BCC Minutes 05/26/1998 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
HAY 26, 1998
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in a REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
CHAIRPERSON:
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. HAc'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting for Tuesday, Hay 26, 1998.
Very pleased this morning to have the Reverend Susan Diamond with
us from First Christian Church. If you would rise please for the
invocation and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. MS. DIAMOND: Let us pray.
Loving God, we give you thanks this day for life in its fullness,
for the beauty we enjoy in our surroundings through your creation, for
the joy of relationships of family, friends and all who form
community, for the vision of your world that reflects peace and
justice and respect for all.
Oh, God, this day we pray for those who would work to make
Collier County more reflective of your abundance. Give our leaders a
full portion of your wisdom and strength to know and to do your will.
Fill them with love of truth and righteousness. Grant them the
ability to listen well and to act well so that this community will
grow in ways that would promote harmony with your world and your
people.
We pray these things in your name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Diamond.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this
morning, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman.
First is to continue Item 13(A)(1) to the June 9th, 1998 meeting.
It's Petition CU-98-3, a conditional use, estates "E" zoning district
for a model -- a model home for property located on the west side of
Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Requested by the
county attorney's office.
The second is just to note that Item 6(B) will be heard at ten
o'clock. It's a time certain item. This is the presentation from
three firms related to the audit services contract for the fiscal
years ending September 30, 1990, I think that's '98, '99 and 2000.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any
changes to the agenda?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am, just a note, please, that when
we approve the consent agenda, I'll be abstaining on Item 16(A)(5)
which is a plat for Pebblebrooke's client.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'm going to suggest
we remove and withdraw 5(A)(2). I've been away for a few days, but I
understand, scanning my newspapers last night, there's some
controversy there. Proclamations are traditionally an item that we
work on for everyone's benefit, work on in unison and -- rather than
have controversy over them. So, I'm going to suggest we remove that
item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm confused. You don't want the board to
vote on that proclamation?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting that controversy over
what is a ceremonial item is probably not in the best interest of the
item nor the community.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the proponents of the issue feel
that it is in the best interest of the item, and I think that there
may be a way that we can avoid the controversy by some language
changes perhaps to the proclamation emphasizing personal
responsibility, emphasizing parental roles.
I was prepared to make some suggested changes in a discussion on
the board. I think it's critical that this board have a discussion
about teen pregnancy prevention. I think it's a very good idea that
we have that, and it's much more than ceremonial. It is of extreme
significance to our community.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly is, but the item before
us is ceremonial. The issue isn't, but the item before us is merely a
proclamation, not a full blown discussion on the topic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let's have -- I've never heard of
pulling a proclamation. Perhaps I should say that I'm not so sure
that I support world no-tobacco day and then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're certainly welcome to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And suggest that we should pull that
proclamation. It's appropriate for this board to have to make that --
have a vote on that issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- because of what has come to my
attention is just the contentiousness of the proclamation, I don't
think it is in the best interest of this board to have debate and
discussion over a proclamation. There's a difference between what is
a board item where we sit up here and debate the issue or a
proclamation, and any time we don't have a unanimous vote on a
proclamation, it concerns me, much less when I receive phone calls and
letters and am stopped in stores about the proclamation.
If the issue is divisive in the community for whatever reason
that may be, I don't think it would be appropriate for this board to
declare and approve a proclamation on the matter until that issue has
become more generally accepted throughout the different groups that
are concerned about it at this point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The problem -- and I am determined to at
least read this proclamation, because there has been a lot of
misinformation. There's a lot of misunderstanding.
If there is confusion or if there's a lack of support for this
particular proclamation -- nobody in this county is for teen
pregnancy. Nobody is for that, and what this proclamation says is we
should be aware of attempting to prevent teen pregnancy.
I think that -- if I have to just read it under communications,
then perhaps that's what I'll do, but I think it's important for the
community to know what the proclamation says. It merely recites
statistics about how bad the teen pregnancy problem is in Collier
County. It merely recites those statistics and says that we should
focus our attention on preventing teen pregnancy.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think herein lies the problem, Pam.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Preventing teen pregnancy?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, ma'am. No, ma'am, but your way, perhaps,
and other ways of preventing teen pregnancy, this is where there is --
and this is where it becomes very divisive in the community.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why what I had hoped to add at
that point in the resolution where it says, Collier County should
further focus --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Rather than discuss the specifics of
the topic --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Tim, I'm going to finish my
comment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, can we just wait and
see if we're going to discuss the item, and if the majority of the
board wants to, fine, but if we are not going to discuss the topic --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Have you made a motion? Did you make a motion
to pull this item?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. May I please just finish the
comment that I was making since I was in mid sentence. I just think
that's rude.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Finish your comment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
My comment was simply that I was going to ask that we change the
resolution to read that Collier County should focus its attention on
the prevention of teen pregnancy by personal responsibility, by
abstinence education and make a list of -- by putting aside political
differences in support of a critical community issue. That was what I
had hoped to add so that all, every single opportunity, every
opportunity for preventing teen pregnancy would be encouraged in this
community; not my particular thought about how it should be or
anybody's particular thought, but that we would all, we as this County
Commission could encourage the divisive elements of our community to
come together on such a central, important issue. I'm done.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think at this point, because this
isn't up for discussion at this point in time -- I have a lot of
comments to make, but I don't think it's appropriate at this time.
Commissioner Constantine, you have made a motion to pull this
particular proclamation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there a second to that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second to
pull this particular proclamation.
Call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I have no additional changes
to the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Nor do I have any changes to the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for being here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion we approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
agenda.
Excuse me. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: I just have one note on the consent agenda if you'll
allow me.
Tom Olliff, public services administrator. There's Items
16(C)(1) and 16(C)(3) which apparently, just due to some printing
errors, indicated in the executive summary that there were attached
budget amendments. For some reason, the attached budget amendments
didn't end up in the package.
Sixteen (C)(1) is simply an item recognizing donations and
revenues of the parks, and Item 16(C)(3) is recognizing an additional
$48,000 in state aid to libraries, but if you'll just note for the
record that the budget amendments aren't attached, but that you are
approving the budget amendments for those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to include Mr. Olliff's comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Okay. And does the second -- Second.
Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Hotion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF HAY 5, 1998 REGULAR BCC MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Approval of the minutes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the May 5th regular
meeting minutes of 1998.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
minutes of HAy 5th, 1998.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Do I have a second?
Second.
I have a motion and a second to approve the
HOtion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING HAY 31, 1998 AS WORLD NO-TOBACCO DAY - ADOPTED
The first proclamation this morning has to do with World
No-Tobacco day. Mr. Mattera, would you come up here and face the --
MR. MATTERA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to come up here to the front,
please, as I read the proclamation?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say, what, no kids this
morning, Frank, and on cue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's have them come up here and line up here
in front of the dais and turn around and face the cameras so they can
be seen at home.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: They're growing in number each time, which
is good.
DENISE ELLIS: SWAT team, at ease.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The proclamation reads: Whereas, the health
of all people is one true measure of Collier County; and
Whereas, the health of Americans is inseparably linked with the
health of people throughout the world; and
Whereas, all nations of the world, acting through the World
Health Organization, of which the United States is an active member,
are pledged to the goal of health for all the year 2000; and
Whereas, HAy 31st of each year has been established by the World
Health Organizations as World No-Tobacco Day, intended to encourage
governments, communities, groups and individuals to become aware of
the devastating costs of tobacco consumption and to take appropriate
action; and
Whereas, the 1997 theme, united for a tobacco-free world, is an
opportunity to mobilize the various sectors of society in communities
large and small to promote a way of life where tobacco use is no
longer an accepted norm, realizing the power each sector holds in
promoting a healthy lifestyle; and
Whereas, the American Association for World Health is encouraging
the promotion of World No-Tobacco Day in the United States with
strategies for year-long observances stressing the importance of
tobacco control, particularly education and policy efforts to prevent
tobacco use and addiction among our people.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 31st, 1998 be
designated, excuse me, as World-No Tobacco Day and urge all citizens
to take part in observances and activities on this day and throughout
the year designed to advance the cause of tobacco control and
prevention by promoting awareness of the devastating economic and
human costs of tobacco use, and by encouraging participation in the
worldwide efforts of attaining health for all.
Done and ordered this 26th day of May, 1998.
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara
B. Berry, Chairman.
I'd like to move this proclamation --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MATTERA: Commissioner Berry, honored commissioners, it's
certainly an honor to be here today and thank you for support of this
bill.
We have a lot of interesting things going on in Collier County as
part of the Florida initiative where we have $167,000 in Collier
County to save our children, and we would like the youth of Collier
County to step forward and tell you basically what we are going to be
doing on May 30th and in the future. So, if you would just indulge us
for maybe about three minutes.
Step forward, please.
DENISE ELLIS: Students working against tobacco, attention.
SWAT team, state your name.
My name is Denise Ellis (phonetic), and I go to St. John Neumann,
and I'm 15.
JACKIE TOWNSEND: I'm Jackie Townsend (phonetic). I'm 15, and I
go to St. John Neumann.
ASHLEY BELL: I'm Ashley Bell (phonetic). I'm 16, and I go to
St. John Neumann.
JASON O'CONNOR: My name is Jason O'Connor phonetic).
I go to St. John Neumann.
ASHLEY GUIDNA: My name is Ashley Guidna (phonetic).
I go to St. John Neumann.
BETTY ING: My name is Betty Ing (phonetic). I'm 15.
Lely High School.
IRIS GONZALEZ: My name is Iris Gonzalez (phonetic).
go to Naples High School.
ANDY BOCKMAN: My name is Andy Bockman (phonetic). I'm 17, and I
go to St. John Neumann.
BRETT FOX: My name is Brett Fox (phonetic). I'm 16. I go to
St. John Neumann.
DAWN WINGEY: My name is Dawn Wingey (phonetic). I'm 16, and I
go to St. John Neumann.
LEE ANN EDIKSON: My name is Lee Ann Edikson (phonetic). I'm 17,
and I go to St. John Neumann.
CROSS CREEDA: My name is Cross Creeda (phonetic). I'm 15, and I
go to Lely High School.
DENISE ELLIS: I want to thank you-all for the World-No Tobacco
Day, and while we are here, we want to remind you that the Collier
team -- the Collier County team tobacco summit that we are hosting is
on Saturday, May 30th from 8:30 in the morning till five o'clock at
I'm 15, and
I'm 16, and
I go to
I'm 15. I
the Telford Center. We want to invite you-all to come, especially the
county commissioners and the court manager, and we'll be expecting
approximately 200 teams from Collier County, and they'll present their
ideas to you on how to prevent Collier County youth and adults from
using tobacco, and we are going to have a special presentation from
3:00 to 5:00.
MR. MATTERA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, and thank you very much for the
invitation as well.
The next item that is on our agenda is a time certain item
which will be held at ten o'clock having to do with the selection of
the audit firm.
Item #8C1
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES JUNIOR CHAMBER, INC. FOR THE USE OF SUGDEN
REGIONAL PARK FOR A 4TH OF JULY FESTIVAL AND FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 FOR A FIREWORKS SHOW - APPROVED SUBJECT TO TAFFIC AND SAFETY
PROCEDURES
We'll move on then to Item 8(C)(1), approval of a lease
agreement and partial funding for the 4th of July festivities. Good morning, Marla.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. For the record, Marla Ramsey,
director of parks and recreation.
On March 3rd, the board requested that the parks and recreation
staff work with the Naples Junior Chamber in putting together a
festival on the 4th of July. We bring to you this morning the
contract for that event.
One thing that I would like to point out that we would like
included with the contract is an approved traffic and security
procedure from the Sheriff's Department submitted by the chamber.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, great idea. I think
it's going to be a lot of fun at Sugden Park.
The only question I have, I want to make sure there is some
safeguard. I know a couple of years, the JC has had a little trouble
getting all the cash for their event, and I want to make sure we don't
lay out twenty-five and find out halfway through, oh, my heavens, they
can't collect the rest, we are not going to have the event we thought
we had or we are not going to have an event at all, and I'm assuming
there's some safeguard against that in here.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, there is.
Would you like to address that?
MR. NADEAU: As I presented to you -- Bob Nadeau, Naples Junior
Chamber, executive director.
As I presented to you a couple of months ago when we first
started talking about this, this has to be a break-even event, and the
reasoning behind all the thought processes of ways to raise the money,
the Junior Chamber has also pledged, as I have, that we won't spend a
dime that we can't collect. We just can't do it. That's why we got
into trouble a couple of years ago. We can't afford to spend ten,
$11,000, $15,000 that you didn't collect.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- I was hoping for something more
concrete, something about maybe a performance bond or something, you
know. That would be pretty extreme, but if -- what's the safeguard --
the commissioner's point, I think, what's the safeguard -- as we are
committing our $25,000 today, what if you can't raise enough money to
only -- because you're going to be fiscally careful. You're only
going to spend what you raise. What if you can't raise enough money
to have a big event, that's a big community event that we're investing
$25,000 in? I don't want us to do that without some real assurance
that this is going to be a significant community event. Twenty-five
thousand dollars of public money for fireworks is kind of hard for me
to do, to be honest, but if it is a tremendous community event, then
so be it.
I know when we talked about it before, I didn't really have in
mind that we were going to spend twenty-five grand on fireworks, but
if we are going to, then we've got to be sure that the event that we
hope for is the event that we're going to get.
Can you give us some more assurance besides just that you're not
going to spend money you can't raise?
MR. NADEAU: I can't give you an absolute guarantee for a couple
of reasons. One reason, an unknown facility, I mean it changes daily
as they keep planning, and I have to keep moving things around. I
don't even have a set site plan until we are done with the site. This
is a first time event for this location.
We have plenty of experience in raising funds for 33 years for
all the shows that we've done. We have plenty of experience in the
actual shooting of the fireworks.
Part of the reasoning in the presentation was that the county
funds would be used exclusively for the fireworks, period. There
would be none of those funds used for anything else.
Other parts of the festival, if necessary, would be either
eliminated or partially presented. We keep saying that we are going
to have such a better idea of what next year is going to be after we
do it once.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's your budget?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion, because I
think we have the same concern is -- that was my worry. I don't want
to see the festival eliminated. I want to make sure it's all -- all
one time.
MR. NADEAU: I'm not talking about the whole thing eliminated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. I want to see the event that
we, right now, think we're going to get, and perhaps the way to do
that is set a trigger point. Before any of these funds can be
expended, "X" number of dollars have to be raised, so we are
comfortable that there's going to be, at least, some sort of festival
with the music and the other things that are outlined here, frankly,
not only for us, but 4th of July is one of those family weekends that
people plan ahead for, and if they're planning on staying here to do
whatever it is we have laid out and then that doesn't materialize,
then that kind of sours a lot of folks.
So -- I don't know what that trigger point would be, but maybe
that's the most -- for me anyway, the most comfortable way to do that.
