to state
your name and indicate whether you've been sworn in.
MR. PURSE: For the record, my name is Geoff Purse with Purse
Associates representing R. H. of Naples. In the audience with me
today is the petitioner, Mr. Robert Hardy, of R. H. of Naples, and Mr.
Glenn Simpson, who is an expert in the area -- and on natural
resources.
I'd just like to point to the aerial here to show you where the
project's located.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Purse. Were you sworn in?
MR. PURSE: I'm sorry. Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. PURSE: The project is located on Haretee Road which is just
north of U.S. 41. The site is approximately 1300 feet in from Haretee
Road. The total land area is 42 acres. We are excavating within a 16
area -- 16-acre area.
I have some additional photographs of the area that if you-all
would be interested in seeing them, they're available for you if we
need to clarify any situations that exist out there today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the board wishes to, just make the request.
Continue.
MR. PURSE: Really the -- you-all have gone over all of the
issues that the planning board have, and I'd just be here to clarify
any of those issues additionally if you have any questions on them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions of the petitioner?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have one question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I was reading through the Planning
Commission statements here. One of the greatest concerns seemed to be
the ingress and egress to the property. Can you elaborate on that
particular hearing, what some of their other -- I mean, what their
concerns about the ingress and egress?
MR. PURSE: Well, Haretee Road is a one-lane road that, as Mr.
Nino pointed out, sometimes becomes impassible. We -- I have -- if
you like, I have photographs of the road now if you'd like to see
those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would, if you would pass them to Mr. Weigel.
MR. PURSE: I have a packet for each one of you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you'd give them to Mr. Weigel, and
maybe we can have them distributed.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Does though also show homes along --
MR. PURSE: Yes. It shows the -- if I may show another chart
that would go along with those pictures.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is where the security guard sits?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I think that's the swamp buggy seat.
MR. PURSE: The first photo is -- you're standing right here
looking west down Maretee Road, and as you can see, it is a dirt lime
rock road. You can see that it will become very muddy during the
rainy season.
Photo two is this particular house back here. It sits
approximately 350 feet back, and it sits about 280 feet from our
boundary and would be over 480 feet away from the actual excavation.
That is the closest house to the excavation.
Photo three is another shot looking down into this house right
here (indicating). You can see how far away it is, just gives a depth
perception of how far away it is from the actual road.
Photo four is the house right here. It sits 120 feet back from
the road. And if you notice that there -- along here there are no --
there is no side drainage. There is no drainage at all along these
roads.
Photo five is if you turn around and look back toward the east
and, there again, you can see the road.
Photo six is looking into this property here (indicating) which
is a trucking operation. There's approximately eight trucks that are
-- come in and out of there.
Photo seven is you're standing out on Greenway looking down
Maretee. Now, right here on photo seven, we are going -- you know,
this will all be paved, and the rest of the photos are of Greenway
Road.
And photo ten and photo eleven coincidentally -- I just had to be
at the right place at the right time -- there was a piece of farm
equipment coming down the read and also a truck coming down the road;
not ours. This here is a detail of a standard county urban rural
two-lane road. And this is what will develop. We'll have roadside
swales and it'll be paved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To county standards?
MR. PURSE: To county standards, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Purse?
I have one on blasting. At 13.6 feet, do you know if you have
rock that will require blasting?
MR. PURSE: We've had -- the reason that the site was moved the
way it was and is not centered in the property is that there's rock
lying over in this area here (indicating), and we moved it over to
miss the rock. If we have to blast, it would be only for this area up
here. This area down here should not require blasting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is furthest from the homes of the entire
site?
MR. PURSE: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I don't -- how are we assured that
there's no exportation of water, that we're not going to reduce water
tables and interfere with wells?
MR. PURSE: Well, we are going to dig it wet, so there will be no
pumping of the water, so then the water can't leave the area. If
anything, the water will come back in, because we'll be trapping the
rain water as it comes in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's also -- I believe the South Florida Water
Management District requires some type of consumptive permit if you're
going to pump anything off.
MR. PURSE: We are not going to do any pumping for that site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if there were any --
MR. PURSE: We can dig it wet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- concerns or issues over that, the district
would have to be notified, and they would investigate to make sure
water isn't being pumped off site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I guess my other question is for Mr.
Nino, because I guess the expertise I need is some sort of a planning
perspective, a comparison of the impacts of this proposed use with the
impacts of a farming operation, as far as trucking and noise and dust
on the adjacent property owners.
MR. NINO: Well, I think it goes without saying that a mining
operation's going to have a perceptively higher impact on residences
in the area, and we point out there are very few of them. But if
you're -- on the other hand, if you decide to live in the agricultural
area, you're really accepting the premise that you're going to put up
with some environmental conditions that are not what you would find in
your standard urban residential area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But one of those is less traffic. And if
we're increasing the traffic in an agricultural area that's
residentially settled.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know how many -- if you have
an active ag area, how much truck traffic they have, though.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's my question. That's why I was
asking Mr. Nino. Compared to the tractors or whatever else you would
have, what kind of truck traffic, what kind of activity is this --
what level of activity is this as opposed to active agriculture?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, as I drive through 29 and on
Immokalee or anywhere else, you have considerably more truck traffic
than you would elsewhere.
MR. NINO: Greenway Road does serve a very extensive agricultural
area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask this question a different way.
I know that you have all these traffic standards. You can tell me how
many cars I'm going to have if I have a multifamily development per
unit versus how many cars for a single family per unit. Is there a
similar standard for a traffic impact of farming operation and a
traffic impact of mining operation like this?
MR. NINO: I -- I don't believe there is. I don't believe the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My experience with ITE is they don't have --
MR. NINO: The traffic trip generation doesn't include -- does
not include farming.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there's not some standard you can point
me to as far to be quantitative about how to measure the differences?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can tell you during harvest it's heavy, but
outside of that it's pretty light.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, certain times it's very heavy
depending on what's actually going on. When the plants are just
sitting there growing, of course there's not a lot of activity.
Let me ask Mr. Purse a question that we were going to ask him and
I don't believe he answered yet, and that is, what is the type of
equipment we're going to be digging this with?
MR. PURSE: It'll be just a backhoe.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A single backhoe?
MR. PURSE: Single backhoe.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I guess you'll have to have one of
those with the big, long extended arm.
MR. PURSE: Yes.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So, Mr. Nino, explain to the board
how this digging this lake with a backhoe would be any different than
digging a lake on a residential subdivision.
MR. NINO: I don't think it would be any different.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that most of those use draglines which
are larger.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's why I wanted Mr. Purse to tell
us that it's simply a backhoe. It's one piece of equipment working
and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the number of trips to reasonably --
I guess the market will drive how many loads of fill you sell.
MR. PURSE: In the planning hearing, we came up with -- Mr. Ed
Kant, from the transportation department, and I agreed there could be
40 trips a day, and that's market driven.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Forty trips meaning forty trucks going in and
out or twenty trucks?
MR. PURSE: Returns -- return trips, so that's twenty trucks that
could go in and out.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty truckloads a day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Twenty truckloads a day, one trip in
and one trip out?
MR. PURSE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In a ten-hour period?
MR. PURSE: Eight hour -- well, we're limited to eight hours.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's pretty aggressive --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So two-and-a-half trucks an hour.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See that's the problem I'm having. Can a
backhoe keep twenty -- can one backhoe fill a truck up twenty times a
day?
MR. PURSE: Well, you can dig -- you can dig in advance, and you
have your material stockpiled; so it's just a matter of just loading
the truck. I mean, it's not like you're digging from a lake and
then --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what a wet dig is. You take it out
wet, you stockpile it, let it dry, and then the dry material is hauled
off later. So the backhoe can work eight hours a day, and when you
need the fill, you can bring trucks in to pull it off.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So what you're telling us then, Mr. Purse,
is that not every day are we going to be running 40 trips. It just
depends on --
MR. PURSE: If no one needs fill, then there's no reason to open
the pit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How long would it take you to dig 40 loads
of fill with one backhoe?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty loads.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty loads? You have 40 trips, 20
loads.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What are they?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, how long is it going to take you
to --
MR. PURSE: They're sixteen yard trucks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- stockpile enough to load the truck 20
times?
MR. PURSE: I would say it would take -- let's see, it'd be a
three-quarter yard bucket that are using 16 yards -- you know, 16
swings. You can do a swing every minute, so you're looking at 20
minutes to load a truck if he just was loading --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Loading it direct?
MR. PURSE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you know, considering the market for
fill in this community is a seller's market, then it's not unthinkable
that there will actually be those 40 truck trips a day, because you
can do that much digging in a day.
MR. PURSE: That's correct. And then there would be days where
there won't be that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted an accurate picture.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any further questions for the
petitioner?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question here. In the information
we received, it says that this is going to be -- most of this material
is going to be going to Port of the Islands?
MR. PURSE: Yes, that's anticipated right now.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is this plan -- are you planning to use this
material other places other than Port of the Islands?
MR. PURSE: Well, right now that's where our market is is in the
Port of the Islands.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right. So the idea that it's
being -- that it's going somewhere else -- in other words, the need of
fill in Collier County, this really doesn't apply? This basically is
serving the needs of Port of the Island development?
MR. PURSE: Right. It would, I believe, be the closest pit that
they have access to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we were limiting it to just Port of
the Islands, then that eliminates a lot of the traffic concerns, but I
don't think that's what they want to do.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know. When I read this, I read it
as a personal project of the petitioner for development that's taking
place down at Port of the Islands. I didn't look at this as, quote,
commercial until I read it in some other part of the document --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it is.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- so I was a little concerned as to what is
it. Is it for the development of Port of the Islands, or is this for
a commercial --
MR. PURSE: It's for our use.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you going to limit it to Port of the
Islands or is it for commercial sale?
MR. PURSE: Let me -- if I may have a moment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm not asking you to. I'm just
asking you as applied for --
MR. PURSE: As applied right now, it's for Port of the Isles.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Fine. But that's not what your
application says. The application says you can use it anywhere.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either we're going to say it's
allowable for this purpose or we're not. I don't really care whether
it pulls out the driveway and takes a right or takes a left. It's
going to impact the neighborhood the same way or it's not. And so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The immediate neighborhood, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where -- yeah. Where it drives to
really isn't, you know, at issue here. If it pulls in next door to
me, that could have come from any pit in the county. And if it pulls
in next door to you, it could have come from any pit in the county.
So we need to decide whether it is appropriate to be used as a
landfill pit or not and stop trying to decide where the ultimate
product's going to be.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me explain the problem, if I
might, for a second. The petitioner has agreed because of the
conversation at the Planning Commission to limit this to a three-year
operation. If for some reason the market does not support that at
Port of the Islands, his three-year clock is still running; he needs
to move the fill somewhere else. It's as simple as that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. And that's what I thought it said.
It's just I have the same problem as Commissioner Berry apparently
did, that first blush it looked like the man owns this land, he also
owns a project in Port of the Islands. He just wants to dig up some
dirt for fill in his own project when, in fact, it's a potential
countywide. Nothing wrong with that. Just wanted to be sure we
understood what we were approving.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Purse, are you committing to a maximum of
40 trips a day or -- rather than an average -- I mean, I want to know
is that an average, or are you saying you're not going to have more
than 20 trucks a day?
