BCC Minutes 04/14/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 14, 1998
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David 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
April 14th meeting of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners. If you would rise for the invocation by Rabbi James
Perman of the Temple Shalom and remain standing for the pledge of
allegiance.
RABBI PERMAN: We turn to you, oh God, this day as we gather in
this place of government. We're grateful that you've brought us
together once again in health and in well-being.
In this springtime of the year, the time of passover and Easter
and growth and renewal, we turn the pages of our calendars and the
pages of our lives. We thank you for the sense of purpose we feel in
our county's growth and for the opportunities before us for public
service. We thank you for the partnership of those who govern and
those who are governed, and the obligation of all to participate.
Almighty God, move us to put our whole trust in you and in your
powerful spirit of love. Hay we draw from you that goodness of spirit
which alone gives meaning to our efforts. Inspire us with the power
of faith toward tolerance and decency, intelligence and character.
Hay our future be worthy of our dreams. Hay we come to be all that we
can be.
We pray for the safety of our great country. Give us all the
capacity to make wise decisions, to carry us into the future. Hay
those who sit on this commission always be worthy of the trust that
has been placed in them by those who look to them for leadership.
Hay your blessing rest upon us this day, upon the deliberations
of this body, and may all remember our time as that in which the
future progress of the county was made secure. Bless our homes, our
community and our county with the abundance of your blessings. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Rabbi Perman.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chair. The first is to add item
12(B)(6), which is petition number PUD 87-31(3) to fezone from PUD to
PUD, Gadaleta development, having the effect of amending the Gadaleta
PUD in response to requirements of the Land Development Code. This
was continued from the meeting of April the 7th, at staff's request.
I'd like to skip the next one. We're still researching whether
it's appropriate to move that item or not.
Move on to the next. It's to continue item B-1 to Hay the 12th.
This is a report to the board on the results of the county wide
interconnected traffic signal system study. And that's at the request
of the staff. The consultant has informed us that they were not able
to make today's meeting.
In addition, I'd like to ask for the continuation of item
12(B)(3) to continue indefinitely. This is petition 98-1 to fezone
from PUD to A, rural agricultural for the Neapolitan Park PUD. This is
staff request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I may, that one looked like it was one
that we were finally going to downzone a piece of land as a result of
the whole sunsetting provision. Why are we continuing that one
indefinitely?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe the request was made at the request of
the county attorney's office. Maybe Mr. Weigel can speak to that.
MS. STUDENT: I can address that, Commissioner. Harjorie
Student, assistant county attorney, for the record.
This is an item that doesn't happen very often, but there's a
provision in the state statute that when you fezone property in excess
of 20 acres, we have to have two night hearings. And this is a matter
of state law. And really, I believe it's written with the idea of
county-wide rezoning issues; however, it does meet the test under the
law.
And what I've talked with Mr. Hulhere about doing is folding that
into our LDC hearings, because we will have two night hearings on the
LDC.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that when the county of its own
petition fezones property over 20 acres?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, that's when it's initiated by the county, and
this is being initiated by the county, so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That didn't get changed when the --
two or three years ago the law changed that allowed us to opt whether
or not we wanted night hearings for certain land use changes '- MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that wasn't changed as part of
that?
MS. STUDENT: There's a provision, and I don't have the law right
in front of me, but I believe it's by super majority vote where you
can adopt -- opt to have one of the hearings during the day, and --
however, since we have our LDC hearings coming up rather quickly, it
makes sense, in my opinion, to do it that way.
And what I suggested to staff is if we have more of these, since
we have LDC hearings twice a year, that we hold them and then have
them heard along -- if it should happen again, or to any great extent,
have them in with the LDC hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be sure we
weren't dropping it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner, do you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
I'm just curious, the item that might be moved to 8(B)(3), why
we're looking at moving that at all. Why not just leave it where it
is? I don't care either way, I'm just curious why the issue has even
been raised.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It may be that the item has not been properly
advertised, and we're trying to determine whether we should move it to
the regular portion of the agenda or pass it completely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm prepared to respond to that. And we've learned
that the item was not advertised. My recommendation is that it not be
heard today, but that staff advertise it so it could be brought back
in regular course with the ten-day advertisement requirement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So 12(C)(4) will be continued until
indefinitely?
MR. WEIGEL: It could be continued indefinitely. It will not
appear in the agenda then until it's advertised and given a date
specific through the advertisement process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing on my part, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, nor do I.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the agenda and consent agenda as
amended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 24, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Approval of minutes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move the approval of the minutes of
March 24th, 1998 regular meeting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 20-24, 1998 AS HOLOCAUST
REMEMBRANCE WEEK - ADOPTED
This morning for proclamations, Commissioner Hac'Kie,
Holocaust remembrance week.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, if Mr. William -- I hope I'm saying
it right, Doughty -- he's director of information, public service and
university relations and development for Florida Gulf Coast
University. If you wouldn't mind coming up here while I read the
proclamation. Then we'll give you some time to make some remarks.
Whereas, from 1933 to 1945, six million Jews were murdered in the
Nazi Holocaust as part of a systematic program of genocide, and
millions of other people perished as victims of Nazism; and
Whereas, the people of Collier County, Florida should always
remember the atrocities committed by the Nazis so that such horrors
are never repeated; and
Whereas, the people of Collier County, Florida should continually
rededicate themselves to the principle of equal justice for all
people; and
Whereas, the people of Collier County, Florida should remain
eternally vigilant against all tyranny and recognize that bigotry
provides a breeding ground for tyranny to flourish; and
Whereas, April 23 has been designated pursuant to an Act of
Congress as a Day of Remembrance of Victims of the Nazi Holocaust,
known internationally as Yom Hoshoah; and
Whereas, it is appropriate for the people of Collier County,
Florida, to join in the commemoration; and
Whereas, faculty, staff, students and the community of Southwest
Florida will commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Week at Florida's
newest institute of learning, Florida Gulf Coast University.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of April 20th
through 24th, 1998 be designated as Days of Remembrance of the Victims
of the Holocaust in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and in the
hope that we will strive always to overcome prejudice and inhumanity
through education, vigilance, and resistance.
Done and ordered this 14th day of April, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
I'm pleased to remove (sic) acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
MR. DOUGHTY: Just let me briefly say that on behalf of president
Roy HcTarney (phonetic) again how much we appreciate the ongoing
support of the Collier County Commission and all the citizens of
Collier County.
As a community organization, we feel it is incumbent upon us to
hold events of this nature. A university is much more than courses,
classes, degree programs. We not only seek to educate but to unite
the community, and events such as Holocaust Remembrance Week are very
vital to the ongoing life of the university and the community.
And we thank you for your support and we extend our invitation
for you to join us on Honday, on our campus at 12:30 for the opening
ceremonies for the week of remembrance. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have some service awards this
morning?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do. Unfortunately one wasn't able to
make it, but we do have two.
First I'd like to recognize Ms. Nancy Olson, museum, for ten
years' service.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And one gentleman we all have gotten to
know, and usually through turmoil more than not, but has an excellent
record of service, for 15 years with stormwater management, Mr. John
Boldt.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect everything is above
water today. No flooding today.
Item #5C1
RODNEY HICHAELS, UTILITY TECH II, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This morning it's my pleasure to have a
little discussion about our employee of the month, Rodney Hichaels,
from the utilities department. Is Rodney here?
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please come forward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's harder to embarrass you from the back
of the room, Rodney, so we want you to come all the way --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We want you to come up here and turn around
and face the camera, and then we're going to talk about you a little
bit, all right?
Rodney has a very positive attitude that ensures the task is
completed in a professional and efficient manner. He's a dedicated
worker with innovative skills, and this has enabled his maintenance
team to tackle and complete jobs well beyond the realm of routine
maintenance.
The most exciting and potentially cost-saving project Rodney has
worked on to date has been the Bio-filter. It is a system for
eliminating odor and potentially dangerous hydrogen sulfide gasses
from lift stations and wastewater applications. Unlike commercial
units that are currently being used by the county, the Bio-filter uses
no chemicals, has minimum maintenance and is relatively inexpensive.
Rodney has been the prime mover in getting this project from the
drawing board through building a prototype and making this idea become
a reality.
The Bio-filter passed all testing for a safe, inexpensive and
environmentally friendly odor control system without the use of
chemical agents. The Bio-filter is now in operation at a master lift
station at Lely Resort.