We know if you raise an equal amount or whatever that happens to be, -
I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, what is your budget for
the event? What is your fund raising goal?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventy-two thousand total; is that
right?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, I'm pretty sure that's -- I don't have it right
here in front of me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is $72,000.
MR. NADEAU: In the neighborhood of 70,000 total.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how much have you raised so far?
MR. NADEAU: At the moment, I'm at about 17,000 of my share,
okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the seventy-two including our
twenty-five?
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that what you've really got to raise is
about fifty, and you've raised seventeen.
MR. NADEAU: I'd have to raise, I think, forty-five.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty-five, and you've raised seventeen.
MR. NADEAU: Right. I'm having a problem getting specific
commitments on the line until the contract is signed because --
because it's a new event, okay, everything is sort of like tied
together.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The chicken and the egg, I understand
that.
MR. NADEAU: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what's -- what's your drop dead
date, that if you don't have $30,000 raised by June 15th, you know you
won't be having an event?
MR. NADEAU: No, there's going to be an event. I just can't tell
you at what scale. I don't foresee a problem in the monies, okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, okay. Let me ask it this way,
because I like Commissioner Constantine's idea. I want to get there,
but I'm trying to help figure out what the date and what the amount of
money might be, that if you don't have -- maybe you just have to come
to the board and describe for us what you have on a certain date, and
we decide if that's something worth spending twenty-five grand on for
fireworks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we pick a day in mid June and
have a hundred percent match or if it's going to be 30,000 we are
comfortable with, you know, 120 percent match, but some level of match
by a specific date, and that way -- if you're at seventeen now, and
you need to raise thirty to make sure we get the twenty-five, we ought
to be able to accomplish that by --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: June 16th meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- two weeks before the event.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we had -- if they have $25,000 raised
and we contribute $25,000 for fireworks, is that enough money for an
event? What are we -- what can we reasonably -- is that a reasonable
budget?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that is a reasonable budget, and I'm not sure
if he's considering that he's going to get a lot of in kind involved
in that or not, because a lot of times, you will get that aspect of
it. That's not necessarily dollar amounts contributed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly I don't take lightly in any way,
shape or form the fiscal concerns that have been stated, but when we
made a commitment to move forward, that our money would be spent on
fireworks and fireworks alone, what that told me is whether there's a
big tent, whether there's a band, whether there's a lot of the things
during the day that the JC is going to plan that they needed fund
raising for, at worst, there were going to be fireworks that you could
see for miles, and we talked about this community being large enough
and the concerns down in the city about parking and whatnot and trying
to put 200,000 people, the segment of that that want to see fireworks
in down by the pier and out on boats and whatnot, and that maybe it
was time to have two events and allow the community to choose.
So, I'm not uncomfortable today at all with moving ahead with a
commitment for 25,000 with the contingency that the money be spent
solely on fireworks. The balance of the event is kind of the icing on
the cake that the JC is responsible for.
The one concern I have is transportation and safety. I've heard
we raised $17,000. If I can get a commitment that the cost of --
whatever cost there is associated with transportation and safety is
the number two priority behind -- in other words, you have to have
fireworks, so 25,000 takes care of that. The very next priority for
dollars raised is transportation and safety. If I can have a
commitment to that, then I'm comfortable moving ahead today -- and if
you want to see a detailed plan in a couple of weeks, that's fine, but
I understand his position. You can't go out to a sponsor and say, we
might be having an event, would you pony up "X" amount of dollars. You
probably have some verbal commitments waiting on this action today.
So, I'm going to -- I'm willing to extend a little confidence
that the JC is going to be able to put the icing on the cake, so to
speak, but let's go ahead and provide the impetus to make sure that we
have a fireworks display for the community. That's where I'd like to
see us go.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If all that happened --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are powers of persuasion that
have been very effective.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. If the world fell apart and all we
had was $25,000 worth of fireworks and -- would we have an event?
MS. RAMSEY: Sure, we can have an event for just the fireworks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. That's a good point.
MS. RAMSEY: I do agree with the transportation aspect, though.
It has not been settled yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, can we get that as your number one
priority, whatever the cost is of getting people safely to the park,
that that is your number one priority before anything else from the JC
standpoint?
MR. NADEAU: Let me respond to two things. First, so that you'll
understand, the monies that you're voting to expend, in the contract
and also in my previous presentation, the contract reads 25 -- or
excuse me, 50 percent of the $25,000 goes directly to the fireworks
company at the signing of the contract, which I have in my possession.
The balance of the funding gets paid to them after the show that
night. So, that's where that money goes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've already raised seventeen grand. So,
we are going to have fireworks. MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Paid for fireworks.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: Now to answer your second position, my concern is
safety, like most, more than whether the band plays an extra 15
minutes, absolutely. I've discussed with the Sheriff's Department in
great detail my concern for getting people back and forth across 41 at
the Outer Drive area. We have some disagreements.
They think people shouldn't walk. We cannot stop people from
walking. People are going to present themselves on the Lakewood side
of 41 because they live over there, even if it's only 200 people,
because they're not going to want to drive, and they're going to want
to walk across.
I am working out -- transportation becomes a huge problem because
it was not budgeted. It's an expense that is extremely dollar heavy.
I mean, in order to move the amount of people that I'm anticipating,
the budget would call for an additional ten to $13,000. The money
isn't there.
I'm prepared, if necessary, to provide limited shuttle service
from this center down there, but I can't mandate where people are
going to park. People are going to park where they want to no matter
what we would like them to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I -- and this is something that
I'm sure you'll be able to work it out with the Sheriff's Office
because I'm sure they want to see this event occur in a safe manner,
but occur, just like everyone else, but, you know, when I was a kid, I
mean, no matter where you went for fireworks, it was crowded, and when
you left, it was congested, and they were always holding up traffic so
people could cross to a parking lot across the street. I mean, I
don't think I've ever been to fireworks where there wasn't traffic and
pedestrian issues that had to be dealt with and managed.
So, the idea that we are going to get everyone out of their car
and put them on a school bus and deliver them to the front gate of the
park I think is just not realistic because people aren't going to do
that. We know that. So, you know, people will be parking across the
street and walking across whether you tell them not to or not, so I'm
confident those things can be worked out with the Sheriff's Office,
and again, as long as I understand from you that the first priority is
that the fireworks occur and that -- I will say equal with that is
that we do everything possible in dedicating the funding necessary to
make sure that people have safe access to the fireworks and within
reasonable limits here. Obviously, you can't bus every soul from
their home there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we can make it available.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we can make it available, as you
have, and along with those two things, I'm very comfortable moving
ahead.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to that effect, yes.
MR. NADEAU: One -- one final comment. I realize -- and I put
myself in this position. I'm the guinea pig here. This is a brand
new facility. This is the first event and --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's the second fireworks event.
MR. NADEAU: Well, of the nature --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The first one that will happen to the
degree it's been.
MR. NADEAU: That left lots of bitter taste in lots of people's
mouths, and I'm having to deal with that, too, but I'm the guinea pig.
You know, there's another festival coming one month following. I've
got wide shoulders. I can take it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you've got a good park staff that's
done good work so far, so --
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- good luck.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My only concern, Bob, is make sure that you
get in contact with the Sheriff's Office, because we have a letter up
here stating their concerns.
MR. NADEAU: I do, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: I have it right here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. So, please address that ASAP and
try to get those things worked out. I think the event will be great
for Collier County.
We have a motion and a second.
If there's no further questions, do we have any speakers on this
item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motion carries five to zero.
Good luck.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-170 APPOINTING ROSS OBLEY AND ALICE CARLSON TO THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to appointment of members,
Item 10(A), appointment of members to the Industrial Development
Authority.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move EDC's
recommended names of Ross Obley and Alice Carlson. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second for the
names of Alice Carlson and Ross Obley to the IDA.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLTUION 98-171 APPOINTING DAVID CHILCOTE, II TO THE CITIZENS
ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
The next one is appointment of member to the Citizens'
Advisory Task Force.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll nominate David
Chilcote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second for
David Chilcote.
All in favor?
Opposed?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-172 APPOINTING KARIN ENGLISH AND EDWARD OLESKY TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
And the last one is appointment of members to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to nominate Karin English and Ed
Olesky --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- which are the top two ranks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #11B1
PUBLIC COMMENT - KEN THOMPSON REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we are moving on to our afternoon
agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are moving on to the afternoon portion of
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a public comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, public comment on general
topics, I believe that comes first.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have two speakers for this
category. The first is Ken Thompson with Ursula, and the second is Ty
Agoston.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is Ken Thompson.
MS. THOMPSON: I'm Ursula Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I had a meeting with Mr. -- first, I want to
direct it at you this way. I don't want to hurt nobody in code
enforcement. I don't want to hurt nobody here. I want to tell you
the last two times I was here, I got good satisfaction, perfect, but
we have one person that came to my house. It was on May 17th. We had
a bad noise problem where he came. He left his truck parked right in
the middle of the road, which he never did before. I begged and
pleaded to get it out of the road. We got the reading at my house.
We got the reading at another lady's house, which was very good. We
got a violation from that place, and then we had another meeting.
Mrs. Connie Johnson, Mr. Cautero's secretary, asked if I called
her, and she said to come back. On the 18th of May, I came back, and
we talked to Mr. Cautero, which I thought everything was very nice and
very fine, and then on the same day, my wife and I returned home, and
we get one of the worst nightmares that whole day on my business phone
I have ever witnessed in my life, and I just don't understand what
went wrong.
The man -- the first day we met Cautero was about the noise, and
then I told him I had one person that constantly was aggravating me
about the county don't pay him enough money. Well, that's not my
problem. So that -- Mr. Cautero was going to ask me to leave the
meeting, and he left it himself to come here, I guess. That was no
problem, but I didn't mean anything. I was just trying to get a point
across.
So, he asked me to get out, and then he went out, but that was
okay. There's no hard feelings. I'm easy to get along with, but then
it just keeps a happening, and then he parked the truck in the road
and wouldn't leave, and when he did get in there, he couldn't get the
key out of his ignition. This is the third time I tried to go to him.
MR. CAUTERO: Excuse me, Madam Chairman, excuse me, Mr. Thompson
for interrupting you.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to address some of the comments made at
the appropriate time. However, at this point, I'm going to ask you to
seek legal advice from Mr. Weigel. Mr. Thompson is referring to a
civil matter. One of my employees is suing him. It has nothing to do
with code enforcement. I don't believe he should be entering into
this discussion, but I'd ask you to seek advice from Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel.
MR. THOMPSON: It has everything in the world to do with this
meeting, by the way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Thompson, just a moment, please.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, upon this information, and I would just
suggest that the board continue to use this as a -- if it desires, as
a public forum with unilateral statements made by the speakers. The
board may wish to caution itself as to whether it wishes to join in
any dialogue at this point in time, and I would suggest the direction
of staff is not inappropriate if you find that there is a direction or
a request for information you wish to make of staff at the conclusion
of their comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, you believe it's appropriate to hear this
information and --
MR. WEIGEL: It's -- it's purely at the option of the board, but
I don't see that the mere statement that they make creates a problem
on behalf of the county. They may prejudice themselves by their own
discussions and interests, but I'm not here to counsel them in that
regard.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
Members of the board, do you have any questions about this or
concerns?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think because of the discussion, you may
want to give 30 additional seconds to the gentleman. Let him finish
his five minutes. If there's a civil pending matter, I'm just not
going to comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's how I feel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll give you a 30 second additional time
limit, and then when the time is up, Mr. Thompson, that's it.
MR. THOMPSON: It's not a civil matter. It's just a matter of he
just wants money, money, money, and I had nothing to do with his
truck, and he keeps -- it has everything in the world to do with code
enforcement. He was on code enforcement's time on that day that he
kept harassing us for money. If you could have just listened to what
he had to say, he was on code enforcement's time harassing me at my
home on my public phone, on my wife's business phone and some of the
worst threats I ever got in my life.
This has everything in the world to do -- I'm not here for
anything else but to please tell the man not to call me on my phone no
more. I had to go back to the doctor, and this is all I'm trying to
tell you. He had no business doing this while he's on code
enforcement's time if it's a civil matter. He should have gotten off
of code enforcement's time and did it on his own time. This is right
after we had just left Mr. Cantetc. That is the point I'm trying to
tell you. He should do it on his own time, not on code enforcement's
time, and it was the whole day long and then more, and then he called
me again and had somebody to threaten me with a lawyer.
Well, you know, ma'am, that don't really bother me. Lawyers are
like pocket change. You can get one anywhere you look, just like a 35
cent pay phone. He, I just happen to keep a rotten one. That's the
kind I like.
So, that's as far as I need to go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Item #11B2
PUBLIC COHMENT - TY AGOSTON REGARDING FIRES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
HR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Ty Agoston.
HR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Hy name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself.
I had an occasion last week to visit Mr. Cantero's developmental
services. It seems that my son is considering building on one of my
lots, and being that these people are city people, never -- don't
really know how to judge a piece of property, looking at a jungle, I
decided as an inducement I would clear the lot so they can walk into
it and kind of imagine how a house would look like on it.
Well, I was informed that there are county ordinances that you
cannot clear the lot because -- without a building permit. Well, you
know, I happen to have two lots, one next to the other, and, of
course, being as cheap as I am, I would love to gain the economics of
scale by having the two of them cleared at the same time. So, I
grumbled some, you know, ego trip type of words under my breath, and I
walked, and I drove home.
Several days later, I had the occasion to pass Golden Gate
Parkway, and I looked at that fire. That reminded me that on Golden
-- in Golden Gate Estates on my street on Tenth Avenue Northwest,
four, five years ago, there was a fire. Apparently, a sick person had
started the fire on Wilson Boulevard, and my son-in-law happened to be
driving home, and he told me, he said, hey, look, there's a fire out
there. So, I drove out and took a shovel, say I'm going to stop it.
Let me say this. That fire had traveled faster than you can
walk. You literally had to run to follow that fire. The fire
traveled all the way down the street. As a matter of fact, it crossed
onto the canal side as well, and it just so happened that that was one
of the lots that I owned out there, and the fire department apparently
has a unit with a bulldozer where they can drive off, and they went
onto my property, and they attempted to clear a clear area out so the
fire would not spread.
The fire stopped at a property that was owned by a volunteer
fireman, and he had cleared the land so he would have grass all
throughout his land and trees -- you know, he left a lot of trees, but
by no means did he leave it the way it was. He took out a lot of the
trees.
Then I started thinking, are we enacting laws by telling
prospective owners or builders to limit the clearing of their land to
one acre on two and a half? Are we creating a fire hazard? Are we
saying that as you clear a piece of land -- and I was given a lecture
about looking at Hiami, and I'm from New York, so I know what they are
talking about, but I believe that, you know, there's, in the
environmental community, a feeling that the animals are as important
or sometimes more important than humans, and I don't take that to be a
part of my family. Maybe I'm an egotist, but I think my family is a
little bit more important.