MR. PURSE: That's -- mathematically that's what we figured that
will happen. To -- I'm not limiting myself to a specific number of
trucks. We would have to have county staff out there counting trucks
and then shut us off after the twentieth trip.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just remember on -- back when APAC came
before the board, and they said, well, we'll limit it. Because they
were going through a residential area, they said no more than 70
trucks a day, if my memory serves me right on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have different zoning district,
and it was a state zoning that had the number of homes on --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As opposed to ag?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, here's the thing, too. Now, they've
got -- they've got 16 acres at 13.2 feet. That's a finite number of
yards of fill. There's a -- you could calculate it if you want, but
there's an exact number of trucks that that'll take. He's got three
years to move that. And whether he does it all in one day, which is a
little unlikely, or spreads it out exactly even over three years, or
whether it's sort of sporadic, it's still the exact same number of
trucks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions for Mr. Purse?
Let's go to speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have none registered? Okay. I'll close the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the petitioner has
made numerous safeguards here to protect the neighborhood and to try
to conform as best as he can to be a good neighbor in this operation.
And I'll make a motion that we approve the conditional use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to approve. Is there a
second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one thing just for future reference
for staff. I just went through and circled -- the Planning Commission
gives us, you know, their findings of fact, and their reasons for
recommending denial were not just compatibility. On every one of
them, it was compatibility and ingress and egress. And, yeah, I just
think you could make that clearer in the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries five, zero.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 97-339, RE PETITION NUC-97-1, J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. REPRESENTING THOMAS L. AND NANCY L.
GREGORY REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE CHANGE FROM AN INDOOR ROLLER
SKATING RINK TO A RENTAL HALL FOR LOCAL NON-FOR-PROFIT CIVIC AND
COHMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS WITH A PRIMARY USE AS A BINGO HALL ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6750 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED W/CONDITIONS
We're to Item 13(A)(2), Petition NUC-97-1, J. Dudley Goodlette of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, representing Thomas L. and Nancy L.
Gregory. This is requesting a non-conforming use change from an
indoor rollerskating rink to rental hall for local not-for-profit
civic and community associations.
Again, I'm going to ask the -- our peti -- our staff, the
petitioner, and any member of the public here to speak on this item
please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. If you think
you're going to speak on it, you need to stand up and raise your hand.
Okay. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I'm going to ask as everyone comes to
the microphone to state your name and state whether or not you've been
sworn in.
Mr. Milk, good afternoon.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon. For the record my name is Bryan Milk,
and I am presenting Petition NUC-97-1. Petitioner is seeking an
approval of a non-conforming use change in order to convert the
existing rollerskating rink to a bingo hall located at 6750 Golden
Gate Parkway.
The existing indoor rollerskating rink has been in existence
since 1974. In 1974, the subject property was zoned C-2 and that C-2
zoning district permitted an indoor rollerskating rink as a permitted
principal use. Later that same year, the county enacted a countywide
fezone, and the subject property was rezoned from C-2 to estates.
Inadvertently that became a legal non-conforming use such as the
indoor rollerskating rink.
The current owner of the subject property has utilized the Naples
Skatery, Inc., as a rollerskating rink since 1984 and currently still
does so. The petitioner for the subject property has a contract to
buy the rollerskating rink and utilize that for a rental hall and for
the primary use as a bingo hall operational seven days a week within
two time frames, approximately 9 a.m. to -- I'm sorry, 11 a.m. to 2
p.m. and from 3 to -- I'm sorry, I got that wrong. Anyway there's two
time frames.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically from 11 in the morning until 11
at night, a little bit of break in there.
MR. MILK: Little bit of break in there; that's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask you a question here. As
I read the executive summary, the title page says, requesting a change
from an indoor rink to a rental hall for non -- non-for-profit civic
and community associations with a primary use as a bingo hall. And
when you get back into considerations, it reads -- and if you read it
clearly, it says the same thing but --
MR. MILK: It defines it more.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the indication is different. It
says the applicant is proposing to convert the rink to a bingo hall,
period. Accessory to this use, intends to use the building as a
rental hall for local not-for-profit civic and community associations.
I just -- on the executive summary, it would appear at first blush
that it's being changed for the purpose of civic and, by the way, it
might be a bingo hall. But as you get into the details, it's a bingo
hall, and then as an afterthought, perhaps to make it more palatable,
we'll make it available for civic use.
MR. MILK: The clear intent is for a bingo hall.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is the bingo hall operation tied to
not-for-profit organizations in any way?
MR. MILK: I think the majority of the users are not-for-profit
organizations that would rent the hall or the building for their bingo
usage. And I listed a number of not-for-profit organizations in
there. So, in fact, the building would be purchased with the endeavor
of that hall being used for bingo uses by different tenters of that
facility during different days of the week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course, operated for profit by the
owner?
MR. MILK: That's correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless America.
MR. MILK: In doing so, in the change of indoor skating to the
bingo hall or rental hall in usage, Division 1.86 of the Land
Development Code says that this board must find the use similar in
character, less intensive or the same nature as the existing use on
the subject property.
Staff has went through and provided the considerations and has
found that the use bingo hall will be of the same character and, in
fact, less intensive than the existing skating rink just because of
the trip generation, hours of operation, and the stipulations found in
the resolution of adoption which would, in fact, bring the site, up to
the greatest extent possible, compatible to the Land Development Code
as far as landscaping, the architectural nature of it, the signage,
and anything that would be found during the site development plan
process.
So, in essence, what you would have is a site that would be
completely buffered from the surrounding estates property to the east
and the west. There's an existing house to the south that abuts the
actual building to the south. So what you have, in essence, is an
opaque either fence, berm, or combination of landscaping and fence on
three sides, which would be the east, the south, and the west sides,
the landscape buffer in the right-of-way adjacent to Golden Gate
Parkway.
The building would be brought up to the architectural design
guidelines found in Division 2.8, and interior landscaping would be
provided as would interior lighting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can anybody show us some pictures of, you
know, what kind of serious improvement we might have? Can we get that
from the petitioner? He's nodding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I see the petitioner nodding; so we'll
probably have to wait for his presentation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can wait.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's key to me in addition to traffic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, do you have
something?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, a couple of things. How many
people are anticipated to be -- how many people are currently there
during the day for your typical rollerskating activity?
MR. MILK: I think it depends on the event staged for that day.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Typical day is what I'm asking.
MR. MILK: Four to five hundred.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's for summertime, probably.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four or five hundred. So in December
when I drive by there, it should be a full parking lot at eleven
o'clock in the morning?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Not even possible. I mean, to my
kid, this was a hot thing to do for fifth graders on Friday nights.
And on Friday nights, it was full of fifth and six graders but, you
know, you can drive by that during the day, it's an empty parking lot.
MR. MILK: That's correct. And the reason for that, most of them
people are dropped off via vans or schools or clubs or practices, both
professionally, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. But during the day in
school year, it's not four or five hundred during the day? MR. MILK: That's correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- how about like a -- do they
operate the rollerskating portion weeknights as well? Do you know
what the hours are of the rollerskating operation?
MR. MILK: It varies. It varies all the way up to 1 a.m. in
the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From what to what?
MR. MILK: I'm not sure.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: There is a schedule. I don't know if this
is the one. It says Wednesday evening from 6 to 8 p.m. This is for
the older folks -- I guess that's my age -- that get to go skate.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess how many, then, would you
anticipate, then, at the Wacky Skate, odd dates ladies, from 6 to 8
p.m. on a Wednesday evening?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's probably my group, too, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The late skate --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that 50 people? Is that 500
people?
MR. MILK: It might be a hundred and fifty.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I'm asking is this, if the
anticipated attendance for the matinee sessions of bingo will be
approximately 100 participants, and anticipated that evening sessions
will have an average of approximately 200 participants, and it will
be held seven days a week. And it just sounds like that may actually
be more than are going to Wacky Skate right now. I'm sure at peak
times the skating is higher than that, but I got to think on average,
it's not necessarily higher than that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would -- I'd say if skating rink were
doing that well, it would want to continue in operation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think this isn't a question of whether the
skating rink --
MR. MILK: And I -- and that's a correct assessment. And I'm
basing this on the analysis. If you took a 16,000-square-foot
building, which this is, by the ITE trip generation manual that we use
for traffic studies and took that accordingly for what that could hold
versus the bingo, the skatery is a more intense use typically by the
area overall used than the bingo hall at a hundred during the
afternoon matinee or two hundred in the evening matinee. So that's
where that analysis came from.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I raised the question -- as you
said, it must be in order to get this non-conforming use -- it must be
less in intensity, and it-- by the description that we've just run
through, it doesn't sound like it's going to be less in intensity.
Sounds like the Wacky Skate is less intense than bingo's going to be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess there's a point on traffic that I feel
I need to raise, because when I went through that, as I looked at
this, the same thing arose but -- and, Pam, you know this with kids.
What do you do? You take them and drop them off. You come back and
pick them up. That's four trips.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't disagree. I'm just
saying if you've got fifty kids, though, on a Tuesday night versus
what they're anticipating to be a couple hundred people, it doesn't
matter whether you drop them off and pick them up. It still ends up
being less even with two trips.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just saying two kids equals one adult in
trips. So if we're looking at traffic intensity, I think there is an
argument, but certainly not every night. And the same thing with
bingo. I'm sure Tuesday night bingo doesn't draw what Friday night
bingo does. I mean, I don't know. I don't play bingo, and I don't
skate anymore so -- I don't know, but I am saying in the traffic
generation, one thing I looked at is when you're dealing with kids, it
generates four trips, whereas an adult will generate one, and there
are a lot of places like the -- these ACLFs that run buses to bingo.
They bring in those people by 20-passenger, you know, bus or minivan;
so there is some group aspect to it, and I just -- I factored that in
when I looked at transportation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I looked at the hours. With the
exception of Friday and Saturday, which go to 10:30, the skates were
-- the late skate, Wednesday evening, it ends at eight o'clock at the
latest every night, some nights earlier than that.
And again, you get back to the intensity issue. According to the
petition, it will go to 11 -- or conclude by 11:30 every night.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I'm reading 9, 10, 11 p.m.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that's the skating.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: The bingo is 11 to 3, and then 6 to 11:30.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just saying I was just reading that's it's
not eight -- nine o'clock, ten o'clock, eleven o'clock. It's between
8 and 11 for skating.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two late nights and, again, my point
is, according to the petition, the other will be later every night,
seven days a week. So, again, you go back to the intensity question.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess -- I don't know. Caution me,
Mr. Weigel, if this is an inappropriate thing to be saying, but -- I
will talk slowly. But when we have legal non-conformities, we have to
respect the private property right to continue that legal
nonconformity, but I would assume that the goal is to eventually have
the property convert to conforming status since we rezoned it to
E-estates.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, your assumption is correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's never going to happen if we
continue to stretch the nonconformity.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final point. How far from the
new charter school is this?
MR. MILK: It's approximately 600 feet.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Across the street.
MR. MILK: Across 68th Street; correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's a valid concern, A,
if you add to the intensity but, B, granted it's a fun, more harmless
version of gambling, but it's nonetheless a gambling type thing, a
gaming type thing. And I don't know if you want that 600 feet away
from a school.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But, Tim, wait a minute. If you're going to
use that for an argument, look at some of the churches and schools and
what they do, if you're going to look at the gambling aspect of it. I
can't go along with that as an argument against this project. I think
there's another argument --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I stick with my first argument.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Stick with your other argument, but I
wouldn't stick with this, because there's too many churches that use
their church halls --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The insidious bingo nuns are after you now.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- and in schools themselves, so I think
that's probably not a real good argument here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, did you have anything to add to your
presentation at this point?