Rodney also worked on the design and installation of
modifications to the grit system to improve removal of sand and gravel
from effluent at the plant, which resulted in longer life to pumps and
equipment.
He also is recognized for designing and setting up the mobile
maintenance shop, and this mobile workspace enables the maintenance
team to perform most routine repairs without having to leave the
worksite. The result is a more efficient and cost effective
maintenance team.
And Rodney, this is what -- how the people nominated you to
become the employee of the month for April. Wewd like to present you
with a letter and a plaque, and most of all, a check. Thank you so
much.
(Applause.)
Item #SAl&2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT
REGARDING DENSITY REDUCTION, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, CjustERING
CRITERIA, RE-EVALUATION OF THE URBAN AREA BUILDOUT POPULATION, AND LONG
RANGE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS - STAFF DIRECTED TO EXPLORE AND INVESTIGATE
NUMEROUS ALTERNATIVES AND TO RETURN TO THE BCC WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 8(A)(1), community
development and environmental services division regarding density
reduction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck topping that one, Vince.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners.
With your indulgence, Iwd like to take the two items under 8(A) as a
package, and youwll see why in a little while, as the cjustering issue
relates somewhat to the density reduction.
As you know, we started the program over a year ago, and in
October the board approved a four-phase project which we feel we are
at the end of now, and we want to discuss with you the potential
comprehensive plan amendments that we believe the Commission wishes to
effectuate.
In Phase I of the study several conclusions were made that we
discussed with you early on, and Iwll just recap some previous
executive summaries. One was a permanent population of 286,000, which
maintains a level that we believe the traffic network and the county
would be able to sustain with no major improvements. And wewve called
these improvements grade separated intersections, or what have
affectionately become known as flyovers. And we used that term during
the presentation. That yielded a dwelling unit count of 178,500. And
as I said, no grade separated at intersections, and no white lane
expressways.
In Phase II of the project we retained our consultant that works
with the MPO, URS Griner. And what we did was make some assumptions
and plug those into 200 traffic analysis zones, which are commonly
referred to as TAZws. And in that package in Phase II, the
assumptions, one of them was that the 1992 original build-out study of
over 275,000 units would be lowered based on rezonings that have
occurred. And that number came down to 263,815.
Additional assumptions were made by staff in order to work with
the consultants to plug this data into the model set. Now, these are
assumptions that wewve made that we want to discuss with you today and
answer your questions. This is not an end-all. You may wish to amend
these, you may wish to eliminate these, you may wish to add to these.
One is a proposed density cap from four to two units per acre in
the urban agricultural areas, which would result in a reduction of
over 23,000 dwelling units. A second one is a change in the urban
residential fringe categories from one and a half to one dwelling unit
per five acres, and that results in a change of just under 6,000
dwelling units.
Another change would be to amend planned unit developments with
over 500 units, the larger types, with that reduction initiated by the
developer.
Wewve had a couple of these -- or I should say three of these so
far. Pelican Bay, Lely Resort, Fiddlerws Creek. This would result in
a reduction of dwelling units to a little over -- or 4,544.
Another potential change would also involve planned unit
developments of over 300 units where we would reduce them by 15
percent. In other words, the larger ones that we do not believe would
be developing to their maximum potential. Some of this would be done
through sunsetting and a small amount of units that would be affected,
a little over 500.
Rezone the residential multi-family six parcels to four units per
acre and change that. It results in a small reduction of just under
100 dwelling units.
The total reduction would be 34,665 dwelling units, if those
proposals were initiated by the board.
When you look at the road network, taking these density --
potential density reductions into account, the results that are
yielded show a need, according to the modeling effort, of 15 grade
separated intersections which may be candidates. This does not mean
that they would have to be built.
In order to determine that, of course, itws a policy decision --
detailed analysis could be done. And I will tell you, and hopefully
Ed Kant will embellish upon this, our transportation director, each
one of these individual intersections, if you wish to study them in
detail, would cost between 25 and $30,000. But these would be options
for you to consider. You donwt necessarily have to approve that.
Two eight-lane segments of roadway would have to be improved, but
not expressways. One is a short segment on Davis Boulevard, and one
is the segment of U.S. 41 over the Gordon River bridge.
Finally, what wewre looking at is a total dwelling unit count of
229,000, just a little over that 150, with a total population in the
county of 454,000. That population is an estimate of the county-wide
population, not just the urban growth or the urban area.
So if you were to effectuate changes in the urban growth area,
based on what wewve proposed today you would be looking at at
build-out, and we can speculate through scientific methods as to when
that build-out would be.
I would estimate that that build-out would not -- and this is my
professional opinion alone -- I would not (sic.) estimate that that
build-out would not occur somewhere between the years 2040 and 2060.
Thatws if no changes are made to the urban growth area, and if the
proposals that are recommended to you today would be effectuated.
That represents a total county population rural area, growing at
the rate that we think itws going to grow, and the urban area building
out, 77 and a half percent of that number would be in the urban growth
area, based on our population -- the urban area, excuse me. That
relates to a population of approximately 352,000 in the urban area.
This gives you a very quick overview of what our executive
summary has indicated, and we believe this is a project that -- or
proposals that hopefully meet your needs.
The recommendations that we propose to you today are to initiate
an amendment to the comprehensive plan or several amendments to your
liking to effectuate this change. And if needed, if you believe that
further discussions are warranted with planning staff, MPO staff and
the transportation staff, to hire consultants to look at detailed
intersection analysis, if you believe that's warranted.
The second part -- portion of the presentation that I'm going to
ask Barbara Cacchione to come up in a moment to present to you deals
with the cjustering issue, which you have directed us to work on with
the Conservancy several months ago. A portion of that presentation
deals with the density issue. And we've had the opportunity to brief
all of you individually.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I apologize that our schedules weren't able
to come together to meet with you individually, and hopefully we'll be
able to answer all of your questions today.
But Madam Chairman, with your indulgence before we go into that
presentation, I'd like you to -- if you wish, to invite David
Guggenheim, the president and COE of the Conservancy to say a few
words about the second portion of our presentation, since the staff
directed us to work with the Conservancy, and he would like to say a
few words about that process.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Mr. Guggenheim -- Dr. Guggenheim?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you. Good morning. When the Twin Eagles
issue came before this community last summer, it was a difficult issue
for all of us for many reasons. Clearly, though, this issue, like
none other, has embodied this community's grave concern for the future
of its rural agricultural zoned lands. We now understand that one in
five zoning in the rural parts of our county is not enough to
discourage urban style golf course communities. As the maps that the
Conservancy developed in conjunction with FOCUS that you recently saw
at that presentation so vividly iljustrate, the consequences of this
type of development are far reaching and could change the entire
character and quality of life we experience here in Collier County,
and in so doing, irreparably harm its fragile natural systems and
water supply.
Also at risk are some of the most important life support systems
to the panther refuge, Big Cypress and 10,000 Islands, namely the Camp
Key strand (phonetic) and the Okaloacoochee Slough.
When I came before you last summer, I quoted from the Governor's
Commission for Sustainable South Florida, and I would like to repeat
those remarks briefly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, we asked for your
participation despite the fact you quoted from that.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: And that I appreciate.
We'll get into that another time.
Just two points on urban sprawl. One, rapid population growth
and sprawling development patterns are leading South Florida down a
path toward wall-to-wall suburbinization. The proliferation of urban
sprawl is swallowing up undeveloped areas in the region at an alarming
rate.
Then the second point, without significant reform, South Florida
will continue to grow at the expense of its environment and economy.
At that same meeting, you directed county staff to work with the
Conservancy to further develop the criteria we had developed with the
Twin Eagles folks for developments outside the urban boundary.
With that request came the beginning of what I believe is an
unprecedented opportunity to create a future for this county that
steers us clear of the perils of urban sprawl, yet fosters the kind of
economic development and quality of life that we all seek here.
In our meetings with county staff, we have worked creatively and
earnestly to develop a range of ideas and solutions to the daunting
challenges that we face on this issue. And I want to acknowledge the
hard work and creativity of the county staff, in particular, the
efforts of Barbara Cacchione, Vince Cautero, on some very, very
complex issues. What they will present this morning is the result of
many meetings and many hours of hard work.