In what, at this point, I'd like to find from you is an answer to
why can't I clear those lots the way I'd like to have it cleared where
I feel comfortable that I'm providing a measure of safety to my family
and why should you be really involved in these types of controls. I
mean, I don't know if anybody knows the fire implications here, but,
obviously, if I'm two and a half acres, you only allow one acre
clearage, you are endangering that homeowner, and I think you should
consider it. Maybe there should be the fire people getting involved
and checking just exactly what are the impacts, because I happen to
have two little grandsons living next door to me, and to be perfectly
honest with you, I would be very, very unhappy if anything happened to
them.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers, okay.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-39 RE PUD-88-6(1), KAREN BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC. OF NAPLES REPRESENTING RONTO GOLF ESTATES, INC.
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS A "PUD",
NAMELY THE NAPLES GOLF ESTATES PUD - ADOPTED
We'll move on then to the next portion of the agenda, which
has to do with the zoning amendment. The first one is Petition Number
PUD-88-6. This is a PUD to a PUD and also the changing of a name.
MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, this is a quasi-judicial meeting,
so, therefore, you need to swear in those participants wishing to
speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Would all individuals speaking to this
item please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name is Ray Bellows of current
planning staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, I'm sorry to interrupt,
and I know it's a public hearing, and the petitioner will have an
opportunity to speak if she so desires, but looking this over, 1.27
units per acre, 375 acres of preserve and open space seems like --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a fairly easy item to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The only -- the only concern I had
about it, and it wasn't a big concern, was just the traffic situation
within the confines of it, to make sure that we addressed that
adequately.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But Madam Chairman, are we going to have a
petition brought forward by Karen Bishop and we're not going to rake
her over the coals when we have the opportunity?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Norris, I'm not -- I'm not comfortable
with just letting it fly just because Hs. Bishop is here, so --
MS. BISHOP: Oh, thank you. My luck can't be that good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe Mr. -- or Commissioner Constantine
made a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I didn't only because we haven't
closed the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I will close the public hearing.
MS. BISHOP: I really do have a change I'd like to add to this
PUD.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. BISHOP: It seems that the fire department would like to --
are interested in our area, and we would like to add a use to the PUD
so that if the fire department does come in and get an acre of our
property, that they do have the ability to do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which fire district is that?
MS. BISHOP: Golden Gate since we are in Golden Gate.
So, that's one change that we'd like to add, and also, I'd like
to -- we had a typo on our chart for heights on the multi-family from
-- it shows 35 across the board, and we wanted to change that to 50.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except for that last one, I'll make a
motion that we approve -- I'll accept your first suggestion. I'm not
as comfortable with 50 feet.
MS. BISHOP: If you look at the PUD itself, the master plan,
you'll see that our parcel is nowhere near any roads. The only place
that we have any roadway access of any residential type is at the
north side along the old Davis Boulevard extension. I don't know what
the new name is. I can't remember. You guys changed that name on me,
but that's single family up there, and it's not multi-family. The
multi-family is located on the south property line which is totally
surrounded by preserves. So, you couldn't see these from the road.
They are a good three, four, 500 feet off the road from 951.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you can see them from the south -- the
property owner to the south?
MS. BISHOP: We will state the -- half of the sum of the building
heights from that south property line, but there are preserves to the
south of me, and I can't imagine that this guy who owns the property
to the south is going to be able to nuke what I know to be wetlands
attached to mine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is you have two residential
areas almost abutting the south property line, and when you go to 50
feet, you're -- you know, your sight triangle is a little more
dramatic than 35. Not knowing the conditions immediately to the south
and not having them in front of me, I am concerned about 50 foot right
on the property line. I understand it's half --
MS. BISHOP: What would be a setback that you would appreciate?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we were to close the public hearing
right now, and I were to make a motion, it would be for 35 feet. So,
if you need to go through your entire presentation, then maybe we need
to start from scratch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about what the setback
would be on -- whether it's 35 or 50 feet, what is the setback?
MS. BISHOP: The normal setback for any building on a property
line would be half the sum of the building height.
Now, there are special conditions. I did a PUD along Vanderbilt
where we gave even a higher number, you know, because of the local --
the adjoining properties and the local views.
I have no problem with increasing the setback along that south
property line to make sure my buildings are far enough from it so that
vegetation can be there. What we want to do is we wanted to get four
stories in there, and the problem with 35 foot is I can't get my four
stories because of the ceiling heights now, you know, being more than
eight feet makes it a problem. Sometimes the architectural standards
or features on a building also increase the heights of the building.
So, that's why we wanted to go with 50 with our multi-family, but like
I said, I have no problem putting setbacks on there.
The buildings are along the golf course. They're not along the
property line. The parking and the roadways ring the property line
with the building, all views into the golf course and lakes, which is
a pretty standard way to plan your site developments anyway.
So, I would be glad to do that; 50 foot, 85 foot, whatever number
you feel is appropriate for that setback.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without doing a site triangle so I can get
a real idea of it, I was in the area of a hundred foot setback for 50
foot heights. It's probably a little more than it needs to be, but,
again, I don't know the vegetative conditions there.
MS. BISHOP: This is a very old site. There are aerials that
we've submitted with our PWA. The trees out there right now are in
the 30 to 50 foot range because this is, like I said, a very old pine
and cypress area with the majority of it being preserves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But your residential area immediately
abuts the property to the south? MS. BISHOP: That's true.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine's first motion is
fine with me. If you want to go to 50 feet, I've got to personally
feel that a hundred foot setback from any property line, external
property line would be appropriate in the absence of, you know, some
other information that makes it -- make that concern go away.
MS. BISHOP: I can live with that. I can live with a hundred
foot setback on the southern property line or anywhere where I had a
50 foot. That's the only tract that I have -- that is our high -- or
what we call our mid-rise multi-family tract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I can support that under one
condition, and that is while the 1.27 units per acre is impressive,
this is asking for nine additional units, and if we could remove those
nine additional units so we have no increase to what's expected in the
county under the current PUD, then I'm comfortable with the 50 feet at
a hundred foot setback.
MS. BISHOP: Take away nine units.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, now, now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not taking away.
MS. BISHOP: I'm trying to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're keeping it exactly the same as
it is right now. We are not taking anything away. MS. BISHOP: And I appreciate that.
I think that originally 799 was intended, and we assumed there
was a typo with the 790 there to begin with being that 799 is the
normal number of the DRI threshold. That's where those nine extra
units came from.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That everyone uses.
MS. BISHOP: Everyone uses that number, and that was the number
that -- we assumed it was a typo.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only several criticize, but everyone uses
it.
MS. BISHOP: It does.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, the pre-approved number
is 790 regardless of whatever the reason was. So, you're asking for
an increase of nine?
MS. BISHOP: That is true. We were asking for an increase of
nine and to increase the building 15 foot on this one tract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking for a response to my
question.
MS. BISHOP: I wish my client was here.
You will allow the five stories but take away nine units?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. I'll have to do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want to revise your motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I haven't actually made it yet
because we still haven't closed the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We still haven't closed the public hearing.
Any further questions? No questions?
All right. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move approval of
Petition Number PUD-88-6, sub 1, with the changes from 35 foot maximum
height to 50 foot maximum height with 100 foot setbacks and without
any increase in the units, so it will remain at 790.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's also a request for an addition of
a fire station without training facility?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: I wouldn't know the difference. They are only
asking for a one acre site. I would imagine that would not include a
training facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A tiny training facility. I'll
include that as well. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for clarification, the hundred foot
setback was from external property lines. I didn't -- when it was
reworded, I didn't want it to apply --
MR. BELLOWS: That's for the multi-family units only?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. You know, if it's 50 foot high,
it's got to be --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A hundred feet back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a hundred feet. I guess what I'm
saying is if it's over 35, between 35 and 50, it's got to be a hundred
foot setback. That was the -- MS. BISHOP: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- intent of my statement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From the outside property line.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is everybody clear on --
MS. BISHOP: My plan currently has that kind of setbacks on it,
so I'm fine with that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everyone is clear on the motion.
All right. I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motion carries five-zero.
MS. BISHOP: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, we got to rake her over the coals
after all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hot dog.
MS. BISHOP: Yeah, I feel great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The day would not have been complete, Karen.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see Mr. Mitchell is here. Perhaps he's
ready to go with his presentation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we've got about four minutes here, and
I think perhaps we can get through one more before we get to Mr.
Mitchell. Then we'll make sure Mr. Mitchell has the appropriate time,
wherever he is. There he is.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 98-40 RE PETITION PUD-95-3(1), R.J. WARD, P.E., OF SPECTRUM
ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTING JOHN J. NEVINS, BISHOP OF DIOCESE OF
VENICE, REQUESTING AN AMENDHENT TO THE FOUNDER'S PLAZA PUD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CHURCHES AS PERMITTED USE AND INCREASING THE
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR CHURCHES IN THE FOUNDER'S PLAZA PUD
ADJACENT TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED
Okay. The next item is Petition Number PUD-95-3(1). It has
to do with the amendment to Founder's Plaza PUD for the purpose of
allowing churches as a permitted use. Mr. Milk.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also has a companion item?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it does, it does have a companion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've been asked to close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
item PUD-95-3(1).
Question, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, the 45 foot height, does that
apply, as you understand it, just like a steeple structure? In other
words, they're not going to have a 45 foot massive building there?
MR. MILK: What that's going to apply for, in your executive
summary packet on Page -- there's a rendering of the architectural
facade of the building on Page 9, and really, the grandiose feature of
the facility provides a window type effect on the upper portion of the
church, and that's the purpose of the 45 feet at that point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that being part of the packet and
then having to comply substantially with that, that's fine. That's
great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other questions?
I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 98-173 RE PETITION CU-98-1, R.J. WARD, P.E. OF SPECTRUM
ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTING JOHN J. NEVINS, BISHOP OF DIOCESE OF
VENICE, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF "3" IN THE RSF-3 ZONING
DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE "2" AND "5" IN THE RMF-12 ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 52ND TERRACE S.W.
NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if you want to close
the public hearing on Petition CU-98-1, the companion item, I'll make
a motion for that as well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval of Petition CU-98-1.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Any questions?
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILK: Thank you.
Commissioners, can I make a point and really look for some
direction from the board members. A couple of weeks ago at the
planning commission, Commissioner Davis had asked staff to look at
this Golden Gate Parkway professional office district and the uses in
that district and possibly -- in an attempt to meet with the community
at large in Golden Gate City to possibly expand on that district and
to further look at and possibly provide some additional uses.
I just wanted to possibly talk about that briefly because that
was their recommendation to staff approximately two weeks ago based on
concerns that the district just wasn't developing at this point, and
there was no infrastructure in place at this point. If there's any
feedback, I'd appreciate that. I guess we are looking for direction
as staff on how far to continue with that process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, back around 1991 or so
when we put the original part of this in place, it was a true
community effort. We had a number of public hearings. We had a large
participation in the process, and the standards were very carefully
set, and they were purposely set different than regular zoning.
The action that Mr. Milk talks about was initiated by a couple of
the property owners there who had a slower time moving -- I was
particularly disturbed by one of the quotes in the newspaper that said
one of the owners had a terribly difficult time working with the
county, wish he would never have to again, because I know for a fact
our staff has bent over backwards to work with that individual. That
individual has been before the board. We have actually added items to
his PUD specifically, and so I'm unsure as to what the difficulty he's
had with the county is. I think it really stems from his frustration
that he hasn't been able to effectively market his property yet.
I don't have any objection if some citizen here wants to look at
other things and bring that forward, but I don't have a whole lot of
interest in lowering the standards just to make it develop sooner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can understand the planning commission's
request. When somebody stands in front of you and says, this is a
square peg in a round hole, your reaction is to say, well, staff go
take a look at it or would you take a look at it.
I guess absent the information from someone other than a property
owner that, as you said, has come before us and just had a rough time,
unless that's across the board in the district, then it seems to be
working. If it's not, then we need to take a look at it, but I would
trust Commissioner Constantine and your associations with the business
community and the chamber out there and whatnot that if we have a
problem out there, that you would be aware of it, and so I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other key thing to remember is
there are, I think, five PUDs along this stretch. Each of those have
been approved within the last -- maybe one was longer than two years,
but at least four of those have been approved within the last two
years.
So, the fact that they haven't developed yet is not atypical at
all. That's pretty standard when you get a PUD approved unless you've
got a lessee signed up, that it takes a little time to put the item in
motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think maybe to give direction to staff
that -- you know, what Mr. Davis has said, I greatly appreciate, but
it seems to be isolated to one or two properties, not the district
itself.
So, rather than going back and trying to rework an entire
district that had a lot of community input, just ask our staff to
continue working with those one or two property owners that seem to be
having difficultly out there, that if there's a reasonable and logical
approach to solving that problem, then so be it, and they can bring it
to us, but I don't see a reason to go back and reinvent the wheel out
there that doesn't seem to be broken overall.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bryan, if something logical slaps you
in the face, by all means, bring it forward, but I know there's been
discussion of what I would consider lowering the standards, adding in
a number of items that would be considered in a higher commercial use
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I for one am not really
enthusiastic about that.
MR. MILK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #6B
STAFF DIRECTED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARTHUR ANDERSEN AND COHPANY
FOR THE AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 1998, 1999 AND 2000.
At this time, we will go to the time certain item, which is
the auditor's selection. Mr. Mitchell.
I think all the commissioners, you have in your packet, the three
different proposals from the three firms.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent Memorial Day weekend reading.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my
name is Jim Mitchell, director of the financing and accounting
department, and I'm appearing before you today as a representative of
the auditor selection committee.
The audit services contract expired with the presentation of
fiscal year 1997's comprehensive annual financial report to this
board. Our purpose of coming to you today is to complete the process
of engaging an external auditor which is outlined in Florida Statutes
Chapter 11.45. This statute, among other things, dictates that an
auditor selection committee made up of representatives of each
constitutional officer along with the representative of the Board of
County Commissioners be created.
This committee, along with Kelsey Ward of the purchasing
department, published an RFP for auditing services -- services which
had three responses. The committee has reviewed each of the responses
presented based on the criteria established in the RFP and consider
each firm qualified to perform the services requested. Chapter 11.45
requires this board to rank the firms in order of preference.
Our purpose today is to hear oral presentations from the three
firms, allow you to ask any questions necessary, to rank the firms in
order of preference, to unveil the pricing of the number one ranked
firm and to direct staff to begin contract negotiations, which we
brought back to this board for approval.
The three firms have drawn straws to determine the order of
presentation and have also agreed to remove themselves from chambers
during each other's presentations. We've asked that presentations be
limited to ten minutes, and the order is going to be Purvis Gray &
Company first, Arthur Andersen second, KPHG Peat Harwick/Schultz &
Chapel as the last presenter.
Are there any questions for me before we bring in the first firm?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten minute presentation is what we're
looking at?
MR. MITCHELL: Ten minutes, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then we have no limit on our
questions, I assume?