MR. MILK: At this point, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we ask the petitioner for
their presentation?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had one more '-
MR. MILK: I will say one thing for the record, that this was
advertised and we sent out notices, and I have not received any
letters of objection, at least via the phone or written correspondence
at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we need to do this, also. I've received
two phone calls stating positions and not requesting a return call and
one communication today from somebody who had concerns and expressed
concern about this project, but I'll base my decision on information
presented here today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had some outside contact, and I will
base my decision on what we hear in this room.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I haven't heard anything till today, so I
will base my decision on what we hear today.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I haven't heard anything either until today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have, and I'll follow the state law.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my -- just since Commissioner
Constantine was brave enough to say, you know, the gambling thing, is
there -- can there be alcohol served?
MR. MILK: No. The stipulation prohibits alcoholic beverages on
site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the site. So they can't even bring it
in?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No bingo and bottle club.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just hoping.
MR. GOODLETTE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dudley
Goodlette with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. We
represent the petitioners in this action, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Kaplan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Goodlette. Have you been sworn
in?
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, I was. I'm sorry. For the purpose of the
record, I'll just -- I won't reiterate what Mr. Milk has summarized
in his review of this petition. We are here for an extension, not any
kind of an expansion of the non-conforming use, based upon the staff's
analysis that's contained in the LDC interpretation that was rendered,
that's in your packets at pages 17 and 18, dated June the 3rd, 1997.
What we asked for was an interpretation as to whether or not the
existing non-conforming use was a legal or an illegal non-conforming
use. The opinion rendered by Mr. Arnold in that letter was that it
was indeed a legal non-conforming use.
And the second question that we had asked for a response to was,
could we conduct this rental hall for -- primarily for bingo activity
rented to charitable institutions within the community, could we
conduct that and it was -- the interpretation was that Section 1.8.6
of the Land Development Code would then kick in, and we would have to
-- we would be required to come before you in order to accomplish that
desired objective.
The historical use of the property, as a skating rink for some 23
years, different degrees of intensity of that use clearly, but your
staff has concluded, and I think legally and properly so, that it is a
legal non-conforming use. And whether they -- as long as they operate
continuously there, I think that your staff's analysis as Mr. Milk as
indicated is the correct analysis, and that is go to the -- go to your
-- to the SIC code and determine what is the use for that -- for that
particular use, what are the transportation analysis, what are the
other parking analysis. And the conclusion that they've reached, and
correctly so, and I think that's the issue before you this afternoon,
is what -- in what intensity can the property be used with its current
use and what is the intensity with it's -- with it's proposed use, and
the conclusion that your staff has correctly reached on that subject
is it would be less intense. And I think that's an important part of
this discussion, notwithstanding --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that's
what staff said once we got the discussion going. I know that's what
was said here originally, but once we raised some of the questions
about transportation and I asked some of the usage numbers, I'm not
sure that we're all in agreement on that at this point.
MR. GOODLETTE: Well, I would -- I invite you ask to ask Mr. Milk
again, because I believe that's exactly the way he answered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Milk, when you just -- when I
just asked you a question a few minutes ago, did you not knowledge
that there may be increased activity through, A, the number of
participants, B, through transportation and, 3, through the hours of
operation?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MILK: And my preface for doing so was based on the different
levels of agendas for that particular day at the skatery.
MR. GOODLETTE: But again, Commissioner Constantine, the analysis
that was done to determine the intensity of use was using SIC code
analysis, is that not correct?
MR. MILK: That's correct. The SIC analysis for a skating rink
and bingo parlor are exactly the same; they're 7999. They're what
they call permitted principal uses in the C-4 district. So with that,
we took the ITE transportation manual and, again, on the building
square footage for a bingo parlor and an indoor skating rink, the
manual projected that the bingo hall would produce about 133 to 170
more trips per day given that facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in answer to my question, so it
will project more even using the SIC code?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But using my question, we just tried
to plug in real-life numbers; is that correct?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I have a little bit of a difficulty
with that line, and it's because just because the skating rink is not
operating at maximum capacity now, doesn't mean it couldn't be in the
future so if they're --
MR. MILK: That's why we used that analysis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- not doing well right now, but their only
market is to sell to someone who wants to run a skating rink, someone
could come in, do a bang-up job, and all of a sudden that things
turning numbers that are not -- so I think we have to look at the
standards, and that's the only apples to apples I can find so I --
MR. MILK: And that's a consistent analysis that we do everyday
for a fezone or conditional use public hearing presentation. That's
the manual we use. That's the criteria we use. And based on that
criteria and analysis, the bingo hall proved to be more intense from a
traffic generation, trip generation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we couldn't limit those even further if we
chose to?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But using that safety code, it did
prove to be more intense?
MR. GOODLETTE: The bingo or the skating?
MR. MILK: The bingo.
MR. GOODLETTE: In trip generation only.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
MR. GOODLETTE: In any event, the intended use of the property,
as we will describe it here today, is it will be a rental hall,
primarily, to charities, two sessions a day as indicated, and it will
be -- on the premises the conduct of bingo will be the principal use,
the primary use of the charities.
It's important, I believe, to note that Mr. and Mr. Kaplan have
been in this business for over 15 years in southwest Florida. They've
been in this business for over five years at Airport Bingo right here
in Collier County on Airport and Radio Road.
The principal reason for this being before you today is that
they frankly need more space. They are turning charities away who
would like to utilize their current facility, and this property, when
they learned of its availability and the interest on the part of the
current owners to sell the property, we did exactly what you would
have -- I believe expected we would do and check to see if the zoning
was appropriate. We received a letter of interpretation, and we're
here before you today in hopes that you will conclude, after hearing a
couple of the speakers as well who have come to talk with you about
the conduct of this operation, the charities who rent the hall and for
whom the games are -- games are conducted.
I want to indicate to you that the conduct of the bingo games
themselves are controlled entirely by state statute, okay. Chapter
849 of the Florida Statutes controls these operations. Jonathan
Kaplan, one of our clients in this matter, is very actively involved
in the statewide association, can answer some specific questions you
may have. But suffice is to say, it is fairly heavily regulated, and
they're quite proud of the involvement that they have had through 15
years in southwest Florida in this business. They have not had any
complaints. They conduct a very open, honest business, and we think
that it would be a credit to -- to the larger community that they will
serve by virtue of having this additional facility.
Now, when -- we reviewed your staff's recommendations and their
analysis, and contained within the analysis are certain conditions
that Mr. Milk has discussed with you this afternoon. One of the
important conditions is the landscaping plan. And although we were
not required to do so, we thought in reviewing your staff's
recommendations, our clients wanted to know, well, what does that
mean? What might that entail in terms of the landscaping plan?
We went ahead and had Russell Bencaz and Associates prepare that
landscaping plan, and that's what I have asked your manager to
distribute. You have a copy in front of you, and a colored rendering
is what's in front of you here. The only caveat that we have with
respect to that plan, and certainly we're amenable to doing just
exactly that, as long as the two lots that are immediately adjacent to
this property on both the east and the west are vacant lots and fairly
heavily overgrown with weeds, there's not much to buffer right now,
and we would like to have the understanding that the buffer, if this
petition, as we hope it will be approved this afternoon, that we can
have some consideration granted as to when that landscaping must be
installed. If it's immediately, you know, we will do it immediately.
But we would like to have some concession with respect to that issue
or some discussion with respect to that issue.
If you have any specific questions about the operation, I'd be
more than happy to try to answer those or ask Mr. Jonathan Kaplan or
Judith Kaplan to answer those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a couple questions. I apologize
for being on the phone. I had a child-care emergency there, but it's
covered.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your son didn't get beat up?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, God, I hadn't heard from him yet.
It's so bad.
But I was curious not only about the landscaping but about -- I
heard that architectural standards are to be complied with so that the
building itself will be brought up to arc -- the new architectural
code. Did I understand that?
MR. GOODLETTE: It's not the intention of the applicant to make
any changes to the structure of the building itself other than on the
interior. If there's a need to bring the architectural design of the
structure -- so we don't intend to expand it in any way. We're going
to be using the existing 16,000 square feet that's contained there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you willing to make it prettier?
MR. GOODLETTE: I mean, that's what the landscaping plan is
designed for, and if there are other areas that you would like to see
that make this venture economically viable, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are the hours of operation?
MR. GOODLETTE: The hours of operation as indicated in your
materials are from 11:30 in the morning, there will be a game. People
will be arriving there probably by 10, 10:15. That is -- normally
concludes by three o'clock. There will be another game starting at
6:30 in the evening and it would be concluded and people would be --
had departed there by 11:30 at the latest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that will be seven nights a week?
MR. GOODLETTE: That's the plan, yes, sir. And we anticipate
that that will be the case, because we think that we will be fully
subscribed, because our existing experience is that we're full each
day that we're open.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: On this landscaping plan, Mr. Goodlette, is
there anything done here regarding lighting? I don't see any. Is
there going to be any improved lighting in that area, and what type of
lighting?
MR. GOODLETTE: It's part of your staff's recommendations. It's
not shown in the landscaping plan, but we certainly intend to comply
with the code requirements to bring the lighting, exterior lighting,
up to your current code requirements. We've discussed that with the
Kaplans, and they're perfectly amenable to -- anxious to do that,
frankly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No Saturn dealership lighting?
MR. GOODLETTE: No Saturn dealership lighting, no, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would it -- I'm not -- I don't know,
so I don't know, Mr. Milk, if this is your expertise or not, but what
would it take to bring the building into compliance with the
architectural code just from an aesthetic viewpoint?
MR. MILK: Well, the existing building has -- a majority of it is
a metal building.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. MILK: And a metal building in the commercial district is
nonexistent today by virtue of the architectural design guidelines, I
mean, at least not continuously metal. So there'd have to be some
kind of a face lift to the building, some undulations, perhaps some
canopies on the existing building to beautify it and to get rid of or
loose the metal building looks of that particular --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have an architect on staff now, and he
did some incredible drawings with some of the Immokalee streetscape
plans where --
MR. MILK: Streetscape. Even down there at Lake Trafford there
was the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A crummy looking building that was a metal
building got some awnings and some different signage --
MR. MILK: For $10,000 you got a brand new face lift, correct.
And that's what this resolution purports, too. I mean, it asks that
the applicant bring that building up to the criteria per the
architectural design guidelines with the lighting, the landscaping,
and the building.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought I just heard Mr. Goodlette
say they'd do the landscaping but didn't intend to do anything to the
structure.
MR. MILK: Yeah. But that's not what the resolution states per
your staff report on page 22.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the staff report has said the building will
be --
MR. MILK: The resolution says four things. It says the
landscaping, the building, the signage, and the lighting shall be
brought up to compliance with the Collier County Land Development
Code.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that's what you said.
MR. GOODLETTE: If it's the requirement that the -- and I guess I
just misunderstood that -- misread the report, perhaps, in talking
with Bryan, but if it's required that we bring the building up to
standards, we'll do that. We'll have to do a cost analysis of that,
as we have the landscaping, to determine that it's -- that it doesn't
make this venture for the client economically nonviable. But assuming
that those are more cosmetic --
MR. MILK: It's a face lift to the existing building.
MR. GOODLETTE: -- it would be -- I would certainly anticipate
that we would have no problem doing that, Commissioner Constantine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Clarification. You said with provisions of
the Land Development Code. Do we know specifically if architectural
standards apply in this zoning district? That's the real question.