I'm also pleased to report to you that the major environmental
groups of Collier County recently assembled at the Conservancy to try
to work toward consensus on the issue. Are we there yet? No. But
our meeting was fruitful. We have scheduled two follow-up meetings
and we're committed to work together to collectively bring potential
solutions to the table.
What you will see is a starting point, not a finished product; a
straw man, if you will, to stimulate further thought and ideas on this
issue. In that spirit, the Conservancy does not endorse this as a
finished product or represent this as our position or proposal.
Similarly, the other environmental groups have seen this but once and
have obviously expressed a range of -- a wide range of views and
opinions on it.
There will be things you like, there will be things you don't
like. That's fine. That's what an open, objective process is about.
The Conservancy -- and I believe county staff felt that it was
only prudent to put forth a broad range of possible solutions to talk
from. From here we can keep what we like and eliminate what we don't,
but only after we have considered and discussed each of them.
We believe it will be important to ensure that there's ample
input from the economic community, the development community, the
agricultural community on these issues. Our early meetings with the
Twin Eagles developers proved that great things can come from
cooperation of this type.
As we move forward on this issue, we stand as your partners, true
to our word of fostering a collaborative, constructive and creative
approach. This shouldn't be difficult based on the results of the
recent board workshop. You made a very strong statement recognizing
the importance of dealing with our agricultural lands by ranking that
issue in the top five.
It is clear that we all agree that we must take swift and
decisive action on this issue. With the pace of development that is
upon us now, the future simply won't wait.
I am optimistic that by working together, we will hammer out a
plan that is acceptable to us all and make sense for the future of
Collier County. And I thank you for this opportunity to participate
in this very important process.
I'd like to turn it back over to Vince Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bob Mulhere, our
planning director, would like to just say a few words to introduce the
next portion of the presentation. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, planning director. Very
briefly, not to restate what Mr. Guggenheim already stated, the staff,
in preparing this report on density reduction, TDR's and cjustering,
was following the board's direction to look at cjustering criteria.
And obviously we went a little bit beyond that direction with respect
to density reduction in the rural area and TDR's.
And in doing so, we worked with several different departments and
county staff, including public works, notably transportation and
utilities. And we worked also very closely with Bill Lorenz in
natural resources. And of course we worked with the Conservancy and
we met with them several times. I think it was very productive.
We have no preconceived negotiations on this report. We look for
guidance from the board, and we'd be happy to take any direction that
you can provide us. We do think that this is a very preliminary
report and requires a great deal more investigation prior to any
action. And with that, I'll turn it over to Barbara Cacchione. Thank
you.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning. For the record, my name's Barbara
Cacchione of your comprehensive planning staff.
I'd like to also inform you that on your dais this morning I've
left some information in regard to TDR's, generally describing how
they function, transfer of development rights and also some
information on other areas throughout the country that have the
programs and what they relate to.
I'd like to begin with the report this morning which goes over
density reduction, transfer of development rights and cjustering, and
really combines all three of those into a package.
The density reductions, I'll go over at this point in time,
involve both agricultural and urban areas. The agricultural rural
area -- and you may also need to refer to the colored map in the back
of your packet, because for that area, we're referring to the area
identified in black, and also on the map behind me, which is called
the sending area. We're looking for a reduction of density in that
particular area from one dwelling unit per five acres to one dwelling
unit per 20 acres. That would equate to approximately 28,395 units in
terms of a reduction from what is currently permitted.
Within the urban designation, the first change we looked at was
within the urban residential fringe area. This area again is located
south of 1-75 and east of 951, and comprises about 4,500 acres. That
dwelling unit reduction would result in almost 6,000 units for that
particular area.
The next density reduction within the urban area would involve
those properties zoned agricultural. And again, I have a map to --
just behind me, and there's also a map in your packet which shows the
agricultural areas in the urban area, and that would reduce the
density from four dwelling units to two dwelling units, and we would
amend the density rating system to reflect that. That overall
reduction would result in 23,608 dwelling units.
The total reductions then are identified in the next table. And
this is all in dwelling units. The first column would give you the
current dwelling units, which would equate to 93,630 dwelling units
that could be permitted in these areas. And the reduction is the last
column. The net reduction from what the proposal is would be
approximately 57,882 dwelling units.
The next step in this particular proposal after the density
reductions was to look at a system of transferring development rights
from areas that we felt are less appropriate and more appropriate for
agricultural uses to areas that could be potentially receiving areas.
The receiving areas could be the areas we've identified or other
receiving areas. We also identified the urban area where density
reductions have occurred as a potential receiving area.
Again, the receiving areas are identified on purple -- in a kelly
green color on your map, and those areas are also identified on the
map behind me in purple.
Those receiving areas have been looked at because those areas are
adjacent to the urban area. They are areas that at some point in time
will receive public facilities, such as water and sewer and schools,
and so that was one reason for choosing those particular areas in
terms of receiving areas to transfer the density.
The next table that you see before you gives you an idea of the
reductions in density that would occur if all the units were
transferred. That is the first column. If all the units were
transferred from the sending areas to the receiving areas, you would
see a net reduction of about 30,000 units. And that is that first
column. The 75 percent and 50 percent basically show you what would
happen if the transfer was less than the total amount of units. And
for that, there's one important point here. We use the rate of one
unit per five acres to determine the transfer rate. That may not be
the transfer rate. That is still a discussion item.
Everything in this proposal is a discussion item today. It is
not worked out exactly how we would equate a unit in the rural area.
If it were to be transferred into the urban area, it may equate very
differently. But just for the purposes of trying to show you how the
net reduction is -- goes forward, we used the one unit per five acres,
which is the existing density in that area.
The next part of this proposal relates to cjustering criteria,
and this is the criteria that the board had asked us to look at and
very much follows the pattern of the Twin Eagles criteria.
Again, in the sending area where we have lowered densities to one
unit per 20 acres in this proposal, we had looked at basically using
-- requiring cjustering for anything over 100 acres. And that would
be approximately five dwelling units, and that approximately 70
percent be maintained in open space of the project, 50 percent of that
in natural areas, and since these areas aren't really planned to be
very dense or to be served by public facilities, we are looking at
well and septic in terms of the public utilities.
Cjustering in the green areas, which are the receiving areas,
which are just outside the urban boundary, we would require cjustering
in this area for a very small threshold. Anything over ten acres
would be required to cjuster. The maximum density would remain one
unit per five acres unless TDR's are transferred into that area.
Again, this is an area where we feel that central water and sewer will
someday be, because it's very close. It runs right up 951 and
Immokalee Road. And some of those areas are currently served by
county water and sewer. In the meantime, they could have package
plants rather than going with well and septic.
Again, we look for the same preservation criteria in terms of 70
percent as open space, 50 percent in natural areas. We did look into
an extra requirement here that we would try to get some connectivity
in this open space area, and the final requirement is that there be a
vegetated buffer from the roadway of at least 200 feet, again to
maintain that rural character of that area.
The potential result of all of these components included in this
proposal would be to relocate development from prime agricultural
areas to areas more suitable for development, preserve large
contiguous areas that are environmentally sensitive, identify
well-defined receiving areas that can accommodate central utilities,
and overall reduction in density in both the urban and rural areas.
It also provides a transfer of density as a method of mitigating the
reduction of density. And it would reduce density on properties zoned
agricultural rather than properties zoned for higher development or
planned unit development.
With that, I'd like to open it up to questions that you may have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First and foremost, I want to
compliment staff. We've been plugging away on this for two or two and
a half years, and it's a very complex issue, and I think you're doing
a very good job putting together a pretty comprehensive package for us
to look at and work from. You deserve a great deal of praise for
that.
Very pleased to see what you've put together. Along the way, as
we explore this, someone will surely threaten us with a lawsuit and
tell us we can't do these things, and I just hope the board will stay
steadfast in the direction we've set, and we've asked our staff to do.
And it was just a week or two ago that we declared this as one of
our top priorities, and I see this really as a great opportunity to
make sure and answer what the public is clearly asking for.
And the number one thing I hear -- and I'm sure all of you do
when you meet with civic groups or homeowners groups -- is they are
concerned about the growth and the rapid rate of growth and is there
some way that we can have control. And I don't think a rational
person says -- I'm sure there's a few folks out there who ask for it
or wish it would happen, but I don't think anybody is really asking
for it to stop or to be zero percent, but they're asking how can we
better control growth. And I see this as a giant step in that
direction.