MR. MITCHELL: Correct, that is absolutely correct. That's the
pleasure of this board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the firms volunteered to remove
themselves; it was not a requirement of this process?
MR. MITCHELL: It is not a requirement of this process.
Dave, could you step outside and ask Purvis Gray & Company --
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this part of their presentation?
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Turn the clock on them, Ms. Filson. They
are burning daylight here.
MR. WEIGEL: The door was locked.
As they come to the podium, I'd like the record to reflect that I
also discussed with representatives of all three teams the sunshine
law and the requirements, and they understand that they are not
required to be outside of the room, that they have opted to do so
voluntarily.
MR. WELSH: Go ahead?
Good morning. My name is Joe Welsh (phonetic). I'm a partner
with Purvis Gray & Company. It's nice to be here before you today.
I'd like to introduce the people with me, my other partners, Bob Dale
and Jerry Hanley.
I assume you've had a chance to look over our proposal packet
that introduced Purvis Gray & Company to the board and told you-all
about us and our qualifications. Briefly, we are a statewide CPA firm
with offices in Sarasota, Gainesville, Ocala and Tallahassee. We have
over 60 employees, including over 30 CPAs, and we've been in business
for over 60 years. Last year, we performed over 120 audits.
We even audit the auditors. We are -- for 25 years, we've been
the auditors for the Florida Institute of CPAs, and we recently
audited the auditor general of the State of Florida. We also audit
the Florida Association of Court Clerks and the Florida Sheriff's
Youth Ranches.
Since we have just a short time here, and I want to allow time
for questions, I'm going to -- I'd like to discuss the four or five
reasons why I think you should hire our firm, Purvis Gray & Company,
to do the Collier County audit, and the first reason is our
governmental experience. We feel that we have the best governmental
experience of the firms you have here today.
We currently audit eight Florida counties and 22 Florida
municipalities. I, myself, have performed over a hundred governmental
audits, and Jerry Hanley and the two managers in your engagement,
Terry Kyte (phonetic) and Hark White have performed even more than
that.
I sit on a governmental standards review committee at the FICPA.
Hark sits on a technical issues committee at the Florida Government
Finance Officers committee, and Bob and Joe Bolton (phonetic), our
computer partner, he sit -- they sit on national committees, and we
all regularly speak at the governmental industry conferences.
The other firms may say that they -- I don't like the negative
campaign, to tell you the truth. I'm sure you-all can relate, but
they may say they have more governmental experience, but the question
I would like you to ask, the distinction I would like you to make is
what is the governmental experience of the staff assigned to your
engagement, and then I think you'll see that we clearly have more
governmental experience, and why is that important. Well, really for
three reasons.
Government is quite a bit different than a business enterprise.
One, there's a different set of accounting rules for governments given
out by the Government Accounting Standards Board. Two, there are a
whole complicated set of audit rules, including government auditing
standards, the rules of the auditor general and the single audit act
related to grant programs, and three, there are a number of issues, I
think, that are unique to governmental entities, and it's nice if your
auditors have a grasp on those issues, and they include like
negotiating interlocal agreements with the municipalities in your
county or dealing with the state agencies and your grant programs or
for other regulatory reasons up in Tallahassee. As governmental
auditors, we have a Tallahassee office that helps us in those areas.
You really require a specific type of knowledge, expertise in
governmental accounting and auditing coupled with the technical
ability and organizational ability to do your audit, and that's really
what our firm has. Every person assigned to your engagement has
governmental knowledge and expertise. We already know going in what a
general fund is and a pool of cash fund, and we understand some of the
bigger issues, I think, like the value of autonomy and cooperation
between the board and the constitutional officers and the pressures
that the counties face with increased costs and increase levels of
service and regulatory requirements at a time where you also see some
of your governmental revenues diminishing.
So, simply stated, I think you won't have to train our people,
and we can add value to the audit you get, and we can offer all the
services that you need, that the county needs. We are extremely well
received in the national bond market. We perform arbitrage
calculations, escrow verifications, parity letters and secondary
market disclosures, and we can satisfy all your information technology
needs with our information services department, including your product
selection, networking your offices or your officers, year 2000 issues
and Web site verification. We are one of the first firms in the state
authorized to do Web site certifications.
The second reason besides governmental that I think you should
select us is the utility experience. Now, you have -- the county's
audit involves three water and/or sewer districts with significant
operations, with their own issues on costs, rates and accounting
issues, and we are the premier firm in the State of Florida for
auditing utilities starting with our experience in the electric
industry. We currently audit six of the 32 municipal electric
utilities in the state, and eight of the 15 are rural electric
cooperatives, including the largest in the country, in the county,
Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative. We also audit 17 water
and/or sewer districts, and the Florida Rural Water Association.
Now, our experience in the utility area gives us a wealth in
knowledge I think that will be useful for the county, and we do rate
studies, revenue sufficiency studies, cost of service studies. We can
assist in contract negotiations, and we perform system acquisition
studies, acquiring small utilities. We've assisted our utility
clients with complying with the requirements on their fixed asset
records including establishing work order systems and continuing
property record systems, and again, the people that do it will do it
for our firm. They won't be in San Diego or Hong Kong. It's going to
be me, and it's going to Bob Dale and Jerry Hanley, and when you have
people like this on your audit that have done these types of studies
in your industry, that adds value to the audit that you receive.
You're a Florida county with utility operations. That's exactly
what we do. We audit Florida counties with utility operations, and
our expertise will allow our firm to audit you as effectively and
efficiently as possible.
The third reason, governmental, utility, the third reason I think
you should select our firm is our people. We feel that from top to
bottom we have the best people in the business, the best professionals
in the business, and we will put a partner and two managers on your
audit, where I think sometimes national accounting firms have very
little partner or management involvement.
In addition to myself, Terry Kyte and Mark White, the two
managers, you'll have three other partners that will have involvement
in your audit, and outside of the audit, we will -- outside of that
group, we will stock the rest of your audit with business leaders.
That's what we look for when we hire a person. We look for a business
leader with common sense and business sense that wants to have a
career as a professional and be a community leader, and that will be
the rest of the people on your engagement team.
Now, last but not least, the fourth reason we think you should
hire us is our record of quality service. We have an impeccable
record throughout the state of providing quality service, and we have
that because we commit ourselves to our clients. We are -- we are
generally interested in the financial welfare of our clients, and
that's reflected from the top down in all our staff people. We try to
build a business partnership with our clients that can last a long
time. We encourage you to contact our current and former clients and
industry representatives in this regard.
So, in closing, I think there's four or five reasons why we feel
you should select our firm. One is our governmental experience. We
audit eight counties, 22 municipalities. It's our -- the regular
thing we do. It's our specialty. It's not a part-time industry that
we are involved in. Most of our auditors spend seven to ten
engagements each year in governmental or utility accounting.
Two is our utility experience. Don't ignore this aspect of the
county's operation. There are a lot of issues out there, cost
recovery and rates.
Three is the people we'll put on your audit team, partners and
managers, higher level people that have done the studies and the
issues and are familiar with the needs of your County.
Fourth is our record of quality service. We audit FICPA, as I
said, the court clerks, the Sheriff's Youth Ranches, contact our
references, and maybe one fifth reason, I think, is reasonable fees
because we can -- because we do a number of governmental engagements
and because we have experienced people on your staff, we can do your
audit more efficiently and effectively than other auditors, and
sometimes we'll take that time and devote it to other areas. I think
that will add value to your service, value to the service that you
get.
So, thanks for the opportunity for us to present Purvis Gray &
Company to you. We would be proud to serve as your auditors, and I
would be happy to entertain any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you receive the contract award, would
you anticipate having some people here locally, permanently?
MR. WELSH: We had not discussed that.
Bob, you may want to answer that.
I'm out of the Sarasota office which is about an hour and a half.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you this. Is there an office in
Naples? Do you have an office in Naples?
MR. WELSH: No, there is not, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where is your closest office; Sarasota?
MR. WELSH: Sarasota.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, anytime if we needed service out of the
ordinary, then you would have to send somebody down?
MR. WELSH: Yeah. We've been in business for 50 years, and we've
done that through quality service. We plan to be in business for
another 50, and we can't do that if you're not happy. So, we will
make every effort, we will be there when you-all need us to come down.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In your listing engagements, you pull out
as a similar engagement Alachua County. Our revenues are roughly
triple that of Alachua. What preparations do you as a company have or
have you made to handle an audit that appears to be larger than most
of what you do?
You seem to do mostly small and medium sized counties. We are
about medium, but we have a little higher revenue stream. So, are
there any different -- is there a different approach to this that you
would take or preparations you would make to handle a revenue stream
that high?
MR. WELSH: We audit, you're right, large, small, medium size
entities. Our experience is in governmental. You would be one of our
larger clients, and we realize that it takes different levels to serve
you properly, an organizational -- I think the way we organize the
audit will be key.
We are going to give you all our best people throughout the
state, all four offices, and we feel -- I think that is the way we can
assure that we provide you the best service, and I think some of the
counties your size might feel like they have to go to a national firm
as opposed to us, and certainly that's a consideration, but we feel
that our technical expertise can give you that level that you need,
and our familiarity with county government is enough to handle your
engagement.
MR. DALE: I just wanted to add one thing to that, and that is
that this is a large engagement. When you break it down, you have,
from revenue and assets and so forth, a great deal of your assets are
in the utility system of which, again, as Joe said, those are -- we
audit a lot of utilities as well.
When we break this thing down, the activities that you have have
larger dollars, perhaps, than some of our other clients, but I don't
think that there's anything in here that we don't have a fairly
significant amount of expertise and experience in working with. You
know, we were looking through what you have and what we have audited,
and I think we match up very well in that particular case.
So, simply the size -- as Joe said, part of your operation is a
large utility. We audit some very large utilities. Break that to
the other side of the general government, we audit some general
governments that are reasonably comparable in size.
So, we are very well respected and received in the bond market.
Joe mentioned some of our expertise in arbitrage and some of those
types of things, these are just some of the things that I'm sure
you're looking at from a size and a scope standpoint, and again, in
our proposal, as you've seen, we have an extensive level of expertise
and experience in dealing with bonds, almost any type of grants that
have been issued by state and federal agencies all over the country,
and so we really think that that's an issue and a challenge, but in
the occasions where we have taken on larger and larger, particularly
governmental entities, we found that our background in the variety of
type of things that we have experience in is what's key here as
opposed to simply the dollar size.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself, please, for the
court reporter?
MR. DALE: I'm sorry. My name is Bob Dale. I'm one of the
partners with Purvis Gray & Company.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One comment and one question. I had
looked -- just a couple of minutes before you said your question, I
had looked and actually, all three, I guess, are from out of town; one
from Fort Myers being the closest.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just like to get it on the record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and everyone, I'm sure, would
prefer to have you-all in town, I think nowadays with computers and E-
mail and faxes and everything else, we are probably safe if someone is
relatively close by.
My question is, you mentioned while you recognize the necessary
autonomy between the clerk's office and the board, you had a good deal
of comfort in fostering cooperation between those two entities, and I
wondered if you might go into a little more detail on that?
MR. WELSH: Well, I think in any type of relationship like that
or contract negotiations or anything like that, it's important to
understand where both sides are coming from, and I think that's the
key to it, and I think we can, you know, be involved with some of the
constitutional officers, groups that we have been involved with like
the Sheriff's Youth Ranch and the Clerks' Association. We can see the
issues from their side, and with our governmental experience and
everything, we can see the issues from their side also, and we just
try to like, you know, lay that out if we get involved in a situation
like that to try to help resolve it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DALE: I'll add a general type comment to that that, again,
we've been doing this for a long time, and we've seen some counties
where those relationships are very smooth and some that are not quite
so smooth. It has just prepared us for dealing with the issues and
situations. Counties are interesting entities the way they're put
together in the State of Florida unlike some other type of
governmental entities which are very unit -- one unit type
organizations. It just simply isn't the case, but we work with that
in a lot of different settings where, as I said, it was smooth, and
where it wasn't, we just simply find a way and work real hard at
building consensus on what we are trying to get done, and that is the
audit of the county.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, any questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We've covered it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One question I have, looking at the time of
our audit, how does our audit work in relationship to other audits
that you may have from time frame?
MR. WELSH: Bob says however you want it, which we can do it. I
mean, we are not overloaded. Certainly, we've got a good qualified
staff, five or six crews, audit crews working at a time, and we're
certainly sensitive to the time frames.
You actually do not have a real tight time frame here anyway.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And one last question that I have has to do
with your peer review. When was your last peer review and what were
your -- were there any additional comments or -- what's the status of
that, please?
MR. HANLEY: My name is Jerry Hanley. Our last peer review was
1995. We are scheduled to undergo another review in September of '98.
We've received an unqualified report with no comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. That's my last question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for your presentation.
MR. WELSH: Thank you.
MR. HITCHELL: Commissioners, our second presenter is going to be
Arthur Andersen & Company. Dave, the honors.
MR. BRADLEY: Good morning. We have a little booklet we are
going to pass out before we get started here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is this similar to the one that we have?
MR. BRADLEY: This is a little different, just a summary. We
aren't going to go through quite everything in that big book today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We would be here awhile.
MR. BRADLEY: That's right, we would be here awhile.
Good morning. As most of you know or I think all of you know, my
name is Tom Bradley. I'm a partner with Arthur Andersen, and in fact,
I've been the partner on the Collier engagement for the last three
years.
We passed out a little booklet that we are going to go through in
just a moment, and I'm also going to introduce you to the other people
on my team in just a moment, but I know that I speak for myself and
both of them when I tell you that we are very, very pleased to be here
today.
We came to you several years ago, talked to many of you about
some promises that Arthur Andersen was going to make and the kind of
service we were going to deliver over the last three years, and what
we're here to do today is to report to you on those promises that we
made and also talk to you about the future, the future of Collier
County, and hopefully how Arthur Andersen fits into that future.
On the first page of this book, we have some bullet points that
are the items we're going to cover today. First of all, we're going
to be talking about our clients first philosophy, which is the way we
serve our clients. We are going to be talking about the proven
engagement team that we have on the Collier engagement currently and
that's going to continue into the future. We are going to talk about
our audit approach, and then also the fact that what we are trying to
do is provide more than just an opinion on the financial statements
but to provide value through the audit.
So, on Page 2, let me give you a quick rundown of the people that
will serve the county, and, again, all these people have served the
county in the past. The detailed resumes are in that big proposal
book that you have, so I'm not going to go through all the details,
just cover some of the high spots.
I'm the partner in charge of the Arthur Andersen Florida
government team. So, all the engagements that we do in the state are
under my supervision, and I've spent the majority, in fact, almost all
of my 22 years in public accounting working on Arthur Andersen
government clients, and I spend a substantial amount of my time doing
that, and as I said, I have worked on the Collier engagement for the
last three years.
Cynthia Borders-Byrd, who is our engagement manager, you'll hear
from in just a short while. Cynthia has also been on the engagement
for two years, and next year will be her third year on the engagement.