MR. MILK: Well, the real question is this would be looked at as
a commercial building. I mean, the use is definitely a permitted
principal use in the C-4 zoning district, therefore, it would be
applied to the commercial zoning so, yes, we would apply that criteria
to this building as we would the landscaping provisions for a
commercial building next to a residential lot.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because the use, not the zoning district,
controls when you're non-conforming.
MR. GOODLETTE: And to that end, may I just say that -- and I
should have stated that our client intends for this to be a
first-class presence here. And they would want to do that anyway. I
just haven't done a financial analysis or given that to them to do as
we have the landscaping which I was more concerned about what the cost
of that might be, and that's why we had Mr. Bencaz put a pencil to
paper on that.
MR. MILK: I think what's critical, too, is either lot on the
east and west side -- on the east side it's a 5-acre undeveloped
parcel; on the west side, I believe, it's almost 2 1/4 acres. Those
lots, by virtue of the Golden Gate Master Plan, can only be developed
as a single-family lot with guest houses; so this plan actually
further buffers and transitions that property unlike the Naples
Skatery would. If left in it's current condition, there's only about
a 6-foot setback from the edge of the driveway or asphalt parking lot
to each property line. And there's an extensive forested area on
either lot. But once that's taken down, there isn't much of a buffer
left for either single-family property owner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But nobody is going to build a
single-family home next to either a skating rink --
MR. MILK: They don't have a choice, though. The Growth
Management Plan --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if they're going to do anything with
that piece of property, it has to be a single-family home, but
realistically from the market standpoint, it's pretty unlikely that --
MR. MILK: It's unlikely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- they're going to build a home next to
either a skating rink or a bingo hall.
MR. MILK: It hasn't occurred in 23 years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's probably why.
MR. MILK: I'm just trying to make a point that there isn't that
great of a buffer there. If this was approved, that would be
enhanced. It'd be at least a 6-foot opaque buffer with landscaping
and interior lighting and a beautiful -- beautified building there
with certain stipulations --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask that we do this. I have a couple
more questions for Mr. Goodlette.
How many speakers do you have registered?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Six.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We -- the issue of sign ordinance,
architectural standards, and landscaping has been answered. This
would have to comply with the code which includes those architectural
standards; so that helps me out on that. MR. MILK: And immediately.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And immediately. What is the maximum number
of seats for the purpose of bingo, since we're talking about
generation here? How many seats are we talking about?
MR. GOODLETTE: Three hundred and fifty would be a maximum
number. Three fifty to three seventy would be real maximum number.
You were looking for the high end, I assume, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, and that's part of the impact
calculation to me is that we have to look at what could the skating
rink generate if it were doing well and what could this generate if
doing well; so I need to compare capacities, so that's the reason for
that number. And that may be a limiting factor. But -- okay, I don't
have any further questions.
Any further questions for Mr. Goodlette?
Do you have anything to add at this time Mr. Goodlette?
MR. GOODLETTE: I would like to just have an opportunity to
reserve a few comments for the end after the speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Typically, we don't do that, but if there are
questions from the board on matters for your client, we'll be able to
address you at that time.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, let's call speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe the first speaker has already left,
Marie Santos.
Next, Mary Weeks. Then after her, Dorothy Johnson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, the topic here is the fezone issue.
I do know we have some charities represented here, and I appreciate
your being here, but the issue before us is a fezone, so we're going
to try and confine our comments to that.
MS. WEEKS: My name is Mary Weeks. I'm with Project Help here in
Collier County. We're a not-for-profit organization that rents the
hall on a regular basis. We've been doing so for approximately a year
now. Project Help has five functions -- primary functions in Collier
County, which is the Collier County hot line, the rape crisis team,
domestic violence, survivors of homicide and suicide, and we do
victim counseling for all other crime victims. All of our services to
the community are free of charge, all counseling, ongoing counseling,
is free of charge.
We have expected to generate a minimum of $5,000 per year from
them which is for a non-profit organization that doesn't take any
money from any clients and serves a very, very large amount of our
community, which is 20,000-plus clients per year, $5,000 a year is a
huge help.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Weeks, please don't misinterpret my
statement, but you need to stay on track of the fezone and its
impacts. I understand fully the importance of this to your
organization, and this would be an expansion of those dollars. I
think we know -- have been told of several agencies that benefit from
this, and we can't really make a decision about whether we do or don't
want your agencies to benefit; that can't be a part of our decision.
MS. WEEKS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's just a land use decision. So I'm going to
ask you and everyone else to please confine your comments to that.
MS. WEEKS: Okay. That was basically what we wanted to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next, Dorothy Johnson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And following Miss Johnson?
MR. FERNANDEZ: And then Dee Talty.
MS. JOHNSON: My name is Dorothy Johnson. I have been sworn in.
I live on the corner of 66th Street and Golden Gate Parkway, and I
have a lot of questions. My single-family residential area does not
need a non-conforming bingo hall to help raise their family, and this
is right smack in the middle of our unit. The parkway runs right
through the middle of our unit, and 68th Street on this side -- on the
east side, which it would be, is just about smack center. A
non-conforming school with trailers was given to us, and trailers were
never allowed in the estates before. It is only one lot away from
this area where they want to built this. And I had a question on the
food and what kind of drinks. Because the daily bingo hours are 11 to
3, they're going to need something to eat and drink. And they said
they would be coming at 10, and it will take them at least an hour to
get out of there; so that's really 10 to 4.
Now, they run from 6 to 11:30 at night. They'll start coming at
five and leave by midnight, I hope. Now, when are these places going
to rent this hall? Bingo's open 7 days a week. Either you have to go
at 6 in the morning to rent the hall, a half hour in between the
bingo games, or after midnight. When are these places going to rent
the hall? They said primary for bingo, and that's for sure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ma'am, the rental hours are the hours of
operation. It's the same thing.
MS. JOHNSON: They play bingo while they're running their
meeting?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you mean for something other than
bingo?
MS. JOHNSON: Come on, now. They're renting it to these
non-profit organizations, when?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When the -- those non-profit organizations
are selling those bingo cards in order to make money for their
non-profits. I just thought you'd want to know.
MS. JOHNSON: Come again. Now, if you know the area at all, and
I live there --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: How far away, please?
MS. JOHNSON: I live on the corner of 66th Street, and this is
between 66th and 68th.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So how far is that?
MS. JOHNSON: You didn't notify me, so I am not 300 feet, maybe
800, would you say?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, ballpark.
MS. JOHNSON: I'm not sure of that, but nevertheless -- now the
school hours -- and they have a hundred students now, and they usually
get out around three o'clock or about that time -- about the time the
bingo gets out.
Now, there is no way to get to that bingo place without a U-turn
on that main highway. If you drive that highway very much, you know
what I mean. You either -- to come out of it to go toward Golden
Gate, to get out you have to make a U-turn at 66th Street to get back
to town. If you're coming from Golden Gate, you have to make a U-turn
at 68th Street to get to the bingo hall. There's no other way around.
Now, the skating rink misused the median all the time after you
planted it, and they even had to put up this great big metal posts or
whatever you call them -- stick them in the middle of the median, and
as soon as they'd put in about a half a dozen of them, then they
started cutting across right at the end of the rods that they put up.
It's fierce.
Now, when you say compared to if a skating rink was going full
blast, how many people would this mean? That has nothing to do with
it. The skating rink hasn't done any business for years. If you call
them up, you can't even go skating there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did we lose the microphone?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Test, test, test, test.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am going to have to ask you to hold because
we need to have it recorded. Something has been reduced because you
can hear a minimum of noise. Mr. Weigel, are we able to continue
conducting the meeting without having the sound?
MR. WEIGEL: As long as we're getting it at lease recorded by the
reporter we're okay. We're meeting our legal obligation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Turn it off and on again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll have Hiss Filson do that. While we're
doing that let me ask the court reporter, without the microphone, are
you able to hear everything fine?
COURT REPORTER: If she speaks up. I need everybody to speak up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't worry about that.
MS. JOHNSON: I'll have no trouble doing that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's continue. I'm going to ask
anyone who is speaking to speak clearly and with a little bit of
projection, and we'll go from there. And ask the board members one at
a time, please. Let's not step on anyone's toes. We can make it very
easy.
Please continue with your comments.
MS. JOHNSON: All right. They said next year they would have 200
in the school. Now, I'm sure that the bingo hall expects to have a
lot more, too. Now, when they go to 11:30 at night and every night,
and we're talking about seven days a week, the skating rink was never
open that amount of time, never.
How does this help a single-family residential area? Please say
no now. If it doesn't benefit the neighborhood and is a deterrent
rather than a help to the area, please say no. We have had it shoved
down our throats for years, and we're tired of it.
Now, when they put in that -- and you just had it in the paper
again last week about the six-laning and the new 1-75 interchange
there, I can see all these U-turns on that road then, because the road
would go clear up to the door of the barn at the school. That's what
we call it. Although they jokingly say, well, all the kids always
learned the most out behind the barn anyhow; that's what they say in
the neighborhood about the school.
So I think that this is a sad thing to have in my neighborhood.
These buildings -- there were a five-acre tract on each one of these
corners, the original. I am one of the original owners. I bought my
land in '64. That parkway wasn't even open till '73. They had the
grand opening in Hay the 6th, '73.
Those original five acres were commercial. If you wanted to have
a commercial place, you bought that. I didn't want to be commercial,
so I didn't buy there. Now, when they changed the rules in '74, and
they changed it to E-estates, they grandfathered these places in
although grandfather had been dead a long time; they didn't even have
the plans made for it yet, and they still got in for that -- on the
commercial area.
Now, I think this kind of a thing --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. You -- I'm going to have to
interrupt you, because even though we did cut you off at one point,
you have exceeded the five-minute time frame for your comments.
MS. JOHNSON: I ask you, please, do not put this in our
neighborhood. It's nothing but a gambling outfit. Of course, the math
kids could learn something about percentages of losing their money.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernan --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Dee Talty and then Karen -- Kathryn, I'm sorry,
Kathryn Hunter.
MS. TALTY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, my name is Dee Talty.
Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, the microphones are back on.
MS. TALTY: Okay. I have been sworn in. And I just want to say
that I have absolutely no knowledge of zoning laws, and I think you
know that I'm here only to speak on behalf of the bingo hall as it
relates to our charity. And I think you know that any of you probably
here either belong to or on the board of some charity or will be in
the future. And it's very difficult to raise funds. And it's a real
bonus when we can, with little or no effort, raise somewhere between
five or six thousand dollars a year; so I hope that you will approve
this, because it'll help our benefactor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Kathryn Leib Hunter and Steven Donovan.
MS. LEIB HUNTER: Good afternoon. I'm Kathryn Leib Hunter and,
yes, I've been sworn in. I'm here as the executive director of the
Alliance for the Mentally Ill and as a board member for the Naples
Alliance for Children. We are also two of the receiving charities,
and I won't go on about how important it is to us, although it is
vital for us to continue operations.
I will say that we have worked with the Kaplans and with the
bingo facility for almost four years now. The professionalism of
their staff and all of us working together, it's really been a true
partnership. It's been really remarkable.
I've been at the rink with school buses myself several, several
times, and it's been to the max in there with several hundreds kids,
although the parking lot may not reflect that as such. I don't know
too much about zoning either which is why I'm an executive director of
a non-profit and not up there with you-all. But I will say that I
think that with -- knowing that -- knowing the Kaplans and knowing all
the charities that help run and implement this bingo, when they
implement the proposed change, it certainly will only help the
aesthetic value of the existing place and the surrounding facilities
as well.