During his opening prayer, the Rabbi said something about hoping
that these leaders would -- the decisions made today would be those
looked back upon in the future as in the best interest of the
community. And this issue more than any other perhaps fits that
description.
My one concern -- I liked very much almost everything you've put
together here. My one concern is with the transfer of development
rights. And I'm not a big fan of TDR's. Over simplified. I just
don't see a whole lot of incentive as necessary for building in the
coastal urban area.
The one area that may be possible -- and maybe you can help me
with this -- is if we were to designate the urban area in the
Immokalee area as the receiving zone for that, that would certainly be
an economic incentive to do some building there, to do more in the way
of development there. It would give the property owners use of
whatever density rights they might feel they have on their existing ag
land, but not add additional burden to the urban area, coastal urban
area.
And I'm wondering, can we, from a legal standpoint -- and this
may be from a staff standpoint, is it practical, and then from a legal
standpoint, can we designate a specific receiving area like that
rather than just saying the urban area as a whole?
MS. CACCHIONE: The receiving areas, as you'll find in the
literature that I provided to you, is probably the most difficult part
of this whole process. And yes, you can designate the receiving areas
that you feel are the areas you want to encourage growth to occur, and
where you expect to have higher densities. And if the Immokalee urban
area would be one such area in order to promote economic development,
as we've been trying to do in that area, that would be an appropriate
receiving area, from --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me --
MS. CACCHIONE: -- from staff --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as we struggle with year after year
how do we spur that in Immokalee, how do we generate more interest,
this might be an ideal mechanism to do that. Obviously, I don't think
we need a whole lot of spark to spur the interest of what's already
going on in the coastal area, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is, how did you get ahold of
my notes?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't know if there's further --
I guess that's if -- if -- and maybe Harjorie can help, what the
necessity of TDR's is, because just in general, I don't like the
concept. But if you feel from a legal standpoint it is required, I as
one vote am much more comfortable doing that, and having Immokalee the
receiving area, rather than somewhere close in.
MS. STUDENT: For the record again, Harjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
I feel that there needs to be some mechanism to allow a minimum
beneficial use of the property. And TDR's aren't used that much in
Florida, so there's somewhat of a dearth of law in this state, really,
on TDR's. But it is an option that you have to assure a minimum
beneficial use of property. And without benefit of research, just one
caveat would be that I think you need to make sure that, you know,
there's some market for it. Because it would be one thing to -- you
know, in the receiving area to say well, you can transfer these to
this area, but without a market, it sort of circumvents the process,
so I think there would, from a legal standpoint, need to be a market.
The other thing that I want to mention that I had discussed with
some of the commissioners individually is the need to probably --
we're going to have an issue of vested rights over and above TDR
issues and so forth, and we probably will need to establish a local
process, somewhat different, more stringent, perhaps, than our
previous zoning revaluation ordinance to deal with the issue of
vesting. Because any time you change land uses, the issue of vesting
comes up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two followup questions: One, just for
clarification, we're talking about a minimum size requirement here,
too, so if someone already owns five acres, they're not going to
suddenly lose the right to do anything on that five acres?
MS. STUDENT: No. What I would recommend is that we include a
grandfather provision, and the comprehensive plan or -- and the TDR to
implement that that would grandfather those. Those would be then
legal nonconforming uses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other is -- and maybe you can't
answer this now. But when you talk about the -- must be some market
necessity '-
MS. STUDENT: That's without benefit of resource. That's just a
legal gut reaction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we just need to -- it will be
interesting to see how that's defined, I guess. Because some of the
areas we're talking about transferring from, sending areas, one would
question how much marketability they have '- MS. STUDENT: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at this current time. And then you
compare that, and so I think that's going -- I understand the concern
and the need to research that, but it's going to be interesting to
look at one versus the other and make -- MS. STUDENT: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- sure we're comparing oranges to
oranges.
MS. STUDENT: And, of course, if that is your direction, we --
from a legal perspective, we'll look more specifically into the TDR
concept.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A couple of questions for Barbara. One is
-- well, first of all, let me just echo what Commissioner Constantine
said. I like -- the work is fantastic. And I particularly want to do
some research, Harjorie, on the question of the market value of the
development rights that we are proposing to transfer out. That was a
key question. And I don't know if you're going to find any cases on
it, but it's going to be something we're going to have to argue, that
we can't lose sight of the fact that nobody is building at over 2.8
right now anyway. So if what they're losing is the 2.2 that they
weren't -- that there's no market for, should they be able to transfer
those? And I don't think so. And I hope that the law would support
us on that. And if it doesn't, we may have to argue it.
But the -- a big concern for me, I hadn't thought of Immokalee as
the place to transfer as a receiving area. I think that's a great
idea. I also wonder, though -- I was concerned when I looked a the
map. And I know it's a small map and I can't tell, but you know that
I'm on the CREW trust board, I'm very committed to the acquisition of
that property for all the environmental purposes that it serves.
Some of this, this top portion, anyway, of receiving land, scares
me as being close to some of the CREW land. Is it?
MS. CACCHIONE: It is in fact. And in fact, I think we have one
section of CREW land to be purchased. And again, this is just a
proposal. Those receiving areas are just one concept of what a
potential receiving area could be. And those boundaries --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it certainly can't be that we would
encourage development on environmentally sensitive land that's
otherwise protected in other ways. That has to be the threshold
criterion, that we don't send more development to environmentally
sensitive land.
MS. CACCHIONE: And that is part of the problem with that
northern receiving area along Immokalee Road, because the northerly
corridors are part of the CREW trust and are environmentally
sensitive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it just doesn't -- that -- that is
my strongest objection to everything I see today. And I have to think
that that is almost a glitch, you know, that it can't be that we --
that our staff is suggesting we're going to encourage development on
environmentally sensitive lands.
MS. CACCHIONE: No, that is not part --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But not all of that zone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. That's my question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I've looked at aerials, and there
are a lot of uplands in that area, too, so I wouldn't want to exclude
the zone entirely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you would support looking at it for
what's environmentally sensitive?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think that's the next step of
whatever we do here is to go to the next level of detail, and that's
certainly a consideration.
MS. CACCHIONE: And one important part of that aspect are the
cjustering criteria that go along with that, where you preserve 70
percent of the project in open space and 50 percent in natural areas,
so if there is a component that we do want to exclude, there's the
ability to do that through a PUD process as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The other -- the other thing that I don't
know how you would factor into this, but it's partially for both of
you. That is, when we're looking again at the value of the
development rights that would be transferred out that could be sold,
is there a way that you can factor into that what other permitting
agencies would exclude? In other words, you know, when you go in with
a development proposal, you have to take it to the Army Corps, you
have to take it to the South Florida Water Management District, and
right there is where you lose your density priorities.
Could we allow people only to sell what is a permittable
development right, considering south Florida and the Corps? MS. CACCHIONE: I wish we could not sell any, frankly.
MS. STUDENT: Quite frankly, I don't know that there's any cases
on that, and I'd be just answering from a gut reaction. I guess the
question I'd have is, you know, how would you determine that without
going through the process with the agency to know what's going to be
left case by case?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the answer to that -- part of the
answer to that may be as a result of the EIS. If we get a general
permit for the area, then we'll know '-
MS. STUDENT: That could help us --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- more than we know right now.
MS. STUDENT: -- I would think. But that's -- that's just a
question out there. Without going through that case by case, how
could you determine it?
MS. CACCHIONE: I will tell you, in terms of the literature that
I've given you today, you'll find that although TDR's have been used
in a number of places, they haven't been successful in a lot of
places. And how we design this will take a great deal of work to make
sure that it is in fact a successful program and is workable for
Collier County. So I think we would have a lot of work ahead of us in
designing the program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My last question is how would this TDR
program work with the current -- we currently have TDR's in Collier
County, although I haven't seen anything coming through about them.
And used to, you could only transfer to non ST -- or transfer out of
ST land or something like that, but now we've changed it. What's the
current status of TDR's in Collier County?
MS. CACCHIONE: I might have Bob Hulhere address that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Trick question. Pop quiz.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Current staff is the only one in the last
four years got turned down, how's that for --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. HULHERE: Well, we don't see very many of them, which would
lead me to surmise that there -- at this point there's not a need for
them, there's not a market for them. There's enough development
rights out there that we don't see a whole lot of them.