She's our most experienced government manager in the State of Florida,
and as I said, has worked on Collier, spends most of her time working
in the government industry.
Then another key player on the team is Andtea Prink, right behind
me here. Andtea serves as the senior on the engagement on the board
side, and she has been on the engagement for two years, and this will
be her third year coming up.
One other key individual, who unfortunately had a personal
commitment and couldn't be here today, is Urban Kantola, and Urban is
the senior on the board side of the audit, and like me, he's been on
this engagement from day one.
Then we round out our team with other specialists in various
aspects like computers and things like that.
So, let me turn then to Page 3 and talk about how we serve our
clients. The fact we put clients first in something that we call the
exceed motto which stands for exceeding client expectations every day,
and that's something that we are very serious about doing, and we do
that through our client relationship cycle.
The first thing we do, and we've applied this for the last three
years in Collier County, is to try to understand what's really
important to you, not just you as board members but also you, meaning
the people at -- the constitutional officers and the people that are
down in the trenches in the accounting areas, and Cynthia is going to
be talking about some of these things shortly, but based on what we
understand your needs to be, we then develop a plan to make sure that
we address those needs.
We build strong working relationships with the people that we
have to audit. This is very important because we need to maintain our
independence and maintain our healthy skepticism, but getting an audit
done is a team project, so we also need to have good working
relationships, good professional relationships with the people we are
working with every day.
Then we execute our plan, and the goal being to, first of all,
have a well coordinated audit, bring back ideas to improve the
county's operations and just overall, help the county to be
successful.
Communication is also something that we take very seriously. We
communicate consistently with the people at -- the constitutional
officers and at the board to plan the audit and as findings come up,
and then, of course, at the end of the audit, we meet with them, and
we also meet with you, and if there is anything -- we've been
fortunate in the last three years to not have surprises or issues that
we need to bring to the board as the audit is being conducted, but if
there were anything like that, we would come to the board immediately
and discuss it with you.
Then, of course, we get feedback because we always want to
improve the way we are providing our services, too. So, that's the
other thing that's important. We ask the county how we are doing, and
we try to improve on what it is we are doing.
What I'd like to do now is turn it over to Cynthia, who's going
to talk a little bit more about the last three years.
MS. BORDERS-BYRD: Thank you, Tom, and good morning.
Our goal is to exceed your expectations in everything that we do,
and we believe that we've demonstrated that through our services that
we've provided to Collier County in the past three years.
Our goal was to ensure that there were no surprises in connection
with our audit, and we worked very closely with management to ensure
that if there were any accounting issues, we identified them and
resolved them on a timely basis.
Another of our goals was to provide good recommendations to
improve your operations, and we've demonstrated that through issuing a
management letter to each of the constitutional officers and the
board.
We've also, during 1997, assisted the constitutional officers,
finance and accounting professionals in drafting their financial
statements. This was a first for them. The auditors had been doing
that in the past, but we worked with them to ensure they understood
what the rules were and assisted them in drafting those financial
statements.
We also work very closely with Jim and his staff to improve the
year end closing procedures, and we think that evidence of our
accomplishment of that goal was that we were able to issue our
financial statement opinion four weeks earlier in 1997 than we had
done in each of the previous years.
As Tom indicated, we really strive to develop excellent working
relationships, and we've done that with each of the constitutional
officers and their professionals who work in finance and accounting.
We've made presentations to this board of county commissioners which
was the results of our audit. We've worked with the county
administrator, finance and accounting professionals at the clerk's
office, and we also coordinate our audit with internal audit.
Our understanding of your expectations for 1998 and years to
come, it has come to our -- it's our understanding that you want
continuity. You want people who understand your business and know
your people, and we bring that to the table. As Tom indicated, each
of our individuals have worked on this audit since 1995. You want
access to experienced, government auditors, and we are available, we
have been available and will continue to be available to Jim and his
staff, and you also want sound recommendations to assist you in
improving your operations, and we will continue to do that through our
management letter.
We plan to continue to provide timely and quality service. We
plan to continue to work with management to accelerate our sign off
date. We've included on Page 5 a partial list of some of our audit
and consulting clients. Details of the services that we provide to
each of these clients are included in the written proposal. We've
included this list to demonstrate that Collier County is one of many
governments that we serve in Florida.
Now, I'd like to turn it over to Tom for summary.
MR. BRADLEY: Thanks, Cynthia.
Just a few quick moments here to summarize. On Page 6, let me
turn back to the question why select Arthur Andersen, and I'm not
going to rehash the points that are on here because we've talked to
them all throughout our presentation here today, but I did just want
to leave you with these thoughts.
First of all, our experience with Collier County, and that
doesn't mean just the experience of Arthur Andersen as a firm, but it
means the experience that each one of the three of us and the other
people in the firm, the specific people that are going to serve the
county bring to the engagement.
A well-coordinated and timely audit, which we try to minimize the
disruptions of the county's operations, and the fact that Cynthia said
that we signed off a month earlier than in prior years is testament to
that.
We want to continue to try to exceed your expectations, and I
think what is really important is our commitment to the county, and
the fact that over the last three years, we've shown that we are
really committed to the county, and that Collier County is not just
one of our clients, but it's our most important client, and we really
try to act that way, and hopefully, we've demonstrated that in the
past, and we are very anxious to continue to demonstrate that in the
future and continue to serve the county, and we'd be happy to answer
any questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many audits on an annual basis are you
individually engagement partner for?
MR. BRADLEY: Well, I do a number of audits. Some of them are
very large clients. Some of them are very small clients. If you look
at -- I think what's important is to look at the number of large
clients that I have, and I probably have, I would say of the size of
Collier County, I probably only have four other clients that are that
size --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that number --
MR. BRADLEY: -- and they also have -- I'm sorry very much to cut
you off, but they have different year ends. So, of the clients that I
have that have this year end, I have -- this is the largest client
that I have with this specific year end.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has that number stayed relatively the same
over the last couple of years or has it increased?
MR. BRADLEY: It has increased somewhat.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am, but I hope you're going to ask
that peer review question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I am.
When was your last peer review and what was the finding?
MR. BRADLEY: Our last peer review was conducted three years ago.
There's a triennial review that's required to be conducted. We had a
clean report with no significant findings, and actually, we are in the
process -- this is our year to be re-reviewed. So, we are all very
aware that this is our peer review year. We always like to get a
clean opinion. It's very important.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I had asked a previous question about other
number of audits, but I think you've answered that question.
Any further questions?
Thank you very much.
MR. BRADLEY: Thank you very much.
MR. HITCHELL: Our final firm is a joint venture between KPHG
Peat Marwick and a company by the name of Schultz & Chapel.
Tom, if you would ask the last firm to come in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. You're going to be the last
firm that we will hear from, and then at your conclusion, we are going
to take about a ten minute break. MR. JONES: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just so you understand what we are doing
here.
MR. JONES: Okay. Well, it's a pleasure to be here. You have a
wonderful county here. It's probably one of the most beautiful places
in Florida, and we appreciate this opportunity to be here to propose
on your audit.
My name is Chip Jones, and I'm the partner in charge of our
public services practice for West Florida. I spend 100 percent of my
time serving governmental and not-for-profit clients, and I currently
serve three counties, Sarasota County, Pinellas County and Duval
County up in Jacksonville.
With me today is Jodie Whitcomb (phonetic), who will be your
engagement manager. Jodie is also 100 percent devoted to the public
services practice, and has been with the firm seven years and is a
senior manager. In fact, she has spent seven years servicing a local
governmental client here in Collier County.
Also with us are two firms -- two representatives of the firm
Schultz & Chapel. Russ Baker, who has five and a half years'
experience as an assistant finance director for Charlotte County as
well as audit experience serving three counties, and Marty Rednig
(phonetic) who heads up the public services practice for Schultz &
Chapel and has experience servicing five counties.
We haven't put together any fancy presentations. You had a
chance to look at our proposals, and I don't know if you made it
through them. They are kind of long and laborious, and sometimes they
make a lot more sense to a finance director than they may to a
commissioner, but we want you to get to know us. We know we have got
the skills set and the abilities to service your needs for the next
five years, and the main thing I want to do is convince you of that
this morning.
Ten minutes is not a long time to give a presentation, and so is
there a clock around that's monitoring --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right in front of you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's right in front of you.
MR. JONES: Oh, okay, good.
I would have liked to have had the opportunity to meet with you
individually because that is something that I do on every audit with
each commissioner is to address issues that they have concerns on and
make sure we are fulfilling their needs during the audit, but we are
prohibited from the lobbying provisions of having any contact with
you.
Collier County -- I've been in Florida since 1956, and believe it
or not, I came down here to Lee County, Sanibel Island beginning in
the early '60s, and that's where we used to have our vacation. We
also came down to Collier County, and I see the changes that have
taken place, and I was looking at your stuff and I saw over the last
ten years what has happened here. I mean, the population has gone up
50 percent. Your tax base has gone up 133 percent. You've actually
dropped your millage rate in the last ten years. You've been a very
dynamic county who I think is going to get even more dynamic in the
next five years.
Your local paper, last Friday I think it was, indicated that you
have the hottest construction market in the country is here in Collier
County. You're going to be faced with a lot of challenges and needs,
and we think we are the best firm to help you with those. These next
five years, I congratulate you as elected officials because these are
very challenging times and to take on the responsibility where you're
directing this county is going to go in the next five years is just an
incredible thing, but we want to be there to help you. We have the
resources to help you, and we'll do an excellent job.
This was in our proposal. I don't know if anybody read that.
It's a very well read document. It's been reprinted about six times
because it's been requested so much, but it talks about the issues
that county government, city governments are facing and how elected
officials are responding to it.
In our audit, the way we approach our service to the client is an
understanding and recognizing these issues and how they fit into the
strategy that the county has managed.
I think the first thing I'd like to point out is that the audit
is not a commodity. In no way, shape or form is the only thing you
should be looking for is an opinion on the financial statements. You
should be looking for a relationship with your auditor that is more
than just getting an opinion and meeting with them once a year. It
should be an understanding of the county and be able to seek advice
and consult to help the county address its needs. We know we are the
right choice to serve those needs.
Locally, we serve in the State of Florida more large county
governments than any other firm. We serve Broward, Dade, Duval,
Pinellas, Sarasota, and we serve Hillsborough in a consulting capacity
with a number of performance audits. The reason we were chosen to do
a lot of these audits is because of the expertise and the resources we
have to help them meet their needs going forward.
Collier County is a county that's very large and will get larger.
You're going to be facing a lot of these same needs, and we've got the
experience and past history of servicing these needs.
Miami, we are all familiar with the problems that the City of
Miami had roughly about a year and a half ago, and which are still
continuing. I'm not sure if I'm still aware who the new mayor is. It
seems to change so much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither are they.
MR. JONES: Huh?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neither are they.
MR. JONES: Okay, they're not, but we were selected without an
RFP to come in there and assume the responsibilities as the outside
auditor, and, again, that was our national reputation for what we can
do to help governments in meeting the challenges that they face going
forward.
KPMG is the only firm that has a line of business devoted
strictly to servicing public service clients which are nonprofit and
governmental agencies. Jodie and I spend 100 percent of our time
serving nothing but governments and nonprofits. We did this because
our clients said we want people who know our business, who understand
us and who are responsive to our needs, and we said the best way to do
that is to have all of our professionals focused into one of these
lines of businesses so they will understand those issues and can be
able to best respond and help our clients in addressing those issues
as they came out.
We are seeing in this time of a robust economy, where we are all
resource constrained, a lot of firms exiting this market. We,
frankly, are making a lot more investments into this market. We have
the largest resources nationally and locally of providing services
such as performance audits, cost allocation plans, performance
measures, Famous (phonetic), which is a software system that is used
by like Broward County and Duval County and Hillsborough County for
their primary accounting system. This is a market that you're going
to be seeing a firm that will continue to make these investments to
make sure you're getting the very best in service.
Nationally, KPMG audits more large counties and cities than any
other firm. I believe we audit 50 percent of the largest -- 100
largest counties in the country, and, again, that shows a recognition
of what we can do for you and what we will do for you as your auditor.
One of the things that we emphasize in our service to our clients
is responsiveness and client service. Part of that is related to
communication. Our communication skills, I think, are excellent, and
they are directed strictly at the board as well as each of the
constitutional officers. We want to communicate with you on a regular
basis, understand what your issues are and meet your needs.
The board presentations that we do with you each year at the end
of the year -- I'm not sure what you do now, but typically, we'll sit
down in a workshop with our commissioners and walk through a very
detailed presentation that covers not only just the current year's
audit, but maybe four and five year trends, and what we see going on
with the county and how it relates to what we see in the state.
I will be your partner. I will be very responsive to each of
you. I'll meet with you individually to address your needs, and I'll
make sure that you get the very best in service. I am so confident
that we can do the very best job for Collier County that I'm willing
to suggest that we enter into a one year contract as opposed to a
three year with two one year option renewals because I know we'll do a
great job. I'm willing to do that. So, if you wanted to, we would
negotiate a one year with four one year renewals, but we've got the
services and the skills to give you the very best in service, and I
think the combination of a local firm that's in South Fort Myers with
strong government experience and a national firm gives you the best of
both worlds to meet your needs.
I'll be happy to respond to any questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've had the opportunity, obviously, to
review the audit prepared by Arthur Andersen last year. As you look
at that, compared to the KPMG approach, how can you do a better -- how
can you build a better mousetrap for us? What are we going to see
that's different and more useful as a tool to us?
MR. JONES: The audit -- what I saw were the financial
statements. Those are your financial statements. They are not
Andersen's. They audited it. I'm not sure how they audited it.
What I did not see would be the quality of their management
letter, the suggestions that were provided to you that you looked at
and said, this is a good selection, we should pursue it.
You know, I went through your financial statements. Your EMS
seems to suffer a loss and is being subsidized from operations.
As part of our -- we would have looked at that real closely to
see and probably suggest ideas on what you could do to do it better.
We would have looked at the way your internal financial reporting
takes place to see if it's giving you the information you need to make
decisions as commissioners.
I mean, our whole process is focused on understanding what drives
the county, what are the risks, how you manage those risks and how it
is turned into information that you make decisions on.
Again, I did not have a chance to see their management letter,
but we would expect ours to be proactive on advice that can help you
do a better job as elected officials.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who will be -- for your engagement
team, who will be located where and what will each responsibility be?
MR. JONES: I'm the engagement partner, and Jodie is the
engagement manager. We are both in our St. Petersburg office. We
spend a lot of time down here. The City of Naples and the City of
Cape Coral are both clients of ours. We also do clients such as
Barton Collier -- I don't personally, but we have probably seven or
eight different clients down here, but the two of us will be down here
just as much as the firm of Schultz & Chapel. They will be here
day-to-day. They can come over here on a minute's notice to address
your needs. They will probably deal more with the constitutionals
than with the board audit. We work with a joint venture relationship
on almost every out-of-town job we have, and we've done that because
we found out that it gave the best service to our clients, but the
fact that I'm in St. Petersburg, I don't think you would ever notice
it.