And I also know that all of us as the volunteer charities are
willing and welcome -- we want to take on the -- we want to take on
Charter School. We would love to have the Charter School be a
recipient of these funds and also Girls Incorporated. And those are
very important, and those are very important in Golden Gate. And we
certainly want to continue to support that. And with that, we really
do urge you to say yes today. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Steven Donovan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And do you know who is following Mr. Donovan? MR. FERNANDEZ: He's last.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I remember a proclamation involving Mr.
Donovan not too long ago.
MR. DONOVAN: That was us. My name is Steve Donovan. I'm with
K-9 Search & Rescue of South Florida, and Happy has been sworn in,
too. I will be a future -- if this endeavor is approved by the
county, I will be a future recipient of the funds. And, no, I can't
comment on the zoning. Leave that up to your wisdoms. But otherwise
we -- I hope that you would approve the future uses of this facility.
I have children also, too, and they haven't exactly been thrilled
knowing they're going to lose the skating hall, but hopefully there
will be other entrepreneurs, as even myself may one day, will build
them one. And I think that, you know, with the two that there can be
a good marriage some day, that there will be future skating halls.
And also -- and with this improvement on, you know, having an
increased bingo hall's future by helping non-profits. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That was our last speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to say, before closing the public
hearing, I'd like to open it back up for questions we have for either
staff or the petitioner. And, Commissioner Constantine, you have a
question for staff?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Milk, you said there were three
items that need to be met, three hurdles if you will. It needs to be
similar in character. It needs to be lower in intensity. What was
the third item?
MR. MILK: Or more appropriate than the existing use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why do I sense where you're going with
this?
MR. MILK: Character and intensity is really the two that are
listed in Section 1.86.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kind of a rhetorical question:
Haven't we had everyone -- a lot of folks in town asking about roller
hockey and, gosh, we need to build a place for roller hockey where
they'd have a rink for roller hockey. It seems like an
entrepreneurial thought if you owned a roller rink and everyone was
demanding roller hockey, would be to use it for that purpose. But
what do I know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I come from -- when it comes to character,
this site has been -- and I doubt I'm going to make any friends with
this one -- it's been an eyesore for a long time. The parking lot is
-- is ridiculously underlandscaped. The building is less than
attractive. If you look at -- I guess it's been a rink since '74. I
don't know if they've paid it off and made improvements. I don't know
what the financial situation is. But I'm sure it has a value to them
greater to sell to someone to operate it as a skating rink than it
does to sell as a residential lot.
So I think there is an assumption here that this property is
either going to continue as a skating rink or another non-conforming
use. One of those two is going to happen. I don't see them letting
it fall into disrepair and just letting it become a residential lot.
So the issue of non-conforming uses, what goes in there to me is a
question of impacts on the immediate neighborhood, and that's where
I'm trying to focus myself on this.
At 350 seats the question I have is, how many times would you
turn those seats in a given session? And I need -- this is important
to me. So if there's 350 seats, can only 350 people show up, or do
these seats turn? That's something I need to know.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're talking about that, can I
just say something I'm going to want to know, too, and that is I would
very much like to see the architectural rendering of the improved site
based on the third criterion that Mr. Milk stated, and that is whether
or not a use is more consistent with the surrounding community. The
answer to that question is going to bear greatly on how the property
looks when it's improved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, along that lines -- can we
ask that question? I mean, what we're trying to decide is what's an
appropriate land use as opposed to how the department is going to be
canvassed. And I appreciate where both of you guys are going with
that. I just don't want to get us into a quandary as far as what we
can legally and not legally base this decision upon.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. I think your question's well taken, Mr.
Constantine. But we're talking land use which is -- has some
distinctions from particular -- we can talk about standards but
staying within standards is one thing as opposed to particular sites
and plans which are not before this board at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to be careful that we
don't say it's an acceptable land use if they do certain things to the
building and it's not acceptable otherwise, and I feel like that's
what we're on the border of. And I appreciate trying to make sure the
site's as attractive as possible, but we need to be a little careful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was not the intent of my comment. My
comment is that if nothing happens, we know what we have. If this
change is made, the physical character of the building has been
proposed to be changed and measuring that as a character issue.
But let me get back to the question of number of seats. There's
350 maximum. How many times are those turned during a session? MR. GOODLETTE: One time per session.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So each session there's going to a maximum of
350 players?
MR. GOODLETTE: Whatever the number of seats as regulated by the
fire marshal, I guess, and I think it's 350 to 370 based upon our
analysis. It would not turn over -- once the game is -- a session is
started, there's no turnover.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we have 700 people a day maximum
using the facility; am I correct with that? MR. GOODLETTE: Maximum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, are you the guy who knows?
MR. MILK: Can I interject at --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whoever can give me the answer to that, I'm
trying to get to that traffic issue, the traffic impact.
MR. MILK: Let me -- there's approximately 100 parking places on
site, which really only allow 300 seats on the site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So they're capped at 300 seats based on
the parking requirement anyway? MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Goodlette, do you have a different answer
on '-
MR. GOODLETTE: No. The nod was that we never maximize it. I
mean, it's not both sessions maximized. That's what the nod was. But
the maximum is the 600, the number that you have now. That 300 per
session is what the maximum would be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm a little confused there,
because in your comments prior to the public hearing, and I'm quoting,
because I wrote it down. You said, "Our existing experience is we're
nearly always full" and --
MR. GOODLETTE: It's a smaller --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said we're nearly always full and
we would expect the same thing here.
MR. GOODLETTE: It's less than half -- the current facility is
less than half the size of what this will be, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The quote was, "We're nearly always
full and we would expect the same experience here." So I mean either
we're going to be full or not, and I'm hearing both sides of that -- MR. GOODLETTE: I'm answering the question I was asked, and the
maximum is 600.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm looking at that. Is that maximum of 600
people, which is 1200 trips a day using the facility, as a traffic
generator. When we looked at a stating rink, and you did the ITE
generation, what were we looking at a day on the skating rink?
MR. MILK: Actually, the building square footage was used in both
accounts. The building is roughly 16,000 square feet, so based on the
rink size and the operation size, that analysis was a little bit
higher, again, for the bingo hall versus the skating rink.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But what was the analysis for a skating
rink? I'm looking for the number that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: His numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the maximum number that we could come up
with for the skating rink. I'm trying to compare maximum to maximum.
MR. MILK: Okay. The analysis was based on approximately 300
people using the bingo hall and approximately 300 people using the
rollerskating rink. Based on the numbers that were provided to me at a
hundred participants during the early morning matinee and two hundred
at the evening matinee.
Well, those numbers were very consistent as far as that. And
then looking at the end use in the overall building square footage, it
still came out a little bit more with the bingo hall providing a more
intense trip generation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the seats were limited to 250 instead of
300, would that have an effect on that analysis? MR. MILK: It does, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But he just said using 300 as a number
per day --
MR. MILK: I used 300 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish, Mr. Milk. You just said
300 per day, and the number we've said is 600 per day; so 250 would
still make 500, which is higher than the number you used.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need apples to apples --
MR. MILK: For this conversation, we're using a higher number
than what was used in this analysis. The analysis that we used wasn't
600.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, but use 600 for us, 'cause that's
the question that Commissioner Hancock asked you.
MR. MILK: I can't do that right now. I mean, I'd have to have
the manual and compare a bigger skating rink to the same bingo hall
so '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask this. Do you remember the
generation per thousand square feet for this type of facility as a
skating rink? Do you remember that number? MR. MILK: I do not, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is it anywhere in our packet or is that
just something that was done --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody got it? Can you look it up?
MR. MILK: Yeah, myself and Ray Bellows devised that together.
MR. GOODLETTE: Hay I ask what the question was, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm trying to do is compare the traffic
impact of the bingo hall to our best-guess traffic impact of the
skating rink. And again, it's not a question of is the skating rink
operating as well as it could or not. There are ITE standards per
thousand square foot for a certain type of use. So we have a known
thing in the bingo hall. We know there's 300 seats. We know the max
they're going to do is fill 300 seats twice a day. So here I have a
known traffic generation on one hand as a maximum. I'm looking for
the comparison of what is the -- an ITE is a curve; it's not a
maximum, but in the middle of that curve, they establish an amount per
thousand square feet for certain types of uses, and I'm looking to
compare those two, because it's important to answer Commissioner
Constantine's question about impacts.
MR. MILK: And I think looking at the existing parking
configuration, the existing constraints on how many people can use
that facility based on parking, that's how we analyze the whole use
trips and categorize it as the ITE manual to derive --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's flawed because of how
skating --
MR. GOODLETTE: Right. And that understates the current use.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. GOODLETTE: And because Mr. Gregory, who's the owner of the
skating rink, just indicated to me -- and I'd be happy to have him
come to the podium if he would be willing to do so, but one recent
Wednesday there were over 612 people in the premises at one time. I
mean, students, many students, but it was maxed out. I mean, there is
a very intense use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's not your average day,
though. I guess -- I mean, let's look at -- let's look at real
numbers and then let's look at the formula numbers they used. The
real-life numbers on your average skating day are somewhere around a
hundred people. Real-life numbers -- you're telling me that the
current place you're doing bingo is half the size and that you're full
almost all the time.
MR. GOODLETTE: Well, I perhaps misstated --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what you said on the record.
MR. GOODLETTE: -- that then, and so let me correct that on the
record, Commissioner Constantine, if I may. I know in one of the
sessions -- and Mrs. Kaplan just indicated to me that the current use
is 60 to 80 players where they are now for the morning session and not
more than 120 in the evening session. Now, let me just -- the maximum
seating capacity of the current facility is 300.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you're one-third full in your current
place.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if your maximum seating -- I
don't understand because the different folks from the charities got up
and said, well, the larger place is going to allow us to do more
business and raise more money for charities. And if you're still only
going to have 300 seats, then why the change?
MR. GOODLETTE: We're restricted in our current parking in the
current facility where Airport Bingo is conducted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To what?
MR. GOODLETTE: I don't know. Mrs. Kaplan perhaps should come
and answer some of these specific operational questions. And, by the
way, that's the reason that I wanted to have some of the charities
come today as well, because I thought we might get into a question of
some of the operational issues for this -- for this bingo parlor.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my point is if you're limited,
as you said earlier, to having half of what you anticipate having,
you're still getting 200 people a day and -- and I'm going back to Mr.
Milk's number -- the number he plugged in for you was 300 a day and
even at 300, which is lower than what you're suggesting you'll have,
you still had a more intense use than the existing facility does. Our
staff has said it is more intense. And those numbers are lower than
what you're projecting it will be used for. So clearly it is not only
going to be a little more intense; it's going to be far more intense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But from a legal perspective, Mr. Weigel,
don't we have to compare -- I don't think we can compare an
unsuccessful --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- skating rink. We have to have a
reasonable -- if it were reasonably successful, what are standard --
you know, uses or use.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Milk has done that, and it
came back that it was a more intense use of the bingo. The bingo hall
is more intense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like him to lay that out for me a
little more clearly, because I don't understand that yet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because there were -- there were two
criteria, one that it must be similar in character, and we can all
argue that, whether it is or not. The other criteria was that it
needs to be less in intensity, and according to our staff, it's not.