We've seen several very small ones. I think there was one unit
several years ago transferred from the rural area into the urban area
-- particularly I think it was Marco Island. And that's when the
board directed that we revise the code to only allow an equivalent
transfer of development rights. That is an urban unit to an urban
unit or a rural unit to a rural unit, because of the value disparity
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because right now what we have is a pretty
much wide open market. You can transfer anything from urban to urban,
anything from rural to rural, and it seems to me that while we're
looking at TDR's, we ought to narrow the overall program and not just
look at TDR's for this particular purpose. We ought to look at the
overall program to see if it's too broad, because it might be.
MR. HULHERE: I think that's an excellent suggestion, that we
look at how we regulate TDR's comprehensively.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione mentioned that TDR's have
not been terribly successful. And we have to remember why TDR's were
implemented in the first place.
When you have a true urban core that has all of the urban
services in a centralized area that can handle additional density,
TDR's start to make a little bit of sense. The problem we have in
Collier County is -- the reason we're having this discussion today is
because decisions made over the last 10 to 20 years have put us in a
position that our urban area, if it goes on the path it's on now, will
exceed our ability to provide transportation needs and urban services.
We look at the transportation number alone. The population, the
number of dwelling units, will exceed what is a reasonable level to
provide an acceptable transportation system. So the idea of TDR's back
into the urban area, when we're dealing with an issue of actually
having too many dwelling units in the urban area plan already, is not
somewhere I want to go.
Our staff has done a terrific job in providing what I call the
Chinese menu. They went out and looked at a myriad of options and
have presented each of them that you can pick and choose from. TDR's
just simply are a nightmare. I read an article about two months ago
or last month in Planning Magazine that talked about the two types of
TDR's, and neither one was a glowing success. And I think in the end
if you're throwing them as a bone, as a mitigation bone to avoid a
Butt Harris Act, that's fine, but recognize them for what they are.
They're not something terribly functional and they're not something
that's going to help us solve any problems, to be quite frank.
I had the same idea with Immokalee. I went a little further; I
went to a half mile or a mile outside of Immokalee for a one to one --
you know, one unit per acre type of development, because the land
inside of Immokalee may not be the most desirable. If we start getting
jobs in there, we may want to look at a perimeter band around the
urban area.
Same concept, though. I like that because it helps us do a
couple of things. If we're going to do TDR's, let's send them
somewhere where they're wanted, needed and make sense. And in
Immokalee, when you look at the number of landowners that control land
within the urban area, I think we need to provide some options outside
of that, too.
Obviously this -- you know, this is probably the first -- Fred
Thomas is probably out there pulling what hair he has left out right
now because no one called him about this. But, you know, we're going
to want to discuss with the people of Immokalee, and I'm sure Barb
will want to be very involved in that; if we're going to TDR's, where
do they make the most sense for that community? But I like the idea.
I think it's a good concept.
Outside -- outside of that area, I would rather us, rather than
make a density reduction of X and then transfer rights back into that
area of Y and end up with a net, let's just go ahead and pursue the
net. You know, rather than going from four units to two units an acre
and then allow TDR's to come in and bump that up to maybe three, why
don't we just take it to three, eliminate TDR's, and we're done with
it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for Butt Harris.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon -- well, but I think -- the one key
to Butt Harris is you have to show that what you're doing is not
necessarily arbitrary, there's a rational nexus for the decision
you're making, and that helps you defend the Butt Harris claim, as I
understand it.
Let me offer two things: I have a list of nine things that I
laid out in trying to accomplish a reduction in density without -- and
we talked about Butt Harris, but let's just talk about private
property rights --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- without trampling someone's property
rights, period.
I'll go through those things after we have speakers and whatnot,
but some of the things, as an example, if we look at projects over a
certain acre, say over 200 acres, where they have the ability to -- to
move within their project, if you look at net density and gross
density, things of 50 acres or 100 acres, they're about the same.
Your net density and your gross density is about the same. It's just
a design issue. When the parcel gets smaller, you lose flexibility.
But if we focus on density reduction on the larger projects and
the larger parcels, I think we one, accomplish more and two, do it on
the parcels that have the greatest flexibility to incorporate that.
So it makes the most sense.
And we also avoid a lot of the Butt Harris issue there, because
if you have a 20-acre piece and you go from four units an acre to two
units an acre they're very easy to measure.
But when you look at the track record of larger parcels actually
going to lower densities anyway, it's going to make it very difficult
for someone to file a Butt Harris claim in addition to the fact that
-- you know, that what's going on around them infrastructure-wise, you
throw that on top and it becomes very difficult. So it also keeps us
from having to plan for that maximum density, which is one of the
problems we're dealing with on a transportation network. So I think
it's very complicated and involved, but I think we can go for that
middle point and end up with the same net reduction after TDR's in one
shot and not trigger Butt Harris by doing things like that.
Another example would be when we're talking about agricultural
density reductions from one unit per five to one unit per 20 acres, it
occurred to me that if you bought a piece of property, a 20-acre
property on Oil Well Road, you know, right out there next to Orange
Tree, you have access to it, you have, in my opinion, a reasonable
expectation of development of that parcel based on how you purchased
it. If, however, you bought that same 20-acre parcel five miles from
the nearest roadway, what is your reasonable expectation to be able to
build a little community of one unit per five acres? I think a court
sees the two very differently.
So I think if we're looking at -- at the area in ag of going from
1.5 -- one unit per five acres to one unit per 20 acres, we need to
recognize where there are existing public facilities, such as
roadways, water and sewer, because I think if you were to walk in a
court of law and say I had a reasonable expectation based on the
placement of public facilities, that's going to be a very convincing
argument.
Again, we can achieve a reduction without triggering that by,
say, establishing a one-mile distance from any public facilities, that
ag parcels outside of that are one to 20, ag parcels inside of that
stay at one to five.
The net change is still significant, but I think again, it's that
point that recognizes what the property owner probably is going to
recognize what may end up in a court of law, keeps us from spending a
lot of money on attorneys, but still has the same net -- or the same
effect of reducing density in the ag areas.
It's really the far out agricultural areas we're trying to target
here anyway. We're talking about everything for the most part east of
the Estates. You know, that area that -- I don't think anyone ever
really anticipated when we went to our comp. plan that that was going
to be future residential anyway. But when we combined ag zoning
districts, we came up with rural, agricultural and thus it had a
connotation of eventual residential use. And I'm not sure that's what
was envisioned in the first place. But I think we can do that.
There are a few other things that I'm sure will be brought up.
When I look at the urban fringe area, if you go back to some of the
discussion in '86 that I've had an opportunity to review, there was
some pretty good -- some pretty good rationale for that urban fringe
area. One is that it avoids leapfrogging in that south end. I'm not
so sure that's not still valid. I want to take a harder look at that.
But if we tally up going from, say, four units an acre to three
on projects over -- whatever it may be, 200 acres in the urban area,
we look at going one to 20 instead of one to five in the ag areas that
are more than a mile from existing areas, and we do a couple other --
or existing, excuse me, public services, or public facilities. And we
do some other things, like when's the last time this board approved 16
units an acre? None.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not since we've been here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why is it still there? Realistically, I
think we could reduce maximum density for any type of project from 16
units an acre to 12 units an acre. Again, it reduces the planning
responsibility of assuming maximum densities on certain parcels and
helps us reduce that build-out population. So I think that's another
area we can look at.
We have talked -- or I've talked a bit lately about traditional
design, about how we can require communities to design themselves in
such a way that they reduce external trips, that they operate more as
a town, if you will. There's a capture rate to doing that kind of
good design. We may want to look at rewarding those communities that
design in that way, whether it be by, you know -- you know, however we
want to do it. But I think we have to offer some incentive to say if
your net result of your development is a reduced trip generation,
reduced cars on the road outside of your project over what could be
done, we need to have some system to encourage that. So as we look at
these density reductions, we may want to take into consideration that
design is an excellent mitigating element to these reductions.
And if the end result is simply to make sure our infrastructure
is acceptable and the character of this community is preserved, we can
do that through better design, but we have to be able to encourage it.
So there are a few other things that -- I'm sure we have some
speakers today and whatnot, but I wanted to at least let you know
where I was heading and what I was thinking. Because we could get
bogged down in TDR's, but in the end -- with the exception of maybe
designating a single receiving area, in the end I don't think TDR's
are our solution. I think we need to look elsewhere to make sure that
the actions we take are fair and reasonable to avoid a successful Butt
Harris challenge.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I also want to compliment the staff on all the work that's been
done. Now, this is certainly what the community has -- has almost
universally voiced as their desire and goals. From Focus down to the
smallest of homeowners associations, this is what we always hear.