Naples didn't even bother to go through orals the second time
they hired us because they had seen over the seven years how
responsive we had been in servicing their needs in coming up with
ideas on how they can turn themselves around when they had their
problems.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that was my question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When was your last peer review?
MR. JONES: It's in our proposal. I think it was last year, 1996
by Price Waterhouse.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the firm you're associated -- going to be
associated with?
MR. JONES: Yours was 1997 -- '96 by the firm of Hayview Bagoes
(phonetic), but theirs was included, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And comments on their firm; any comments or
without comment?
MR. JONES: Both were clean, and copies of those are in the
proposal.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just wanted it on the record.
MR. JONES: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any further questions?
All right. Thank you very much.
MR. JONES: It would be an honor to be able to serve you-all.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, it's my understanding that you want
to take a break after the last presentation, but before you do, can I
request that Mr. Weigel go through the remainder of the process so
when we come back, and we can move right into it.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, commissioners. As you're aware, under
the Florida sunshine law, all deliberative processes of the Board of
County Commissioners will be back in session with the board leaving no
comment, et cetera, outside of the commission room, and the
commissioners know that, but I wanted to make sure that the public is
aware that that is the decorum and procedure that is followed.
Beyond that, in the agenda, Item 6(B) before you today following
the executive summary is a page which appears to be a ranking and
comment page which I want you and the public to be aware is a tool for
the Board of County Commissioners. It may be utilized during and
subsequent to the collective public deliberation and discussion that
you may have upon the reconvening of this item following the break.
Noting that at the bottom of the page, should this page be used by the
individual or all of the commissioners, it has a place for the name of
the commissioner who is making the comments and placing the ranking to
be affixed, and I would suggest that if you use the page, that you do
just that.
If there are any further questions, I'll be happy to respond.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just wondering, do we just want to
complete the process and have this ranking before we take a break or
do we need the break?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like a break.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm ready to pass my vote.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, question.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
We'll take about a ten minute break.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hitchell.
MR. HITCHELL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anything you want to tell us?
MR. HITCHELL: One of the things that I have to be very cautious
of is that the statute very clearly limits the responsibility of the
auditor selection committee, and that is to bring to this board what
we consider to be the three most qualified firms submitting proposals.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we only had three firms that did submit.
We did go through as a committee and review the proposals, and they
are all deemed qualified to do this particular engagement.
What I would do is basically make myself available to any type of
questions that this board may have in regard to the process, the RFP,
any of the things that you've heard today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hitchell, were these the only three
firms that sent back responsive bids?
MR. HITCHELL: Yes, sir. They were the only firms that sent back
proposals at all, responsive or nonresponsive. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just if this is within the rules, I'd like
to know if you've been satisfied with your relationship with the
auditor of the past three years?
MR. HITCHELL: Absolutely. They have exceeded our expectations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that was their stated goal.
MR. HITCHELL: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's their stated goal. That's great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would just like to recognize there are two
members of the audit selection team here in the back row, well, in the
back section. If they would just come forward and let the
commissioners know who you are. Come up to the microphone, please,
and they are saying, oh, we didn't expect that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They didn't tell us we were going to have
to do that, but we appreciate your service.
MR. LILLY: Good morning. My name is Kevin Lilly, and I'm with
the property appraiser's office, one of the constitutional offices
that is represented by the committee.
MS. ROBERTS: I'm Glenda Roberts with the property appraiser's
office, also.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And another member of the team was
Crystal Henzal (phonetic) with the Sheriff's Department. Does that cover everybody, Jim?
MR. HITCHELL: And also, John Stanley --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
MR. HITCHELL: -- at the tax collector's office.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I'm sorry. Forgive me, John, for
forgetting you.
MR. HITCHELL: Even though the property appraiser had two
representatives, there was only one vote in anything that we did have
to vote as a committee.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was a team effort.
MR. HITCHELL: Absolutely, a true team effort.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other questions?
Commissioner Hancock, question or comment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we just going to pass our ballots in,
is that how we're doing this or do we want to discuss it?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just don't sign them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I signed mine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears a couple of them are
signed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me, not ballots, our information
gathering tool.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hitchell --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, upon final ranking, as
Commissioner Berry does her famous tally or Mr. Hitchell does --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not doing it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Upon final ranking, does the board require
a motion to direct staff to begin negotiations?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that is correct, and, again, as I've stated
previously, these worksheets, tally sheets, tools should be signed by
the individual commissioners submitting them so that they can become
part of the record, the public record.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we direct staff
to begin negotiations with the firm that is top ranked in our
selection process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we gave three points to our
top rank. I'm just kidding.
I assume we ranked them one, two, three, one being the top.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Lowest number achieved is highest
votes, and I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to
proceed with negotiations --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to know who it is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- once we get the top vote getter, and we'll
-- let's go ahead and vote on this, and then we'll see who that person
is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to know who I'm voting to
negotiate with before I vote.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't matter whether you like it or
not now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just trying to move things along here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to trust the collective
wisdom of the board, so I'll support the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think we've voted, so there's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you almost there, Jim?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that that's appropriate, whoever is
the top vote getter is the one that you're going to negotiate with; is
that correct, Mr. Weigel?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we talk about this a little while
longer, Commissioner Hac'Kie's concern will be taken care of.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm working on.
MR. WEIGEL: The top -- the board -- the board will determine
upon receiving what Mr. Hitchell provides them -- I would suggest that
the chairman review what Mr. Hitchell has, indicate whether his
mathematics is correct and show the ranking so that both -- not only
the other board members but all the public know what the ranking
through this individual sheet process has shown you. You are not --
you have not put yourself in a situation where that is the vote. You
will need to take a vote based upon all of the information that you
have before you and deliberation you have.
So, this is a tool, and you may use this tool that you have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a ballot.
MR. WEIGEL: -- used right now --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you remember
when you were first on the board --
MR. WEIGEL: -- to make your determination.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and one of your big complaints used
to be how cumbersome the government process is? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a great example.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't it, and, frankly, the way I think
that we should have handled this is -- I'll tell you right up front.
Arthur Andersen is my top choice. I think we ought to just discuss
that.
How did the votes come out or the balloting tool?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It was really close. It's not close at all.
Do you want to know -- do you think we should disclose each
commissioner's vote?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's public record.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's going to be of record anyway as far as
that goes, but the fact is that these votes are really part of your
discussion or deliberation process, and you still have the ability to
vote as you wish right now, but this assists you in your deliberations
is what I would suggest.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's finish our tallies and then --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, go ahead and list them, but
Commissioner Norris already made a motion that the cumulative first
place be the one we negotiate with, and let's go ahead and hear them,
but I'm fine with that motion, whatever they tell me.
MR. HITCHELL: There is one other item we need to bring into the
record, too, and that is the pricing envelope.
So, my recommendation would be once you've deliberated and are
firm on your ranking, let's go ahead and unveil the pricing on the
number one ranked firm, and then part of the motion would be to direct
staff to begin the negotiations with that firm.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The number one ranking was Arthur
Andersen with seven; KPHG Peat Marwick was ten. It was number two,
and Purvis Gray & Company was ranked number three with sixteen. The
lowest number being the number one firm.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many first place votes did Arthur
Andersen get?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Three.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
No one else got more than that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's it. I realize, Mr. Weigel, you
need to cover the legal bases, but let's not take this to the level of
absurdity. We have five folks here, and whether it's formally the
balloting process or whether we now make a separate motion, the point
is the group has clearly made a choice.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will amend my motion to state that we
direct staff to begin negotiations with Arthur Andersen & Company.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, of course, open that envelope,
Ms. Barbara.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. MITCHELL: These envelopes have been sealed. They've been in
the custody of the purchasing department.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hermetically sealed.
MR. MITCHELL: This one may be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a tidy process.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Look, they said they'll do it for free.
Mr. Mitchell, what was the audit -- the bottom line last year for
Arthur Andersen doing the audit?
MS. ARNOLD: The contract for last year was 206,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This year I have total all inclusive of
216,7007
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. That's a good place to start, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect. Then -- and so the motion
reflects that that's -- that's the envelope of negotiation authority.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, not to exceed -- negotiation not to
exceed -- the amount of 216,000.
MR. MITCHELL: All inclusive, right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Feel free to negotiate lower.
MR. MITCHELL: You got it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we call the question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Mitchell, would you keep this -- or I
guess we keep this for the official record or somebody keeps this for
the official record.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 98-41 REPEALING ORDINANCE 88-59 AS A_MENDED WHICH ESTABLISHED
THE MARCO ISLAND BEACHFRONT RENOURISHHENT FACILITIES MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, these next four items
are to dissolve the Collier County different committees that have now
been taken over by the City of Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you like to hear them jointly
and close the public hearing jointly?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if we can do it jointly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we probably need separate
motions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We probably need separate motions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we need separate motions for each one?
MR. WEIGEL: You'll need separate motions, but they can be heard
together, if you wish.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, do we have any speakers on
any of the items?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers registered on these
items?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers for Item 13(A)(3).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thirteen (A)(3).
MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are the only speakers you have; not on
these.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that doesn't cover this; none of
these.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then what we are hearing now is item 8(C)(1)
which is county Ordinance 88-59, which is the dissolution of the Marco
Island Beachfront Renourishment Facilities Municipal HSTU. The next
one is Ordinance Number 81-35, the Marco Island Beautification HSTU.
The next one is Collier County Ordinance 94-70, Marco Island Lighting
HSTU. The fourth one, Ordinance Number 86-31, the Marco Island Beach
Renourishment and Public Access HSTU.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, for the record, these are items
12(C)(1) through (4), correct?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Items 12(C)(1), (2), (3) and (4).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I move that we repeal
Ordinance 88-59.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have to close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move repeal of Ordinance 88-59, which is
Item 12(C)(1).
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move that we repeal Ordinance 81 --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Hay the record reflect that on that ordinance and
any other, it's 88-59 as amended so that we get all the tail
ordinances that go with it, also.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 98-42 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 81-35, AS AMENDED,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Ordinance 81-35 as amended.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Under 12(C)(2), I'll move repealing
Second.
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
Hotion carries five-zero.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 98-43 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 94-70, AS AMENDED,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE MARCO ISLAND LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Under Item 12(C)(3), I move we repeal
Ordinance 94-70 as amend if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 98-44 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 86-31, AS AMENDED,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT AND PUBLIC
ACCESS MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Under Item 12(C)(4), I move we repeal
Ordinance 86-31 as amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12C5
ORDINANCE 98-45 RELATING TO CAPITAL IHPROVEHENTS AND RELATED SERVICES
PROVIDING A SPECIAL BENEFIT TO LOCAL AREAS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY -
ADOPTED
The next item is the consideration of an adoption of an
ordinance relating to capital improvements and related services
providing a special benefit to local areas within Collier County.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, I'm the presenter of this one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pardon me?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm the presenter of this item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
And this is an ordinance advertised and brought before the board
for public hearing today which is a revision to the long-standing
Ordinance 88-23 as amended that the board adopted in 1988. Along with
and in addition to the standard powers and duties the board has under
Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes and what this ordinance does --
and I will, I can make my comments as brief as necessary here, but it
removes some of the cumbersome process of our prior Ordinance 88-23
for a couple of reasons. One is based upon statutory adjustment that
has occurred through the years and also through the operations of the
county with the establishment of municipal service benefit units for
capital improvement or capital project type of endeavors, and we have
learned that we can simplify the process somewhat.
In the past, we've had two and three, sometimes four --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Weigel --
MR. WEIGEL: -- adoption processes.
Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you put a lot of work into this,
but the two catches for me is, one, shortened, and two, simplify --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- without having a material effect on the
board's authority or power or the community's ability to comment or to
be an interactive part of any of these HSTUs. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on that, I'm prepared to make a
motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I didn't make the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why he was only preparing to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
Any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none on this item, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
Any other discussion?
If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to thank the county attorney's
office for doing something rarely done in government, and that is
shortening and simplifying codes and ordinances.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 98-174 RE PETITION V-98-5, JOAN E. FERRO, REQUESTING AN
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 490 PLAM COURT,
CONNORS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 2 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hoving on then to advertised
public hearings, 13(A)(2), Petition V-98-5. This is a request for an
after-the-fact variance of .75 foot from the required height for
fences and walls.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a nine inch mistake.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A nine inch mistake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are the neighbors complaining at all about
this?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
Good morning, commissioners. This is a quasi-judicial hearing.
People need to be sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Anyone wishing do speak to this item,
please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were sworn).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we discover this egregious
violation?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They gave us a spot survey, and the survey
showed the height violation. They measured the height from the crown
of the road as opposed to the general ground elevation. They made a
mistake.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: An honest mistake.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if you'll close the
public hearing, I'm prepared to make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the
variance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to
approve this variance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I want to ask, we've received no
letters or complaints from adjacent property owners?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I just received a petition signed by the
neighbors supporting this variance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you this, is this one of our
little conditional variances?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say no, for nine inches.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd hate to have the next neighbor
have a -- the next owner have a surprise over nine inches.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, the conditional variance just means --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if it goes down, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It just means if the wall is torn down, it
has to be reconstructed according to the code, which is the idea, and
it makes sense to me. It doesn't affect this wall, but should it be
torn down, it would have to be reconstructed according to code. That
makes sense.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #13A3
PETITION CU-97-25, LOU STIRNS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE
"14" (SOCIAL ORGANIZATION) IN RURAL AGRICULTURAL "A' ZONING DISTRCT FOR
A CLOTHING OPTIONAL CLUB, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF
IHMOKALEE ROAD, 2 MILES EAST OF CR-951, BETWEEN HOUDLER ROAD AND RIVERS
ROAD - DENIED
The next item on the agenda is Petition CU-95-25. This is
the request for an approval of a conditional use "14", a social
organization in a rural agricultural zoned district off of Immokalee
Road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of this, Mr. Weigel, what are
the legal parameters -- this is a land use item. I assume there are
some parameters under which we are required to make our decision, and
perhaps you can enlighten us on what those parameters are.
MR. WEIGEL: Just the legal -- the standard legal parameters. The
parameters that you have, of course, as will be discussed briefly also
include this being quasi-judicial, any disclosures you may have as
well as written information that may have been proffered to you prior
to the meeting to be made a part of this record. Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Milk.
Oh, I'm sorry, Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county
attorney. There are also four standards that are identified in the
staff report, and I think I know them by heart, but it's consistency
with the comp. plan and the land code; noise, odor, glare effects on
adjacent property; compatibility with adjacent property and concerns
about ingress and egress to the property. As I -- that's not an exact
quote from the code but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pretty close.
Okay. Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good morning. Madam Chairman, this is a
quasi-judicial matter. Would you please swear in those present who
wish to speak on this matter? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
Anyone wishing to speak to this item, would you please rise and
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a disclosure on this particular item.