MR. GOODLETTE: Equal or less in intensity.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and it's not. According to our
staff, what they've said at least three times on the record now, it's
not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the -- Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Can I just read something for the record and hopefully
that'll clarify it. I'm going to read a paragraph out of page five in
the staff report. It says, staff analyzed the traffic impacts of the
proposed use, bingo hall, slash, rental hall, versus the rollerskating
rink. The ITE trip generation manual indicates that the
site-generated trips for a 16,096-square-foot rollerskating rink is
approximately 533 trips on a weekday. The proposed bingo hall, slash,
rental hall of the same size will generate approximately 360 to 400
trips on a weekday. Based on the analysis, the proposed rental hall,
slash, bingo parlor will generate 133 to 173 less trips than the
existing use.
MR. GOODLETTE: That's what I've been saying -- trying to say all
day. I probably should have gone back to the report, and that's where
I became confused myself.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what's frustrating is it's
directly contrary to what you said earlier at the podium.
MR. MILK: And it could be. That was my mistake if I did say
so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could be? You did.
MR. MILK: -- and I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was a little confused because -- that's why
I was trying to get it out orally is I remember reading that it was
less intensive, but as I was scanning back through this, I couldn't
find it. So the ITE -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say secondly that I
don't think -- I mean, they're already getting higher -- in a smaller
facility they're already generating higher trips. So that may say
that, but just know that those aren't realistic numbers.
MR. MILK: That's why I think you and I agree when you took
existing conditions with projected numbers. I would agree that that
analysis was also true.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But existing conditions versus --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not just talking about the
skating rink. I'm talking about their existing conditions at the
smaller facility is already generating more than what they are
suggesting for the 16,000. He says he's got a couple hundred people a
day, 80 in the morning and -- right, a couple hundred of people a day.
One trip each way is 400 trips. That's at the existing facility that
is smaller than what --
MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Chairman, if it's important to yourself and
the other members of the commission, I'd like to have Mrs. Kaplan
explain the current operation. I have -- frankly have -- was not as
well informed as I should have been before I stood here with respect
to that existing operation. I've been focusing on the proposed
operation. And Mrs. Kaplan can explain to you why she needs more
space for the conduct of her business and how it's not -- you
shouldn't assume that it is more intense than the existing operation
because it's larger.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'd love to hear that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not assuming it because it's
larger. I'm assuming it because you and the members of the charities
have all said you intend to do more here. You'll be able to do more
at that activity. You'll be able to have more people at that activity.
I'm not assuming that --
MR. GOODLETTE: It's a nicer facility --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because of square footage. I'm
assuming it because it's what you said.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your testimony.
MR. GOODLETTE: It's a nicer facility. It allows more space for
people to participate in the games. And Mrs. Kaplan can explain that
much better than I, Commissioner Constantine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, are we going to sit here and base our
decision on anecdotal statements, or are we going to go to the ITE
manual? I mean, what -- what is our legal responsibility to do?
MR. HULHERE: And I also have a comment. I unfortunately got up
here -- My name for the record is Bob Hulhere, current planning
manager. And although I've been sworn in for every other petition, I
was not sworn in for this one. I apologize. I was out of the room.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead -- and, Ms. Kaplan, were you
sworn in?
She's indicating no. Let's ask Mr. Hulhere and Ms. Kaplan to
raise your right hand, please.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to indicate for the record that the
staff in analyzing non-conforming uses -- and we have some experience
in doing these. We've done several other ones. We did -- we had
three or four separate petitions on the structure which houses the
school right across the street on three or four different occasions.
And we have always analyzed the potential traffic impacts, not the
existing traffic impacts. We have never analyzed how many trips are
being generated in an existing business, because we've always looked
at what the potential was using some standard methodology, in this
case the ITE trip generation manual. Because if the business is
operating at a successful level, that's what you're going to see
there, which I think Commissioner Hancock indicated earlier.
And I just wanted for the record to indicate that's what our
analysis is based on, not on whether or not the existing skating rink
is successful or not or how many trips are generated. I'm not saying
that's not relevant to the issue. I'm simply saying we did not
analyze that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me ask, then, if -- it doesn't
follow, then, that there would only be 360 trips on a weekday for some
place that's going to have 500 or 600 or 700 -- which was the
testimony we heard from the petitioner -- people in a day. I mean, if
they're going to have any of those, they're going to have a thousand
or twelve hundred or fourteen hundred trips generated.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's clearly going to be more than
three hundred and sixty if they have five or six hundred people in
there.
MR. MULHERE: That's -- again, those numbers were based on the
ITE trip generation manual. It may be more or less based on, you
know, whether or not everybody drives their own car or whether some
people travel together to go to the bingo.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is why we have ITE standards, and
that's the thing that I'm going to be the most comfortable --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but I just -- if ITE is
clearly in error or clearly in question, I don't know that we need to
be basing our primary decision on that. If someone gets up and says
they're going to have 600 people a day in a place, I can't believe
that it's only going to generate 360 trips. Every car is not going to
have four people in it coming and going.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe it's the stereotype, but I envision at
bingo halls -- and Ms. Kaplan can answer this -- not too many people
arrive in their own car by themselves. I mean, there are little buses
that show up, and there are little groups that meet and always play on
Wednesday or they always play on Thursday. And everyone I've ever
talked to that played bingo, played with friends.
ITE, for those that aren't familiar with it, goes out and
researches certain types of uses. And they have to have a
statistically significant sampling in order to determine an average.
And the average is just that. It's the middle section of the bell
curve.
Mr. Milk, who performed the transportation analysis?
MR. MILK: Ray Bellows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And Mr. Bellows is not here today. Let
me ask if anyone knows; in ITE -- we have two different numbers here,
one for a skating rink and one for a bingo hall. Were there separate
categories for skating rinks and bingo halls in ITE? MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There are separate categories. Do we
know if there is -- what they consider is a statistically significant
sample? Because sometimes they only have two or three samples of the
use, and they have big bold letters at the bottom "don't count on
this." In those two uses -- and ITE is yeah thick; it makes our Land
Development Code look like an overnight reader. Were there
significant samples in both of those? Do we know that? If so, I have
to agree with what's been said. You know, the skating rink is not
being maximized, so to assume the bingo hall would be maximized puts
us in a strange zone.
MR. MILK: I can't answer that only because I fed in the numbers
and Mr. Bellows was doing the analysis and going through the ITE
manual and making the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, call him. Ask him to look it up.
Ask him to turn to the page and see if it's got bold print on the
bottom or not. It's pretty simple.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one other question, too, on
the paragraph you just read -- MR. MILK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- talking about using the 16,000
square feet. It says the proposed bingo hall, slash, rental hall. Is
that one category or have they created a hybrid there between bingo
and rental?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wayne, were you sworn in?
MR. ARNOLD: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam Court Reporter. From now on I'm going
to ask everyone in the room to stand up at the beginning of the
meeting.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, planning services director. I did
just speak with Ray Bellows. We're going back to call and verify
whether or not this came from a statistically valid sample of uses.
But apparently from what we find in the ITE manual, the skating rink
is a very specified use that has a trip generation of approximately 30
trips per thousand square feet associated with it.
The bingo hall, slash, rental hall requires some extrapolation
between a couple of other uses because bingo hall is not specifically
listed as one of the categories; so it's difficult to make that
comparison. But based on other indoor recreational uses, Mr. Bellows,
having done these for numerous years for us, believes that that number
ranges anywhere from 20 on the low side to maybe 25 on the high side
for this sort of hybrid use, if you will. Given those numbers and the
staff report -- and Bryan's staff report here, we believe those
numbers justify themselves. And I guess there is some question
whether or not the 20 to 25 is the valid number, but we know at least
on the skating rink side, the 30 is the number at least that the
manual has.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because realistically it's exclusive
use is going to be as a bingo hall. We can call it bingo hall, slash,
rental hall, but there's been on the record it's to the benefit of the
civic groups and so on. So it's exclusive use is going to be from
bingo. So if -- if we have carved that up, if the ITE numbers come
from rental hall or other things, I think that maybe answers at least
the question why we're looking at the number and thinking it's odd.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess looking at averages on a -- let's say
-- let's just look at the bingo hall side, the maximum of 400 trips.
Let's say -- let's say 534 trips, the same generation. That means
approximately 262 cars would arrive at the site and leave.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that for bingo?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, I'm saying if it's the same as what ITE
says for skating rinks, then that means about 262 would arrive and
leave. How many spaces are in the parking lot, Mr. Milk?
MR. MILK: Approximately 100.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A hundred.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A hundred. I'm not trying to mix things
again, because we've talked about that. But if there's only a hundred
parking spaces, and there's only two sessions, that makes it very
difficult to find more than 200 cars using it as a maximum. MR. MILK: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a physical limitation on the use of
that --
MR. MILK: That's why when you guys are talking 300, 375, I said
300 because that's what the standard for the parking lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I, too, would like Mr. Bellows there to talk
about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, it was just four minutes ago
you said nobody goes to bingo alone. They go on buses. They go on
other things, which might answer some of your 100 parking spaces.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I know. We keep going full circle
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we could hear from the lady who has
the experience in running these facilities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Miss Kaplan, if you'd give your name
and state whether you were sworn in, please. MS. KAPLAN: Judith Kaplan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you were sworn in?
MS. KAPLAN: I was sworn in, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. KAPLAN: I'll try to address your concerns and your
questions, and tell me if I get too wordy. First of all, where we
currently are holding the sessions we have approximately 60 -- a low
of 60 -- sometimes 58 -- to a high of about 60, 62 for matinees. On
rare occasion, we go up into the 70s. In the evening -- now that
session comes, and they leave, and they go home or they go wherever.
Then the nighttime session comes in, and we have been addressing
anywhere from 80 to 100 people in the evening. So they do not drive
their own cars.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So your total for the day is how many
people, average?
MS. KAPLAN: Right now the average is under 200 for the day and
night, and they don't go over each other.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the size of the Airport Road facility?
MS. KAPLAN: Is 6900 square feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that compares to this one, it's half
the size?
MS. KAPLAN: Okay. Now, we have -- our -- in doing our own
analysis, we have approximately two-and-a-half people per car coming
to bingo. We are looking for a larger facility because we don't have
adequate parking, we don't have adequate bathrooms. The seating is
irrelevant as far as -- if we are now -- I think with the fire
department -- I think we're somewhere in the neighborhood, give or
take, of about 300 people.
Now, that's classic for a comfortable bingo hall, because an
experienced bingo player can sit with paper from here to paper from
here (indicating), and they have their dabbet (indicating with sound
effects) and they do their dabbing.
A table that has four or six chairs at it classically are going
to have two bingo players sitting. If you have two smaller players,
they might sit side by side. So our numbers have always been dictated
as far as chairs by the fire department.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Kaplan, are you -- something I'm not
clear on. Are you going to close the one on Airport Road -- MS. KAPLAN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- when you move over to the other one?
MS. KAPLAN: Yes, sir. It has never been an adequate facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry. I want to make sure I
understood. You said at the new location you may have as many as 300?
MS. KAPLAN: Well, in my experience of 15 years, I've never had
300 people in any facility, in any bingo hall, including one of 25,000
square feet. There is -- they're just not out there, for one. Maybe
New Year's Eve, a special party once a year or something, but that is
highly unusual and very unlikely, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have further questions of Miss Kaplan?
Thank you, Hiss Kaplan.
Did we get back from Mr. Bellows -- because we need to bring this
thing to a closure.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold. Apparently there was no
statistically valid sample for the skating rink, which was the only
specified use that was -- it was based on comparative information from
other indoor recreational uses to gather the trip generation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I was talking. Can you
say that one more time?