And I want to make a couple comments about the TDR. And
everybody's commented on it so far, I might as well also.
I'm not a big supporter of the TDR concept as proposed here as
well, for a couple of reasons: The receiving areas that are shown on
our little map here I think are too close, really, to the urban area
to think about transferring development rights into, because as one of
our other commissioners said, that we're just simply taking out of one
pocket and putting into another pocket on density within the urban or
near urban area if we do it this way.
The agricultural interests in this black marked box that we have
here have been very vocal in the landfill discussion of saying that
they want us to leave their agricultural land alone and let it
permanently stay as agricultural.
It's going to be very difficult for them now to say, well, we've
changed our mind and we want to develop on it so you can't take our
development rights away. They need to pick one argument and stick
with that, and they've made very vocal the argument that they want it
left as agricultural.
So the proposal to fabricate -- or implement a receiving area
around the City of Immokalee makes very good sense for a number of
reasons that have already been voiced. The economic advantages of
doing that are great, and I think that's a very good proposal. I
think that's probably one that I might support TDR's under.
I really -- otherwise, what I see is that this agriculture land,
if we allow TDR's back into the urban area, then that's exactly what
we'll get. And what we will really be missing -- the point that we
will really be missing is that that agriculture land would probably
not be developed otherwise to any degree within the lifetime of anyone
in this room. If you look at all of Florida, once you get a couple of
miles away from the coast, it doesn't happen, with the exception of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to point out a lifetime disparity
issue.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, not even that.
And so to move these -- or to give the ability to move these
units today into the urban area I think is exactly what will happen.
And then you'll compress the time that this development would
otherwise have occurred. And that's what I would like to avoid.
However, if you can benefit and -- benefit economically and socially
the community of Immokalee by having the receiving area, then that's a
different subject, and perhaps that -- that's something that would
make some sense.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I guess I'm the last one to speak here.
But --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We just saved the best for last.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right.
I'll be real honest with you, I don't know and understand enough
about the TDR's to know whether it's a good idea or bad idea. I do
have to agree with the idea of moving them into the urban area doesn't
make a whole lot of sense to me, but there's a lot of things that
don't make a lot of sense to me.
One concern that I have, and I believe that I voiced this before,
this all sounds real good to reduce density, and yeah, people talk
about that. It's amazing, the people who talk about it the most are
the ones that have arrived here the most recently.
But I think one of the things that bothers me is that if we are
to go forward with this, what I want to see run alongside this is
number one, I want to know the economic side of what we're going to do
and what impact this is going to have on this community. You start
limiting these things, you start looking at the cost of housing and a
number of other things. Are we going to get to be another Aspen,
Colorado, where everyone that lives here, all of our service people,
are going to be driving into Collier County to service our residents
in the coastal area?
These are questions I want answered. And I have some strong
concern about that. All you have to do is go to other areas that have
pursued this and take a look at it. And I want to know that -- you
know, I think it needs to run simultaneous with this. As I said,
reducing density -- and I'm sure that this will be picked up tomorrow
is that Barbara Berry is opposed to it. I'm not. I just want the big
picture. I want the whole works. I don't want just one small
portion. And plain well that the Collier County Commission's going to
reduce density. That sounds real good. And I'll tell you, you'll
probably have people in the streets rejoicing in some areas. You're
going to have people in other areas being very concerned about this
whole affair.
So that's -- that certainly is one thing that I want to have
addressed here.
Sometimes it's best to just stop at that point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, I'd like to point something out,
because we've talked about the economic concerns in the past. When the
growth management plan was adopted, we didn't exactly see the world
fall apart from the development side.
The second thing is that we look at the number of -- there are
two issues to deal with today. One is what we're talking about now
are those properties that have not been zoned for development. When we
look at the urban area, that's not the bigger issue. The bigger issue
are those properties that have been zoned in the past, or yet to be
built. In the urban area alone, we have 86,000 units zoned and not
built. In other words, if we were to -- and I think in the Estates
it's 26,000, something to that effect, potential units. So we have
over -- about 108,000 units out there zoned, not yet built. We're
talking about the parcels that haven't come before us, that haven't
taken the steps or the initiatives to doing anything, and looking at
modifying them not even 50 percent but a portion of it.
We turn out about -- the market right now demand is for about
4,000 building permits a year for multi-family and single family. On
the books now, in other words, we have 25 years of development at this
rate that we are only able to effect through sunsetting of PUD's and
when the property owner voluntarily comes in with their project and we
beat them up, as we'll do a little bit later -- how are you doing,
Tim?
So when I look at the economic impact of this, I agree, there is
an economic impact. I agree that as we go on and values -- market
values of the property in the urban area continue to escalate, albeit
at a slower rate than they did in the Eighties, that we're going to
have increased housing issues. We're never going to be able to solve
the disparity of those who have and those who don't and those who are
caught in the uncomfortable middle. All those for the middle say aye.
But I think when we look at what's on the books right now, that
is a tremendous mitigating element when we look at economic impacts.
If we didn't allow you to zone anything else in Collier County, which
legally we can't do, we still have 25 years of growth at this rate
available. So it's just something I wanted to mention as one of my
considerations in looking at that element that I have to question the
true economic impact of someone who is five miles beyond the Estates
in agricultural property that's being farmed, having the density
reduced, when we have over 100,000 units sitting on the books right
now yet to be built.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, yeah, I understand. I understand what
you're saying. I don't know where you got your numbers. And that's
-- I'm really not questioning that. You know, you've been in the
business and I'm sure you got, you know, some knowledge about that. I
really don't question that. But -- and I would be remiss in saying
that I'm not concerned -- that I am concerned about the Butt Harris
Act and exactly what this is going to trigger. I think at the same
time maybe we'd better be thinking about how we're going to raise
enough money to pay off some of these cases that may well arise out of
this whole thing. Because I think they will. That's exactly why it
was put in place. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we'll lose them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I'm sure -- huh?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we'll lose them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- in a court of law, how can you be
sure?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as DCA is not involved.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As we speak, I'm sure you have a group of
attorneys watching this very closely this morning to see exactly
what's going to happen.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some of them in this room.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And some of them in this room. And that's
fine, that's what they get paid to do. And I'm sure that that's
exactly the direction -- and they're going to be in line to start
doing this. You know, I'm not condemning staff. You've done exactly
what this Commission has asked you to do. And you've done, I think, a
great job at doing that. But my concern is that I think as long as
this -- you know, it all plays well, it sounds wonderful, but I think
we need to keep in mind that we better be very cautious in the
direction that we're going here. Be very, very methodical about our
approach in how we go down this road. Hake sure that every T is
crossed and every I is dotted properly, because I think we could get
ourselves into a lot of trouble here.
The TDR's, I need to learn -- I really need to sit down and
understand that thoroughly. I still don't understand that. You've
been very gracious to come and tell me about it, but I'm very visual
and I'm going to have to see this to see how it actually works.
that's not your fault, that's mine. But I would like to make sure
that we're very cautious and -- this morning on any action that we
take. If we continue down this road, I want to see some more
information coming in before we say that this is exactly the way we
want to go.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, and obviously we don't want to
be reckless, but as I said before, let's not back away because there
are attorneys here watching that are threatening they might do
something.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not -- that wasn't my point, Tim.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. But I think there are some
folks who would get up and tell us that from a podium. I don't think
you're suggesting that. Obviously we need to be careful not to be
reckless. But I don't have any opposition to looking at the economic
impact as long as we can do a balanced look at that. Sure there is an
impact to only building 100,000 units instead of 150,000, or whatever
the numbers are, but what are the positive impacts of having some
control over growth? What are the positive impacts to a community not
having a bunch of flyovers and not having eight-lane roadways? All
those things add to what we always affectionately call the quality of
life. But that is a positive economic impact. If you can maintain
the feel we have in Collier County, you maintain a healthy economy.
If you lose that, you go to -- and we always exaggerate a little,
because we're not ever going to be like the East Coast, but we use the
East Coast as the example we don't want to be like.