I've met with both sides, both sides of the issue. So, I'd like to
disclose that and I'll base it on what I hear this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My disclosure is that I've met with the
petitioner twice.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had contact outside this forum.
I'll make my decision as required by the laws of the State of Florida.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with the petitioner, had
correspondence with the petitioner and have had correspondence from
property owners in the surrounding area.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name
is Bryan Milk, and I am presenting Petition CU-97-25.
Lou Stirns, the contract purchaser and agent, is requesting
approval for a conditional use "14" in the agricultural zoning
district for a social club in which persons will reportedly be engaged
in social and recreational activities and who are not clothed in any
manner of wearing apparel. The subject property is located
approximately two miles east of 951, approximately one half mile south
of Immokalee Road. The subject property is 20 acres in size and is
located between Houlder Road and Rivers Road. The property is
approximately 620 feet wide by approximately 1,300 feet long.
Access to the subject property is provided by Houlder Road.
Houlder Road is a private road. It's a dirt road. It tends to be
unimproved, yet is passable.
Upon site inspection, the subject property has a number of upland
habitat. Cabbage palm seems to be the more predominant species in
that area.
The surrounding property in that area is all zoned agricultural.
It is within the rural designated area of the Collier County growth
management plan approximately two miles east of that urban boundary.
The petitioner is proposing a social club which would provide a
facility for a card entry gate, a parking lot for 78 cars, a chickee
hut which would facilitate club members. Basically, it would be a
shelter with a bathroom facility inclusive in that shelter area. It
would provide a pool and spa. It would provide a two acre man-made
lake. It would provide a wetland area which would be encompassing of
two lakes. It would provide a main residence, seven guest quarters.
Surrounding the property, because it is an upland area, would be
a 50 foot natural -- naturally vegetated buffer. The 20 acre project,
the impact on it would be approximately 9.6 acres that the petitioner
is proposing to develop in reference to the wetlands on-site and
upland vegetation.
The guest quarters and the main residence, like the internal
social recreational facilities are located internal to the site
itself.
Surrounding the subject property on Houlder Road, there's
approximately six residents that live off of Houlder Road. Basically
that property is five, ten and twenty acres in size. It's
agricultural property. It's fairly undeveloped and is a residential
community. Some of those folks have large estates. Others have
typical residential houses.
On Rivers Road, there's approximately three single family
residents that occur on the way to the subject property.
Immediately to the east is a landscaped nursery operation which
seems to specialize in unique rocks and landscaping. He is actively
involved in that type of business with large trucks and truck traffic.
The petitioner presented this to the planning commission on Hay the
7th. That vote was nine to zero against the petition. The
commissioners had concerns about the long-term traffic impact on
Houlder Road. They had concerns about the density of the units
proposed on-site for the guest quarters. They had concerns about the
compatibility with the contiguous neighborhood with respect to
passersby, gawkers, trespassers, that sort of thing from a
compatibility standpoint.
A number of the neighbors also showed up at the planning
commission and voiced different objections to the club from a matter
of what's going to happen to Houlder Road; is the facility going to be
gated; is it going to be fenced; is it going to be lit; is there going
to be security. They were concerned about the activities on-site and
internal to the club itself. They were concerned about the well-being
of the children and what that impact or stigma would be presented to
their -- the neighboring kids, and security was also again brought up.
I included a number of public petitions in your executive summary
packages with those that were not in favor of it and also letters from
the adjacent property owners.
I'd like to pass out at this time -- Mr. Stirns has since that
meeting, through this correspondence only, made some concessions to
what was the conclusion of the planning commission as it relates to
improvements to Moulder Road, lighting, security and that sort of
thing. So, I'd like to make this a matter of public record now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of questions, Madam
Chairman.
MR. MILK: If I could answer any questions, I'd be happy to do
so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Commissioner Constantine first, and
then Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From a legal standpoint, one of the
issues you raised -- you raised three issues, if I heard you right,
that the planning commission had concerns about; one being traffic
impacts on Moulder Road; one being compatibility and one being the
density issue. Let me just quickly run through those.
Moulder Road is a private road, isn't it?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, we are a little limited on what we
can or can't do as far as using that as our rationale one way or the
other?
Obviously, if there are going to be improvements made and trying
to make that up to public grade, that's a benefit, but if the impacts
aren't the same as if it was a public road, then we're looking at the
impact; is that a fair assessment?
MR. MILK: That's a fair assessment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The compatibility standpoint I figured
-- I'll assume we'll have a discussion on.
Can you explain to me what the concerns with the density were?
MR. MILK: From staff's standpoint, it was an issue with whether
the board would have the -- social clubs, unlike sports camps and
instructional schools, we've typically allowed the YMCA, Progressive
Gymnastics, Boy Scouts of America to have what we call country cabins,
cabins, overnight staying ability on-site for a sports agenda with the
camp overall perspective on that particular focus.
We as staff and you as the board have never looked at the concept
of providing private guest cottages for a social organization in that
fashion. We have done that in the past for sports and instructional
schools and camps but have not for the Elks Club or that type of
social club.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What you're describing sounds more
like a use concern than an actual density concern.
MR. MILK: Ours was a use concern. The planning commission's was
a density concern.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this ag. one to five or one to two
and a quarter?
MR. MILK: It is one to five, correct, one unit per five acres.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, you would have some difficulty
putting seven units there regardless?
MR. MILK: As a parent parcel, yes. It would have to be
subdivided, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is -- well, as I understand
it, this is a conditional use because it's in the agricultural zoning
district.
If -- if -- in what areas, in what zoning districts in the county
would this social club use be permitted without coming through the
board for this conditional use approval?
MR. MILK: In the commercial, C-4 and C-5 zoning districts, there
is a provision in the C-4 for sporting and social and fraternal
organizations through a conditional use, thereby being permitted in
the C-5, so C-4 and C-5.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But C-4 is conditional use. So, really
the only place where you can come in and pull a building permit
without coming in front of the board for any kind of a public hearing
is a C-57
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what are the typical areas of C-5
zoning in this county just --
MR. MILK: Typically along the major arterials and collector
roadways in Collier County; U.S. 41, Airport-Pulling Road, Davis
Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a near industrial zoning category.
MR. MILK: It's a very intense zoning district, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, essentially what you're saying is that
this is a use that's normally -- normally restricted to heavy
commercial use, and this is being proposed to be placed in an
agricultural parcel?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear from the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is the petitioner prepared to speak? Mr.
Stirns, are you prepared to speak?
Mr. Siesky, are you speaking for him?
MR. SIESKY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then you need to be sworn in, sir.
(The speaker was sworn).
MR. SIESKY: Ms. Berry, members of the board, thank you for
letting me address you today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name.
MR. SIESKY: Mr. Stirns' goal here --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please.
MR. SIESKY: Sorry, I didn't hear you. Jim Siesky representing
Mr. Stirns.
Mr. Stirns' goal today is to have his property zoned for a
conditional use or permitted for a conditional use as contemplated by
the Collier County zoning laws.
He also has a goal here of being a good neighbor, and being a
good neighbor is important to him, and he's willing to show that, not
by his past record as much as by the past record of Southern Exposure,
a similar group in Collier County. He's not affiliated -- he's not
directly affiliated with Southern Exposure with this property, but
Southern Exposure has operated in this area for a number of years. Mr.
Stirns had police reports pulled for the area where Southern Exposure
has operated for the past six years, and there's been absolutely no
police calls to that property related to a member of Southern Exposure
for the last six years.
Also in the record from the planning commission is a letter from
Mr. Bates, Leslie Bates of the Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce.
In that letter he states, and I'm quoting, I cannot say enough good
things about this organization. In the time that they have been
associated with us, they have conducted themselves in a well-mannered,
cordial fashion and have never done anything to embarrass this chamber
or its members.
Also, I have for the board two more letters to be entered. First
is a letter from Mary Martin of neighborhood watch, and she says in
her letter, Southern Exposure has demonstrated a willingness to be a
good neighbor. They have participated in neighborhood watch meetings,
street cleaning and helping to protect individual properties.
Whenever asked to participate in any task required by the neighborhood
watch committee, they have willingly complied. Again, that's a quote.
Mr. Stirns recognizes that his proposed use of the property will
impact the people on Moulder Road and surrounding residents and
contrary to the position taken at the planning commission, he's
willing to take some other affirmative action to alleviate some of
those concerns.
The first is that he will agree to accept the planning staff's
recommendation and install a dust free surface for the road. He will
also agree to grade that road twice a year.
He's going further to show that he wants to be a good neighbor.
He's willing to install no trespassing signs and neighborhood watch
signs on all of Moulder Road and Rivers Road. He is also willing to
take the lead in contacting the Sheriff's Department to implement a
neighborhood watch program.
Even further to alleviate the concerns of the residents, he is
willing to post a guard in a portable trailer at the intersection of
Moulder Road and Immokalee Road during the hours of operation of his
club. Ordinarily, that's going to be anticipated to be from 11:00
a.m. to about 5:00 p.m., because typically when the sun goes down,
everybody goes home, although infrequently, there are some evening
events, and for those events, he would agree to have the guard present
at those times.
Another concern that the residents and the planning staff had was
the privacy issue. There was a concern that the vegetative buffer was
insufficient. Mr. Stirns is willing to construct an opaque fence
surrounding the property to eliminate the concerns that neighbors will
have their children wandering onto the property or gawkers will come
by and try to observe what's happening on the property. In return,
though, he would like to restrict or eliminate the magnitude of his
vegetative buffer which is currently designed at a minimum of 50 feet
to 10 to 20 feet, something reasonable in light of the fact that there
would be an opaque fence surrounding the property.
In addition, another idea regarding traffic is he'll agree to
have his members of the social club display a pass in the window while
they are on Moulder Road to make sure that they are identifiable.
The last letter that I have, a brief presentation to you is a
letter from the Golden Gate Fire & Rescue District from Assistant
Chief Alan McLaughlin, and that has to do with the lake or swimming
pool that is to be constructed on the property. Mr. Stirns will make
that available to fight fires in the event there are wildfires or
other fires in the neighborhood, and that the Golden Gate Fire
Department believes this to be an excellent opportunity to alleviate
the fire concerns.
Another issue that was raised by your staff is the -- the
petitioner requested a home and seven overnight lodging facilities on
20 acres. Even though zoning for 20 acres would permit a guest house
and four -- excuse me, four homes and four guest houses on this 20
acres, the staff recommended that Mr. Stirns be limited to four
overnight lodging facilities and just his home. He will agree to
that.
Staff also requested a policy from this board, a policy statement
regarding permitting overnight lodging. Overnight lodging under the
conditional use zoning for agricultural is currently contemplated. We
have homes and guest houses. Hunting cabins are permitted, and they
are typically overnight lodging. Group care facilities are permitted,
as are nursing homes. Obviously, those are overnight lodging
facilities, and as staff has told you, overnight lodging has also been
permitted for instructional camps, sports camps and instructional
schools.
Mr. Stirns believes that his contemplated use is consistent with
the agricultural zoning and the uses that are currently permitted in
that area.
The staff has also made it clear that the proposed use of the
property as a social club is consistent with the growth management
plan, and that Mr. Stirns has complied with all the procedural
requirements for that ordinance.
To my knowledge, and Mr. Weigel can correct me if I'm wrong,
there are no laws in Florida regulating private nudity nor is there
any public purpose to be served by such laws. Also, since Mr. Stirns'
application is consistent with the growth management plan, he's
followed all those -- all the requirements of the ordinance, his
petition should be granted on its merits.
Mr. Stirns, as I said, wants to be a good neighbor. He's willing
to be a good neighbor. He'll go the extra mile to be a good neighbor
and requests that you authorize this conditional use of his property.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of Mr. Siesky?
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have public speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have two public
speakers. First is Pat Young and then Lyra Pennington.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If the next public speaker would move down,
please.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. YOUNG: My name is Pat Young. I live on Moulder Drive, and
I've spoken before the planning hearing, and I'm speaking on behalf of
the people on Moulder Drive today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Officially, sir?
MR. YOUNG: Yes. Not everybody can get out of work.
As you know, we are against the whole situation for what Mr.
Stirns has to offer us here, and to go over some of the things that he
has agreed to do, as far as the road traffic, you know, what kind of
surface is dust free? Are we going to oil this road down? Can we get
an answer to that question today?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure we can.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After your comments -- dust free is
something that our transportation staff uses sometimes. So, maybe --
after your comments, maybe they can give a definition of what that
means since they would be the ones to either approve or not approve
whether it's appropriate.
MR. YOUNG: That's fine.
Now, as far as the traffic going down the road, you know, we
drive. We have the trucks going down the road. If they have a party,
is -- my use of the road one time is 730 passes per year. So, six
houses, you can figure that out. The proposed traffic flow at eight
cars per day on the average comes out to 5,840. That's -- now, just
on the weekend, let's say they have a proposed party at 40 cars,
that's another 4,160 passes per year, and it just keeps -- if you take
the 78 parking spaces that he has proposed on the plan, that's 8,102
passes per year on the road, and if you add these three up, it comes
out to 13,952. There's no way that even adding three or four more
houses on that road that we're going to equal this kind of traffic on
the highway. Immokalee Road, we know we are having problems with that
road already as far as traffic goes.
Then, you know, I have a family of three children, 18, 8 and 11,
and I don't think they need to be exposed to this situation at all.
People, I don't want them coming through my yard and granted, I know
there are going to be people that are going to park up on Immokalee
Road and traverse through our neighborhood to see what they can see
even though I know what they are going to see isn't going to be great,
but it's still something I'm worried about.
My kids are going to be off school all summer long. I'm not
there 24 hours a day to watch them either, and I'm not there 24 hours
a day to protect them at the same time, and granted Mr. Stirns wants
to put a guard up there. Well, if he has cabins, is that guard going
to be there 24 hours if he has overnight residents or guests, you
know, to help with the protection of the neighborhood.
The aspect, you know, my kids will have friends over. Are they
going to -- is their folks going to say, well, they are not coming
over to visit your kids because of what's down the road from you. I
mean, I know you have children, and would you let your kids come over
to my house, play and spend the night if you knew that was down at the
end of our road. I've already had a negative effect from that from
people I know.
I was out -- after the planning board meeting, I was in my shop,
which is about 20 feet off of Houlder Drive, and finally, after about
20 cars went by, I asked, what are you doing here. You know, I don't
see these cars here, and a couple of people actually stopped and said
we are looking at the proposed site. One gentleman in particular said
you can expect 140 people on a nice sunny Sunday, and that, I think is
a little too much traffic, and I just don't think it's compatible with
our neighborhood.
We have a very nice quiet neighborhood, and we'd like to keep it
that way. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MS. PENNINGTON: My name is Lyra Pennington, and I live at 2025
Rivers Road, and Commissioner Berry, first I'd like to thank you and
the other commissioners for your letters and response to the letters
that I sent you, and I would like to reiterate some of the various
reasons that I'm opposed to this rezoning.