MR. ARNOLD: There was no statistical valid sample specifically
for the stating rink. It was based on comparative analysis to similar
type uses, but not necessarily other skating rinks. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about for bingo?
MR. ARNOLD: The bingo was sort of a hybrid that wasn't
specifically mentioned in the ITE manual.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're dealing with -- we're dealing with an
unstable basis for either one, and what we have is someone who has
spent many years doing it putting together their best estimate for
both uses.
Okay. Now that we've accomplished nothing with that other than
we're back to the numbers that we started with, this has got to --
this has got to come down to a decision here. Mr. Goodlette, we need to wrap this up.
MR. GOODLETTE: Fine. I would just conclude that by indicating
that I think based upon this discussion and some of the questions that
have been elicited, I think that the substantial competent evidence
that you have on the record before you today is the staff's analysis,
and I think it clearly indicates that the anticipated proposed use is
no more intense than the existing use and that the rights of the
current property owner to continue to use it as a skatery, it is a
legal non-conforming use. That was the purpose of our first
interpretation, the letter of interpretation.
I think all of the information that's been presented to you by
your staff and what we presented here today certainly supports your
approval of this Petition NUC-97-1. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I'm going to close the public
hearing. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My analysis, bottom line, is we can have a
continuation of the existing use. There's no question about that. We
can talk about what its capacity it. We can talk about what its
traffic is. But the bottom line is, it's a legal non-conforming use.
It can continue forever. We can let that happen or we can improve the
property with a different legal non-conforming use that I think
reasonably should be construed to be equal to or less in intensity.
So I'm going to support it, because I think we either get the
skating rink continuing forever or we get an improvement to the
property with a less -- at least equal impacts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I'm sorry. Did you make a motion
on that, or is that just a position?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I move approval of the petition,
subject specifically to the resolution requirement that it come up to
sign code, landscape code, and architectural code for commercial
property.
MR. MILK: What about the seating capacity?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think the parking lot's going to drive
the seating capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the fire service.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Will drive the seating capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have heard 300 on the record as a maximum.
Would it be -- would you consider recognizing that in your motion?
That doesn't mean we're saying you can have 300. Fire codes my
supersede that and it would be reduced.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd rather just let the fire code and the
parking control the seating.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that means 300, then, because there's
one parking space per three users. Okay.
This is not -- you're kind of weighing unknown versus unknown
here, and that's never an advantageous position to be in. The only
knowns we have are a community eyesore that everyone would like to get
rid of and see it become a home. But the reality of that is nearly
nonexistent.
I have taken the opportunity on many projects in the past to
utilize a fezone or request for a change in use to create a better
scenario than what presently exists both aesthetically and
operationally. I think to be consistent with that -- and I still
think it's a good idea -- we have a similar opportunity here. And in
light of not having what I think is solid information that shows that
the bingo hall would be -- would present a more adverse impact to the
neighborhood than what exists and is allowed to continue existing, I'm
absent the information to make that decision. So with what's on the
record, I'm compelled to support the motion. It doesn't mean I like
it. It just means I'm compelled to do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess when -- if we're absent the
information, I prefer that we not take action on it, and that may be a
simple disagreement. But I'm not going to support the motion because
of two things. Some of our staff comments on the record, but also the
real live numbers, clearly show the change would be a more intense
use, which is contrary to how we can make this decision. It's more
intense in population. It's more intense in traffic. It's more
intense in operating hours. It is clearly a more intense use.
If we allow 300 seats to go ahead -- Mr. Hulhere got up and said,
well, we're trying to plug in the maximum numbers, the potential
numbers that this would cause for traffic. If you have 300 seats,
clearly the potential is that it's going to generate more than 360
trips a day. Unless people are going one way, it's going to generate
more than 360 trips. So the intensity issue, I think, is very clear.
The character issue, is it similar in character? We can have
that debate. I don't happen to think it is. I think rollerskating is
typically and classically associated with children and fun and bubble
gum and childish things.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was fights when I was a kid.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go, and brawling. All those
good childish things. I don't know that I would associate bingo the
same way. So I don't know that it's similar in character, but I do
know for a fact it is more intense in use, and with that I just can't
support it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, how many votes are needed
on this item?
MR. WEIGEL: We have recently reviewed very quickly here, there
is no specific language requiring a super majority vote. It appears
that a mere majority is all that's required here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I didn't want Commissioner Berry's
absence to preclude action one way or the other if it's avoidable, but
apparently not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will second the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we have that verified in writing
sometime after the meeting?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You sure can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. Is there any further
discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just that -- I guess we've beaten
this traffic issue to death, but Miss Kaplan indicated that there was
60 participants in the matinee, 80 on average in an evening session,
and they average two-and-a-half people per car. That's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I know. But --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a hundred trips a day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if we're going to use real-life
numbers, then their numbers are still more intense then the real-life
numbers of the roller rink. They're just not generating traffic so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. That horse is officially dead.
I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three, one.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you for your indulgence. Commissioners, I'm
sorry that there was some confusion about some of the facts.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to BCC communications. Mr. Weigel, did
you have anything in addition?
I'd like to take them out of order and just ask communications
first. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do.
COURT REPORTER: I need to make another paper change.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Hold on just a second; paper change
time. We've been chatting a lot today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. On that one issue, you used up
a ream of paper.
(A short break was held for reporter paper change.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The one item I wanted to
bring to the attention of the board was housekeeping in regard to the
Leadership Florida matter that concerned this board and former
Commissioner Matthews. I provided you documents that had been
received and sent earlier this year pursuant to board direction from
the County Attorney office and from the correspondence that I sent on
February 21st of this year, both via facsimile and hard letter copy.
The County Attorney had received no response whatsoever.
You may recall and you can see from the documents there that in
regard to Leadership Florida, the expenses incurred of expenditure of
board monies by Mrs. Matthews for the Leadership Florida program, that
our board had determined that based -- and based upon my prior opinion
to the board, that an 80 percent reimbursement from her would be
appropriate. She had offered in correspondence to Commissioner Norris
a 60-percent return, but subsequent to the board determination of 80
percent, her attorney, Mr. Hollander, contacted us through his letter
of January 16th revoking what he, I believe, incorrectly called an
offer, based on Mrs. Matthews, and addressed the county's request, in
fact, demand as a counter offer, which I again believe is an incorrect
interpretation, and they asked for additional expenses beyond the
initial expense of Leadership Florida.
So at this point we've gotten past the board's break. Six months
has passed, plus, at this point, with no businesslike response from
the attorney or the attorney's client in this regard, so I wanted to
get back to the board for further direction as to any further
correspondence or pursuit in county court.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How long has it been, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the letter that I sent was February 21st of
'97 so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six months.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Six months.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The letter indicating that Miss Matthews would
reimburse 60 percent of the tuition came November 18th, 1996. And if
she wanted to dispute the difference between 60 and 80 percent, I
wouldn't raise a big ruckus about that, but I fully expected that
60-percent reimbursement to follow.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, yeah, that's the unfortunate
thing is the memorandum from Bettye says I intend to complete my
travel reports, compose a letter, and forward a check to the clerk on
November 21, 1996. And obviously never did.
MR. WEIGEL: My letter dated February 21st to reduce the
discrepancy essentially beseeched Hiss Matthews to provide the 60
percent minimally with the demand of 80 percent and, of course, we
received nothing subsequent to that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- you know, I'm not going to go to court
over 20 percent, my personal feeling is, but over 60 percent -- you
know, I'm not going to quibble over it. The bottom line is, the money
was paid by the taxpayers of this county to -- so that a commissioner
could have activities associated with the office that would benefit
the taxpayers. And when the majority of that occurs outside her term
of office, there's just no question that that money needs to come back
to the taxpayers so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and what's so frustrating is
Miss Matthews herself acknowledged that in the memorandum and then
still has now decided not to give the money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me use this opportunity to be sure
this that board does not object. I'm going to participate in the
Leadership Florida program this year, hurrah. There's not a
possibility absent impeachment or some other removal from office that
I won't be serving on the board during the entire term of my
participation in Leadership Florida. I assume that then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then I'm one of the biggest
cheerleaders for Leadership Florida. I've done it. I know the
experience. I know much it benefits. Our county manager has done it
and knows how much it benefits. And I think it's great you're
participating, and I know you're going to benefit and the county in
turn will benefit from it. But if you were leaving office next
month --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wouldn't submit --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you wouldn't expect the taxpayers
to pay the other 80 percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I were even up for re-election during
the term, I wouldn't submit the bill, but I do plan to submit it, and
I hope that everybody feels that that's a valid expenditure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, it's not the Leadership Florida issue.
It's the issue of leaving office and not reimbursing the county for
the portion of tuition that occurred outside leaving office. And we
asked for 80 percent because I think one of the sessions was the
Saturday before the Tuesday that Commissioner Berry came on board.
I'm not going to quibble over that 20 percent, but the bottom line is
we have something that says she would give the money back to the
taxpayers. It hasn't happened, and I think leaving it lie is not
appropriate.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, on November 19th, 1996,
this board declared that former commissioner Matthews should reimburse
the county taxpayer for 80 percent of the tuition and that meals and
lodging were not to be included and the expenses for September would
not be paid unless significant justification was made; so, you know,
I'm going to quibble over what we decided to do back then unless the
board takes further action saying that's not what we want to do so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we need to give direction to the County
Attorney, because we're apparently at an impasse. So if we want to
pursue this as a civil matter on behalf of the taxpayers, I think we
need to give that direction. If we do not, then let's decide that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think consistent with the direction
the board gave before that that is taxpayer money. It needs to be
returned, so Mr. Weigel needs to, on behalf of the taxpayer and the
county, pursue that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cost benefit analysis. The maximum we
would be getting if we won this lawsuit on 80 percent is $1400, $15007
MR. WEIGEL: It was a $2500 expenditure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I see.
MR. WEIGEL: And there will also be an issue, potentially a
counterclaim of costs that were incurred, which may mitigate it
slightly; so we're in the area of 2,000 to $2300.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what does it cost you to bring the
complaint if that's the way the board decided to ask you to go?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess there's two things that --
MR. WEIGEL: I can get those numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's get an answer.
MR. WEIGEL: I can give you those numbers, and of course, if we
want to be true about this, we factor in the County Attorney staff
time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's the question that I'm asking.
MR. WEIGEL: And starting with me, if I were doing it, it'd be
about $40 an hour. For an assistant county attorney, it would be less
than that, plus staff time. Filing is approximately a hundred dollars
including service of process.
What I would request the board -- and I tell you I come to you
solemnly, you know, as your advisor, but with no great joy in dealing
with a former employer commissioner here -- is that from a business
standpoint, it's appropriate for me to advise you, and if you would
authorize me to take all measures necessary, we will again seek to,
prior to filing, and we could provide one last written communication
to see -- particularly this board action being recorded and becoming
public knowledge as it will be, perhaps will get some action short of
the formal filing. Otherwise, if you authorize me, we would expect to
serve process with a complaint and it would be in the local court, the
county court.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I could reasonably expect that the
cost of that -- it's going to take you ten hours? So that's $300?