And there are areas where 20 years ago they didn't do their
planning in Fort Lauderdale or in Miami that you can see the economic
impact of allowing the growth to go hog wild, because today it's in
shambles. And so I don't want to just measure economic impact and how
many roofs go up and gosh, if we limit that, there are X fewer dollars
going into the economy. I think by preserving the nature of our
community, we can have a very positive impact on the long-term
economy.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But, you know, I get the feeling that we're
almost working against ourselves. We're talking about reducing
density; at the same time in another group that we're involved in,
we're out here promoting -- trying to promote the area. It seems to
me like we're going -- you know, on one hand we're promoting Collier
County, and on the other hand we're saying we want to -- we want to
control the growth. Now, what is it we want to do? Do we want to
promote the area or do we want to control the growth?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, neither --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It just seems so counter-productive to me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't have to be either/or.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, neither in its absolute is the
answer. In other words, you don't go out and promote the area at any
cost, nor do you sit back and allow growth to continue in a path that
will destroy our roadway network at any cost.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know, but every time we promote the area
and people come down here and see Collier County and they say gee, we
want to live here. So bag and baggage they pack up and they come down
with their 2.5 children, and they are now in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: God bless them, leave the money and head
back north, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm telling you, it just seems -- this
is what I have never quite understood. We talk about, you know,
stopping growth, and if you probably talk to many of the people, they
came down here because they heard about Naples. And once they got
here they said gee, this is a great place to live. If I move here to
paradise, my problems are all going to be solved, except they brought
their baggage with them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we can cure that by not doing
anything, and 20 years from now nobody will want to come here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I understand, Tim. But I'm just
saying, I think we need to look at a whole lot of -- this isn't just a
simple --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a piece.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is a piece.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a piece.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is -- it's not simply reduce density.
That's my whole point. I think you've got to look at a number of
factors that all contribute to this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the one comment you just made,
though, is that here we are talking about stopping growth. We're not
talking about stopping growth, we're talking about having some control
over growth and some control over what our ultimate build-out number
will be. Through FOCUS and through the other groups we've heard what
we would like to see, what's an acceptable level of population, what's
an acceptable level for our transportation network, and we're trying
to achieve that. We're not trying to stop it, we're not saying
there's going to be zero growth tomorrow, the 25 percent of the people
that are somehow involved in the building industry are all going to be
out of work. Nobody is saying that, nobody is suggesting that. We're
saying let's have a logical controlled approach looking at growth that
is going to go out 20 years and beyond.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Barbara, I'd like to say, too, I respect
you for bringing up the issues that aren't politically correct in this
community, and those are the ones you've just raised. It's good
politics for all of us to say, oh, base density is four, let's knock
it down to three.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It sounds good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounds really good. It sells good. It
sounds good in the press. But the reality is, it's a much more
complicated issue, and I think it's -- you're exactly right to bring
up how complicated it is so that we will look at the economic impacts,
because we have to.
I will say, though, that I think that if we study it all
carefully, we can balance -- you know, we don't want just any business
to come to Collier County, as we're doing our economic development, we
want high wage jobs that are, you know, low impact to the community.
And we don't -- so just like we aren't saying everybody in the world
come to Collier County and build your business here, we're saying
here's some targeted industries that -- on the other hand we're saying
we want growth and we want the community to continue to grow but in
the character that it has. And that's what we've got to try to
protect.
And the thing that drives me -- the reality for me, the one that
slaps me in the face, frankly, is looking at what the road network --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- will be. And I'm flabbergasted and
unhappy with the report that we have today that says, you know,
basically we're going to have to reduce -- you know, 25 percent of the
people who live here right now are going to have to leave in order for
us to get a road network that I like, much less, you know, anticipate
growth over the next 50 years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least there was Sunday, so about 25
percent of them aren't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's true. There is that.
But, you know, while at the same time I'm a grand supporter of
economic diversification, I also -- and on the other hand want to be
careful that we, you know, protect the community that we have, I'm
absolutely committed to doing something about this road network,
because that is what defines our character as a community is the one
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think many of us have spoken about that
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- certainly at HPO meetings and every
opportunity, even at this table. This has been a big concern. And
have I to add on that, I'm -- I just think we haven't gone far enough
in that area, because I think we have neglected the area east of 951
which has a tremendous growth potential out there and is already
there, and we're just now getting into taking a look at what impact
that has on the rest of the county, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For me, my driving force here is going to
be that I don't want to have the road network that we currently have
planned for 2020. And I -- in order to avoid that, I've got to find a
way to reduce density. Because I don't have the option of not
building the roads if the people are going to be here. Because that's
a totally unacceptable option. So we've got to find a way to reduce
density and balance that with private property rights, whether the
Butt Harris Act is there or not. Because this board respects private
property rights.
The bottom line then being, we may have to be prepared to -- we
have to be prepared to either, you know, defend the county's position
as we down-zone property, and/or we have to be fair and either give
people something, like a transfer development right, which I don't
like, but it's better -- I'd rather give them a TDR than 100 grand.
There is a value to what we're taking away from people in order to
reduce this road network to something we can live with.
And we're going to have to accept that and face it, you know,
that there may be a checkbook issue here in addition to others. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not if we do it right. And I think -- you
know, look, we look at Butt Harris like this ominous monster that's
going to jump on us any time we tell someone they can't erect a pole
sign on their property or something.
So I think we do ourselves and the community a disservice when we
talk about the politically correct or the publicly acceptable or --
you know, as if we are simple pawns of what -- you know, what the
general opinion is out there. The truth is, this board for the first
time since any of us have lived in this county are looking at the
build-out, not as what number is it going to be, but what are the
impacts of that build-out. What will it do to the daily lives of
everyone who have invested their life here, their money here. Whether
they've been here three years or 30 years, that investment is still
important to them. And we have to begin making decisions that alter
our path, because we know where we're going, we know it's not
necessarily a desirable place to be, and all we're talking about today
is one of the many tools that we're going to have to bring to bear to
deal with this issue.
And I don't see -- and Barb, your comments are on the mark. They
just happen to be a side of it that I have gotten comfortable with in
that we're going to have to take this approach. We aren't given any
other options.
So we need to deal with it. And today is not a decision -- a
final decision. Today is to choose the most acceptable path
collectively that this board is comfortable with, to deal with that
issue as a piece of the overall puzzle. We're not going to solve it
today. As I mentioned, those 108,000 units sitting out there to me
are the biggest issue that we're going to have to deal with.
And part of what I want to walk -- come away from today with is a
clear direction to our staff to adopt a methodology to deal with
existing zoned parcels that are not out there pulling building
permits, so when they come back in for sunsetting from one parcel to
the next, we approach each with a consistency and a clarity, rather
than just a solely individual look, so that the game plan is out there
and the methodology is established.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Starting today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Starting today -- no, but my point is that
we're all not going to be here in ten years, okay. Okay, John, you
will. The rest of us. You know, so realistically, the policies that
were adopted in '86, 12 years ago, are the ones we're wrestling with
right now. So we have a responsibility to adopt those policies that
ten years from now will put us where we want to be as opposed to
handing the problem off to whomever comes after us.
So, you know, it's two-pronged. Let's take a look at what we
have before us today. Let's determine collectively what is
acceptable, continuing to balance the needs and desires of the
community versus private property rights. I think they can go hand in
hand. I think we can achieve that balance. I think we can avoid Butt
Harris challenges, even with what's before us. I believe we can if we
do it in a clear, methodical way, we can do that.
But then we need to go to the next stage, which is the existing
units that are out there that are not being built, which is the area
east of 951. A great concern for me. That area needs to have a
better master plan so that it doesn't have external impacts to roadway
networks that can be mitigated.
But that's an issue for another day. Today we have our plate
full with this one. And I appreciate you bringing up what you have,
Commissioner Berry. It's not something that any of us take lightly or
haven't considered, but I think I've just become so committed to
changing the direction and changing the course of where we're going
that I -- that's no longer just a primary concern.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know we want to get to public
speakers, but I've got to say one thing, and it's a little
frustrating, Commissioner Hac'Kie, when you say well, it sounds good
and it's politically popular. I don't want to sell this thing short.