In response to the roads issue, the media has reported in the
last two weeks that Immokalee Road has already had eight deaths on it
in the past year, and that's opposed to 1-75 which has had eleven in
all of Collier County from the Broward County line all the way to the
Lee County Line. I'm not so sure that turning off of Immokalee Road
has been addressed by the planning commission.
It does worry me because when we had the remote control race
track at the end of Rivers Road, which zoning was allowed for, we were
told again, as I stated in my letter, there would be a few small race
cars. We weren't told that we would have loudspeakers going until
11:00 or 12:00 at night on the weekends. We weren't told that they
would have as many as 500 guests at a time with people in campers and
mobile homes spending the night. Sanitary facilities weren't provided
to handle that many people. We had beer cans, all those types of
things that go along with having that many people thrown down our road
that we were responsible for taking care of.
Both roads are unable to handle this much traffic, and I don't
believe without paving them that they would be able to, but that's not
the only concern that I have.
I'm concerned about the natural buffer mentioned in the petition.
When we flooded several years ago, we didn't just have slight
flooding. We had major flooding in this area. The water in our
particular home came up over the windowsills even though the windows
are low. We were out of our home from August 25th to November 5th
because of the flooding. We have flooding every year. The water goes
through the pasture which is right in the middle of this 20 acres, and
it's a natural throughway. There's a bridge that is on Immokalee Road
between Rivers and Moulder, and the water naturally spills out into
that area. We had alligators coming across from the Immokalee canal
that were right by the mailbox. When the FEMA person came to speak
with us, he would not even go down the road. He said, fine, you'll
get your check to stay in a motel because you do not have access to
your property. Okay. That was a sanitary issue also because of the
contamination of the well and the surrounding property.
I'm concerned about the effect on the wetlands, partitioning them
off from the rest of his property. I don't believe that the wetlands
there can survive by being partitioned off in this way. We have deer,
bears, bobcats, quail, raccoons. We've had panthers. A bear was down
at the end of the street during this last week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but are you
suggesting that nothing should ever be developed here?
MS. PENNINGTON: No, no, I'm not. I'm saying that the impact of
this particular request is more than the area can stand with that many
people coming --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're speaking primarily of traffic
and the amount of people?
MS. PENNINGTON: Correct.
We do have residential homes in the area, okay, and if they are
aware that there's going to be flooding, and they built high enough,
that's fine, but you have to think of how many cars are going to be
coming up and down that road and the kind of water and things that are
generated with that along with the concerns about having a dust free
roadway, too.
I am also concerned, as I said before, about the social and
psychological impact on children; not just mine but the other children
in the neighborhood. I was a little misquoted in the News Press. I'm
not concerned about children visiting my house overnight and me not
being able to control them going down to gawk at the property. I'm
concerned about parents who won't allow them to visit my children at
all if this is zoned for this use, okay, at any time of the day. My
children have heard that comment made to them.
The other comment that they've received, again, is that, oh, we
want to come to your house. We know your bedroom is on the second
floor. You know, we've got telescopes. We can get right up there on
the second floor, it's not that far down the street, okay. Adults are
going to feel that same way, too, and that's sad. That's really sad,
you know, but it's a fact of life. People are going to do that, and I
really don't want it to happen in a nice, quiet neighborhood where we
are with our children, and I appreciate your time this morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question for Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine has a question for
Mr. Weigel.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, going back to my initial
question when we opened this hearing, it really comes off -- Mr.
Siesky's comments on behalf of the petitioner, he talked about meeting
the land use criteria, and we can debate whether or not it's
compatible and so on, but is that really what we've got to base our
decision on here? He talked about staff requests and meeting those
staff requests, and I just want to be very clear on how we need to
come to a decision here.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine, and it's a very good question.
The answer is yes, that what has and have been attempted to
transpire before you, be presented to you is the fact the staff and
the petitioner have indicated what the rules are for development of
the land, the land use change, and there's a burden upon the
petitioner to show that there are -- that there is no problem with our
growth management plan and the land code that we have in effect, and
upon it showing under the case law that puts the burden on the Board
of County Commissioners not to be arbitrary or unreasonable in not
allowing the fezone, or in this case, the conditional use, a type of
fezone to occur, you don't have to make specific findings of fact to
come up with the opinion or ruling that you may have, but your ruling
must be supported by competent substantial evidence of the record.
Anything else?
MS. STUDENT: And furthermore, while you don't have to make
specific findings of fact, there needs to be a reason stated, and that
reason needs to be based upon competent substantial evidence if
they're in the staff report of what you've heard here today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met Mr. Stirns. I told him, you know,
what I personally feel individually and morally is not an issue here.
What was the biggest issue for me and still stands as the biggest
issue for me is simply compatibility. We have existing uses that have
established themselves in that area, and I think those uses have a,
when I keeping coming back to a term, I call it a reasonable right of
expectation of what other uses will come into the area and whether
those uses are, indeed, compatible or not.
When we talk about competent substantial evidence, look over on
that wall. There's three cameras with at least that many or more
reporters over a conditional use application. Now, if this were a
conditional use application for a VFW post, those guys wouldn't even
be here, but they are, and the reason is that there is, like it or
not, stigma attached to this application. That stigma, whether it is
valid or invalid, has a real effect on property, on property values,
on people's perceptions, and when you start talking about what -- you
know, when you buy in a neighborhood and what the neighborhood is
going to be or become, we are kind of the last gate on how that has
either changed or not changed in the future.
My concern is that by virtue of approving this conditional use,
we are changing the character of what is being built and developed out
there from very low density rural and, slash, agricultural use to
something different, and that something different may very well have a
negative impact on the value of the properties around it, and the
property owners surrounding it have expressed their concern on that
point.
So, I keep coming back to the compatibility issue that I don't
think this is, indeed, a compatible use with predominantly low density
rural and agricultural uses on the surrounding properties, and we have
the surrounding property owners saying pretty much the same thing.
So, the other items don't give me cause for concern, and I'm not
trying to make any judgment whatsoever on the use itself, but simply
trying to maintain some character and compatibility in the area, and I
don't believe that this use would do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my -- my thoughts are the same,
basically, as what Commissioner Hancock just espoused. I think that
this application passes every test except compatibility, and that's
one of the big four, you know, that it has to pass in order to be
approved.
It's unreasonable to me to think that someone could have a home
in an agriculturally zoned area, and that they should reasonably
expect when they bought that property that this is something that
might eventually be developed in their neighborhood. For me, that's
how I look at -- one of the factors I use to analyze compatibility,
and that's where it fails for me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just offer a couple of
thoughts. The -- I think all of our initial reaction when you hear
nudist campus, it's kind of wide-eyed, and no pun intended, but you
start thinking, heavens, what is this, and I talked -- Mr. Siesky
mentioned Wes Bates, and I've been involved on the Board of the Golden
Gate Chamber of Commerce since 1989, I think, and I know there was
debate when a group similar to this had petitioned the Golden Gate
Chamber to become a member of the Golden Gate Chamber. There was a
debate on the board of the chamber of whether or not to accept them,
and it passed, I think with one dissenting vote, and as Mr. Bates said
in his letter, they turned out to be, perhaps, the single most
productive member. They have a number of folks who just continually
show up and volunteer, and so I think it's an important point when you
say it's not an issue of right or wrong or good or bad or putting a
moral judgment on there, when you get down to the issue of value and
so on.
I had written to -- actually called up to Pasco County. They
have a couple of these facilities up there, and written the
commissioners up there or called the commissioners up there and
inquired of what their situation was and what their history was, and I
thought maybe we could get a little history of some place that has
already had these, and let me just read it. It's a short letter. Let
me read a letter from Sylvia Young, chairman of the board of
commissioners for Pasco County. Enclosed please find information on
five of the nudist developments in Pasco County. As you see, some of
these are owned by individual lot owners and some are not. They are a
good tax base in this county. They have very quiet neighborhoods, and
some of our cleanest resorts and homeowners. If you are not a nudist,
you would never know that these are nudist developments. I've been
asked to give a recommendation. I've supported every one that has
ever come into Pasco for the above reasons. If you have further
questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
So, that's where I'm debating. I think that if there is a
perceived -- unfortunately with land value, if there's a perceived
problem, it can be a real problem. Just reality where these have
already occurred, not only have they not had a problem, they've turned
out to be a benefit to their community tax base wise.
Again, I don't want to get into the moral issues. It's not
something we can debate the topic on, but I'm just wondering -- I'm
needing a little help one way or the other here, but I'm wondering
when we say we worry about the value and the tax base, if that's not
the history they've had here, do we have anything to base our concern
or our fear on?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the question there is we don't know
where they are located. I don't know what the surrounding property is
around where those are located. That's my -- that would be my
concern.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe I can tie it in with my comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate you getting that information
for us. We are left to deal with this specific proposal today here,
though, and I think I've heard competent substantial evidence today to
the fact that this is a use that's normally reserved for the heaviest
of commercial zoning districts and to have this be proposed to go into
rural agricultural one unit per five acres type property is, I think,
the most compelling argument. It's, I think, clearly too intense and
not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting that if it were Elks
or anybody else with that intense use, it's not appropriate either?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, part of this proposal is to
build cabins with overnight stays, and I don't see that as being
appropriate in this zoned district, and I think that's competent
substantial evidence that we could use in our deliberations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, in this package of information,
some of the stuff that they've sent to you -- which I agree, and also
commend you for getting that. I wish I thought of it. That's a great
idea, but one of them says, a perfectly natural community in the heart
of nudist country, and if that is perfectly compatible with the
neighborhood there, I'm glad they have that opportunity, but I don't
think that the heart of nudist country is compatible with the
agricultural residentially zoned area --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the chamber threw that one out
last year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- heart of the, you know --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, you know, when you talk about
property values or whatever, I'm sure that what Mr. Stirns wants to do
will increase the property value over what it is today. So, I think
the argument can be made that his development would increase the tax
base in Collier County.
The question is what does it do to the adjacent properties,
whether it be resale value or whatnot -- I really don't have the
information, but what I do have is I have a feeling. I have attention
being paid to this that is far in excess of what should be warranted
in most cases, and I think that parlays into a very real impact to the
adjacent property owners that we have to consider. You know, there
may be places in Collier County that this is an appropriate use, and I
just don't think that this is one of them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I hope that nobody thinks that I or
the rest of this board are going to make zoning decisions based on
increase of a tax base in Collier County because that is not a factor.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not exactly the trend we follow.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, the only reason I wanted to read
that was I know you had expressed the concern would it damage the tax
base, and that, apparently, hasn't been their experience.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one comment I'd like to make, in all
due respect to Mr. Stirns, I think that he tried to answer as many of
the questions as possible in trying to nail down some of the concerns
in terms of roadway improvement and buffering and doing some things in
the particular neighborhood.
Having said that, though, the other people -- it almost comes
down to who was there first, and I believe you have the other property
owners that were located in the area first, and they have a right of
expectation as to what's going to transpire around them, as
Commissioner Hancock has said as well, and for me, it is a
compatibility issue, and I think most clearly so.
I would hope that if these individuals wish to pursue this, that
they look at other areas that may, you know, be more conducive and
more compatible with this type of use.
So, at this time, I'll close the public hearing.
Do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second to deny this
Petition 97-25.
Any further comments or questions?
If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you very much, Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And with that, move onto --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with that, every reporter in the room
is heading for the door.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Boy, talk about mass exodus.
Staff communications.
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner -- I'm sorry. Mr. Weigel, do
you have anything you would like to talk about?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing, okay.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I wouldn't dare.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If nothing, then this meeting stands
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted with the exception of Item #16A5 from which
Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained: *****
Item #16A1
TRANSFER $9,000 FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESERVES (COST CENTER
113-919019-999100) TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION (COST CENTER
113-138312) EXPENDITURE CODE 51300 (OTHER SALARIES), FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAKING SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COVER THE COST OF AN INTERNSHIP
PROGRAM BETWEEN THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16A2
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.638 "DONOVAN CENTER PUD" LOCATED IN
SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
IMMOKALEE ROAD, ON THE EST BY BREEZEWOOD PUD AND LAND ZONED A, ON THE
SOUTH BY LAND ZONED A, AND ON THE WEST BY STILES PUD AND LAND ZONED A -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "THE PRESERVE AT BERKSHIRE PINES"
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 98-169, RE PETITIONS AV-97-024 AND AV-97-026, AUTHORIZING
THE ACCEPTANCE OF WILDCAT COVE TWO, A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF TWO
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLATS KNOWN AS WILDCAT COVE, AND STERLING OAKS AND
AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF STERLING OAKS DRIVE AND
PORTIONS OF THE PLATS OF STERLING OAKS AND WILDCAT COVE - SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH UNIT TWENTY - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B1
HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO HAWKSRIDGE STORMWATER PUMPING STATION H.S.T.U.
BUDGET (FUND 154)
Item #1682
BID #98-2775, FOR REPAIRS TO THE BIG HORSE PASS AND CHOKOLOSKEE BRIDGES
- AWARDED TO COASTAL MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$220,288.00 AND $15,000.00 TO KISSINGER CAMPO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
SERVICES PROVIDED DURING CONSTRUCTION
Item #1683
RFP #97-2754, PROJECT #80096, FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE NEW DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
SHELTER LOCATED ON DAVIS BOULEVARD - AWARDED TO THE BACON GROUP, INC.
Item #1684
HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO VICTORIA PARK DRAINAGE H.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND
134)
Item #1685
HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK H.S.T.U. BUDGET
(FUND 140)
Item #1686
HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER MANAGEMENT CIP BUDGET (FUND 325)
Item #1687
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1997 WATER
& WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS IN FUNDS 411, 412, 413, & 414
Item #1688
Budget Amendment to fund a Feasibility Report on County Geographic
Information System in the amount of $24,000.00
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING REVENUE AT VARIOUS PARKS
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL $48,412 IN STATE AID TO
LIBRARIES IN FY 98
Item #16C4
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CERTIFICATION TO ENABLE LIBRARY TO APPLY
FOR LSTA GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,845.00
Item #16C5
EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK
(SOLINET) AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT
Item #16C6
ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL DONATIONS RECEIVED -
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY DONATION RECEIVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,100.00
Item #16C7
RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT FOR SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK
Item #16D1
BID #98-2804 AWARDED TO WAYNE WILES CARPET FOR FLOOR COVERING
Item #16D2
BID #98-2801 FOR HARDWARE AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS AWARDED TO DIRECT
SUPPLIES, MCCONNELL'S TRUE VALUE HARDWARE, JACK & ANN'S, SUNSHINE ACE
HARDWARE AND GRAINGER
Item #16D3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND CLERK DIRECTED TO RECORD SAME IN THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16D4
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DEPENDENT &
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS FOR BASIC MEDICAL TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS
Item #16El
WORK AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION'S CURRENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK
IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000, TO PREPARE THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS
FOR BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, AND
MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, U.S. 41 BERHS, STREET
SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS AND LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES, ALL WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-240 AND 98-244
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
BY: Dawn Breehne