MR. WEIGEL: It -- it'll be three to -- probably three to eight
hundred dollars to pursue this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Besides the issue of taxpayer money is
-- there are two things. One is the cost-benefit analysis. But I
think the other -- and this is something we're all sensitive to after
this summer -- is the ethical standard that an elected official needs
to be held to. An elected official can't take advantage of the
taxpayer by taking a trip every two months after they're out of office
four five times and expect the taxpayer to pay for that. I think
that's a very important issue and you of all people have been
championing that, so I think we need to see this through to its
finish.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think for one second that my
ethical standards are higher than any of yours, and the fact that the
newspaper writes that doesn't mean that I agree with it. I don't
think that I am the purveyor of ethics for this county commission. I
know you all have very high ethical standards. And I think that
you're right, that that is a very important issue. I wonder if it's
something that goes to the Ethics Commission and/or the court.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because she's out of office, I don't think the
Ethics Commission would have jurisdiction, because we're talking about
-- she's no longer in office so -- yeah, I mean, I'm not adverse to
filing an ethical complaint either, but the recourse is not there
because she's no longer in office.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't think that excuses her.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No? Well, then maybe we need to do a
two-pronged approach then. One is to make a last request for payment
as originally directed by the board of Miss Matthews stating that the
board intends to take the necessary civil action to recoup the funds
if they're not paid. The second would be to file a request with the
commission on ethics as to whether or not recourse is required since,
you know -- and give the parameters of the situation. I don't know if
both are appropriate. I am comfortable with the first one. The
second one I don't if it's --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, I think I can -- I think I can respond to
the parameters for the commission on ethics, and that would be they
will provide a query in regard to potential conflict, as an example.
They also, of course, respond to a complaint that is filed. I'm not
sure if this falls under either of those at this point in time, but we
can investigate and keep you advised.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do. I mean, I get blamed for things I
had no involvement in at times. So I thing when someone has direct
involvement and has violated public trust, it needs to be enforced.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure that it's really a Commission
on Ethics type issue, but the thing is I think what we have here is
bluntly we have a former commissioner who feathered her own nest with
taxpayer money and refuses to pay it back even after being requested
to do so. And I think, Mr. Weigel, if you can -- if you can get
repayment on a simple request letter, that's fine. If not, I think we
need to go ahead and pursue it, and that's the direction I would like
to see the board take.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will agree with that direction.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, anything?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
Item #14A
CANCELLATION OF 12/23/97 MEETING
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item. We normally do not
meet -- it just occurred to me when you said at the end of September,
we're not meeting the 30th or whatever that date is, and then we asked
about the workshops. December has five Tuesdays, and normally we do
not meet the final Tuesday in December anyway. That's traditionally
when a lot of the staff takes their vacation. While we take our
recess in the summer, I know a lot of folks head away to family for
the holidays and all. We're going to have that day off anyway. The
23rd is just two days before Christmas. And in order that they can
actually get to their destination prior to Christmas, rather than
leaving and trying to fly on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, I
wondered if the board would entertain not having our meeting on the
23rd.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What day of the week is the 1st of January?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Monday.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it a Monday?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Monday.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First of January is a Thursday.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The first of January. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So we'll have -- we'd have a meeting
very early in January then. What I did not see was an elongated --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no. I just know for people to
try to travel from the airline days on the 24th or -- nobody wants to
travel on Christmas Day itself, so I think we'd be cutting staff
short.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's appropriate as long as we're
willing to stay here as long as we need to on the 16th, because some
things will back up that need to be handled. So I don't have a
problem with that. Anyone?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have at least one staff member very
happy over here.
Item #14B
CITY OF NAPLES DIAMOND JUBILEE
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have two pieces of good news I would like to
pass on. One is that you may have heard about the diamond jubilee
that the city is working on. Members of the Chamber have approached me
about the county joining in on that, because it is the our anniversary
also. So I've asked them to form a committee that a representative of
the city council and a representative of this board will sit on and
maybe have an alternating celebration. One month there's an event in
the city; the next month one in the county, because we have every
right and reason to be as or more proud than the city of what's been
accomplished. So I'd like to celebrate that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd go for the latter.
Item #14C
AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And in the area of celebration, you all can
take pride in this, but I especially take pride. The Florida chapter
of the American Planning Association, out of all that has submitted,
has issued two awards of excellence in the area of planning and one of
them is to Collier County. It is for our commercial architectural
standards. So we have received an award of excellence. It was
prepared by Bob Mulhere and submitted, and I will be receiving that
award Friday of this week at the APA conference for the Florida
section which is being held at the Registry this year.
So in addition to welcoming all of the planners on Thursday and
participating, we'll actually have a -- we're actually doing our
presentation on the architectural standards to the association, the
American Planning Association. We'll be receiving the award, and
we're applying for a national award in planning since we've
accomplished this so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are checks involved with any of these
awards?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unfortunately no; just hardware. But I
think it's a source of pride in authorship for our staff and concept
for this commission, and I finally got to do some planning, and I had
to get out of the private sector to do it. So I wanted to pass that
on to you. There should be a press release going out soon, but I'm
very proud of our staff for what they did and for submitting that
award, and they deserve a tremendous amount of credit.
With that, Miss Filson, can we go?
We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie
and carried unanimously, with the exception of Item #16A2 4/0
(Commissioner Norris abstained), that the following items be approved
and/or adopted under the Consent Agenda: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 97-318 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "WINDSOR PLACE AT
BERKSHIRE LAKES"
Item #16A2
FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN STRAND REPLAT 2" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 97-319 THROUGH 97-326 WITH AGREEHENTS RE THE WAIVER OF ROAD
IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITY IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES,
WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES AND EDUCATIONAL
FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE
BUILT BY IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., IN NAPLES MANOR LAKES
AND TO FUND SAID WAIVERS FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, FUND 191
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 4B" - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
& ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF "AUGUSTA AT PELICAN HARSH" - WITH CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 4C" - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
& ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.614, "VANDERBILT BEACH SPOIL
DISPOSAL" LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST -
WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECURITY
Item #16B1
REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE ANNUAL COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
STUDY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND REQUEST FUNDING APPROVAL
ALONG WITH RECOHMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF THE RECOHMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS
Item #1682
AWARD FOUR (4) ANNUAL BIDS, NUMBERS 97-2704, 97-2705, 97-2707 AND
97-2708, TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1997-98
Item #1683 - This item has been deleted
Item #1684
WORK ORDER UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR FIXED TERM ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
OF FIVE INTERSECTIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS (CONTRACT NO. 95-2422, W.O.
HHA-FT-97-2)
Item #1685
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ADVANCE WARNING
SIGNS WITH FLASHING BEACON ATTACHED
Item #1686 - This item has been deleted
Item #1687 - Withdrawn
Item #1688
REIMBURSEMENT TO TWO MEMBERS OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT
ADVISORY COHMITTEE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,459.00, FOR EXPENSES ESTIMATED
TO BE INCURRED DURING ATTENDANCE AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE
FLORIDA SHORE & BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER
3-5, 1997, IN AMELIA ISLAND, FLORIDA
Item #1689 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B10 - This item has been deleted
Item #16Bll
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND REUVEN HAIH
BUILDERS "DEVELOPER" FOR ROAD IMPACT FEES IN RETURN FOR CONSTRUCTING
THE RADIO ROAD OUTFALL DRAINAGE SWALE
Item #16B12
AGREEMENT WITH BONITA GRANDE SAND COMPANY FOR PRODUCTION AND
STOCKPILING OF BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND FOR MAINTENANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY
BEACHES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $311,500.00
Item #16B13
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2629, SOUTH CHANNEL & WATER TURKEY BAY
MAINTENANCE DREDGING TO ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$397,405.00
Item #16B14 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B15
AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY WATER INTERCONNECTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES
Item #16B16 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B17
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY TO OPERATING TO
COVER COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED UNDER LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT - IN
THE AMOUNT OF $110,300.00
Item #16C1
AWARD THE SKATEBOARD PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST NAPLES
COHMUNITY PARK TO SPARROW VENTURES, INC., AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00, TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL RAMP FOR THE SKATE
PARK
Item #16C2
AGREEHENT WITH COLLIER SPORTS OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SPORTS OFFICIALS FOR COUNTY-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES -
IN THE APPROXIMATE A_MOUNT OF $50,000.00
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER #SC-29 WITH SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN THE A_MOUNT OF $105,889.00, FOR THE FINAL PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION OF
THE VETERANS COHMUNITY PARK ROLLER HOCKEY RINK
Item #16D1
AWARD ANNUAL BID #97-2702, TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, FOR FURNISHING AND DELIVERING HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND
FUNGICIDES
Item #16D2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SMART PPN, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY
FOR POST-DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 97-327 RE THE CANCELLATION OF CURRENT TAXES UPON LAND
ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE
Item #16D4
WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS AND AWARD CONTRACT TO SOUTHEAST
ELECTRICAL TESTING, INC., FOR ELECTRICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND REPAIRS TO THE
MAJOR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ON THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16D5 - This item has been deleted
Item #16El
AWARD BID #97-2706 FOR PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF PINE STRAW MULCH TO
RICK'S TRUCKING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,100.00
Item #16E2
CONSENT AND EMERGENCY ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DURING
THE BOARDS RECESS:
Item #16E2a
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE TO THE VINEYARDS COMHUNITY PARK IN
THE AMOUNT $10,000.00
Item #16E2b
EXPENDITURES RELATING TO MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE JAIL AND THE CLERK
TRAFFIC/FINES AREA - IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $12,250.00
Item #16E2c
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; APPROVAL OF AN ENGINE OVERHAUL AND DESIGNATE
TURBOMECA ENGINE CORPORATION AS THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $140,136.00
Item #16E2d
AWARD BID #97-2723 TO LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLY, TO SUPPLY SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE AT THE AQUATIC FACILITIES IN BOTH GOLDEN GATE AND
IMHOKALEE
Item #16E2e
AWARD BID NO. 97-2696 TO CARDINAL CONTRACTORS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,127,500.00, TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM
Item #16E2f
AWARD BID NO. 97-2693, TO EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING OF COLLIER, FOR GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT CENTER - IN THE ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $98,400.00
Item #16E2g
ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT FOR
AUTORANCH ROAD
Item #16E2h
BUDGET AMENDMENT MOVING ALL FUND 606 RESERVES INTO CAPITAL FOR PAVING
OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAYS AND TO CLOSE-OUT THE FUND - TOTAL INCREASE OF
$43,517.00 IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR PAVING
Item #16E2i
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-347, 97-382, 97-384, 97-388, 97-389 AND 97-390
Item #16E2j
BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-406, 97-409 AND 97-414
Item #16E2k
AWARD BID NO. 97-2709 TO NAPLES FERTILIZER & GARDEN CENTER, IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00, FOR "PURCHASE/DELIVERY OF FERTILIZER"
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR THE 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 to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD SIGN THE CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF
THE SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT - STREET GANG
PREVENTION AND APPREHENSION PROGRAM AND APPROVE THE RELATED BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Item #16H2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD SIGN THE CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF
THE $140,850.00 SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT
#98-CH-8C-09-21-01-060/SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION
PLAN (SHOCAP) PROGRAM AND APPROVE THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16H3
LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FLORIDA COHMUNITY BANK FOR
THE PURPOSE OF LEASING OFFICE SPACE FOR THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION IN
IHMOKALEE - IN THE MONTHLY RENTAL A_MOUNT OF $910.00
Item #1611
SETTLEHENT AGREEHENT AND HUTUAL RELEASE RESOLVING THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWER DISTRICT VS. KOHLER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
CAST NO. 94-3404-CA-01-CTC, CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $8,500.00
There being no further business for the good of the County· the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:03 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
presented or as corrected
· as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY CHERIE LEONE, RPR, AND DEBRA J. DeLAP, NOTARY PUBLIC.