We've been working on this -- I brought it to the board in October of
'95. We've had half a dozen debates on it. Our staff has spent
hundreds of hours on it. And it not only sounds good --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is good.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it is good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a very real response and a very
good response to planning for the best -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- future for Collier County. I just
want to be careful we don't sell ourselves short.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. I appreciate that, too. And I
didn't mean to imply that it isn't good, because I do support it and I
have supported it and I'm committed to it, because I'm not willing to
live with even 15 flyovers and any eight-lane roads. I mean, that's
the bottom line.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the board does something
responsible and popular once in a while, we shouldn't apologize for
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, good point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I might suggest that we give our court
reporter a break before we go to a couple of speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is 10:30. We will do that. Take about a
10-minute break.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on
this item, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have six speakers. The
first two are Nancy Payton and then Brad Cornell. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I
represent the Florida Wildlife Federation. And we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the proposal. We like some of the things
that we hear and read.
In April, 1996, the Florida Wildlife Federation helped coordinate
a campaign in opposition to expanding the urban boundary along the
Immokalee corridor. Expanding the urban boundary brought increased
densities and central water and sewer to that corridor.
I submit for the record the 800 people that contacted you
Commissioners in opposition to extending the urban boundary.
In April, 1997, Florida Wildlife Federation also coordinated a
campaign opposing central water and sewer outside the urban boundary,
and also raising questions about the then proposed cjustering
amendment to the growth management plan. I submit those names into
the record of today.
These people should not be viewed as people opposed to no growth
-- or advocates of no growth or slow growth. They should be viewed as
advocates of smart growth and I think that's the road that we're
headed down today.
We strongly support reducing densities on rural and agricultural
lands. But we do oppose the TDR transfer development rights proposal
with receiving areas outside the coastal urban boundary.
We disagree that these receiving areas are more suitable for
development, to use a term that was in the proposal.
The majority of the Immokalee corridor receiving area is
identified on our future land use map as areas of environmental
concern.
Also, the Immokalee receiving area includes one section, section
15, which is part of the CREW acquisition area. And I will submit to
the record the CREW boundaries that were in the most recent annual
report.
Also, the proposal calls for extending central water and sewer
beyond the urban boundary, the current services area into these
receiving areas. Again, we're opposed to that.
All receiving areas are identified on a map prepared by the
Collier County long-range Planning Department as areas of bear and
panther use. We're going to submit that map into the record as well.
There are other wildlife and environmental concerns.
And we'd like to bring to the attention of staff and to
Commissioners, if they're not aware of it, of an American Planning
Advisory Service report, number 470 and 471, entitled seven biological
principles for habitat protection. We're going to enter into the
record today a summary of that article -- of that report and make it
available to anyone who hasn't seen it. We'd also like to submit into
the record a copy of the listed species identified in Collier County.
The federation advocates separating the agricultural land from
the rural lands. That is, separating and making it an exclusive
agricultural preserve, and looking at even lowering the densities in
that area.
In the Nape Valley in California, it's a density of one to 160.
There's an interesting proposal in Boulder, Colorado, in Boulder
County. And there are other areas that maybe we should look at that.
And keeping with that suggestion, we'd like to enter into the
record an article by Arthur C. Nelson entitled preserving prime farm
land in the face of urbanization. It has some good ideas for us to
look at and some test cases or some experiences elsewhere that may be
applicable here.
Also, we're entering into the record a report that was issued
several years ago, I believe in November, 1996, about the contribution
of agriculture to Collier County. And it was done by the Florida
Stewardship Foundation. And in there, there's a little bit of a
discussion about transfer development rights and some references.
Behind me are several maps that were prepared by the Florida Game
Commission that iljustrate our concern for environmental issues in
these proposed receiving areas.
To my left are priority wetlands for listed species, and this is
a map that was actually done for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and it represents wetland habitats critical to 33 wetland
dependent species.
The lavender is up to six species and the silver is up to three
species. And you'll find lavender and silver in most of the receiving
areas.
Also, there's a map called bio-diversity hot spots. That's the
one that's directly behind me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that a United Nations term?
MS. PAYTON: Well --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just checking.
MS. PAYTON: Oh, dear, I've lost my time.
And we have one other which is strategic habitat conservation
areas. And I'd be glad to make these maps available to staff.
Staff has requested authorization to spend $15,000 to review the
legal and economic impacts of this proposal. We support that. But we
request that environmental impacts be added to that list.
Where we go in today sets the legacy of our rural, agricultural
and natural lands. The Florida Wildlife Federation stands ready to
join the county in this Herculean task. And indeed, it is a Herculean
task.
But we must be prudent and we must be cautious, and if we err, we
must always err to the benefit of nature. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Brad Cornell and then Glen
Dunevan.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to point out that Lee County
erred to the side of nature at one unit per 40 acres, and is now
writing a check to the property owner after a long court battle. So I
think we have to be careful that we tie our decision to specific
infrastructure needs as defined by the courts. Environmental needs
have not been clearly defined by the courts, unfortunately, so I think
it's something that we need to consider. This is not about -- this did
not start as an environmental issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good point, thank you.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell, for the record.
I'm here representing myself, although I will mention a position of
the Collier County Audubon Society in the context of my comments.
The reason I can't speak for them is that our board has not met
on this issue, yet we will meet in about a week and take this up. But
we obviously have an interest in this.
I also would like to say that I like the discussion that I'm
hearing this morning between all of you. I've heard very good
comments. I want to commend staff and the Conservancy for their
initial imaginative steps that they've taken in this presentation. And
I'd also like to say the Collier County Audubon Society really hopes
and had hoped to be a part of those discussions up 'til now, and hopes
to be included from this point forward as you go forward with this
discussion.
I'd like to make three comments about what I've heard this
morning and what I've been reading. As regards the urban boundary, I
think there's pretty clear community consensus about the integrity of
our urban boundary on the future land use map.
The proposed receiving areas on the maps in this initial look at
this project significantly expand the urban boundaries, so I think
that's -- I don't feel very good about that. I don't think the
community would be supportive about that way of transferring those
units.
Before considering any urban expansion, the full capacity of our
present urban area must be used up. And as you know, and as
Commissioner Hancock has pointed out, there are many ways of
accommodating urban growth more efficiently so that infrastructure and
service expansion can be minimized. You know, reducing car trips in
the urban area, even though you're -- even with increased density.
Any rural land use planning and criteria must be more sensitive
to the relative economic and ecological values of lands. They differ
in potential and value. Density ratios should partially reflect this.
For instance, Camp Key strand should allow, I don't know, one on 80
instead of one on 20, because we don't want to develop the Camp Key
strand. It's important for agriculture, it's important for ecological
values and many other reasons.
The Okaloacoochee Slough is another one, and ag should be
protected, and we should recognize it in our density. And also, for
any rural or urban conservation or open space values to be protected,
we really need a comprehensive open space and conservation lands
master plan for the whole county. And it's really critical.
Connecting our private and public open spaces, parks, preserves,
easements and habitat preservations on individual projects is key to
maximizing the values of those -- those lands for open space and for
conservation purposes. You know, if we're going to protect the
habitat, let's connect it, you know, on individual projects. Don't do
it project by project, but have an over-arching scheme that is
overlayed on top of that.
So that's something I think that needs to be developed concurrent
to this discussion of density reduction.
Your staff and our community have recognized a vital need to
comprehensively reduce development over-capacity in the rural
agricultural areas of our county and to protect both agricultural and
natural resources. I do urge you to keep this discussion going, which
I think you are going to, and to include more of our community into
that, include the agricultural community and environmental groups.
And I and the Collier County Audubon Society are very interested and
offer our assistance in this. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Glen Dunavan and then Ty Agoston.
MR. DUNAVAN: My name is Glen Dunavan. I represent Citizens for
Constitutional and Popular Rights.
And good morning, Commissioners.
Confusion. That's what I see. Great confusion. First place, I
live in one of the so-called receiving areas. I don't know where they
come up with that term, receiving area. I don't feel like I live in a
receiving area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just beyond the line of scrimmage.
MR. DUNAVAN: Yeah, I guess.
There's been great praise on the staff. I question their
knowledge, one thing. In this receiving area that I live in on both
sides of me, there's agriculture permits. They reduce their taxes by
having qualified as agriculture. They are five-acre plots.
The other half of the receiving area, which is on the other side
of Immokalee Road, is going to receive people that's never had
$100,000 in their life, and these lots sell for $250,000. Now, I'm
not too good at math, but I don't see that happening.
Also, receiving area is about four square miles. It's going to
receive the area -- the people out of about 100 square miles. Now,
arithmetic don't add up there again for some reason or another.
This receiving area that's marked on the map that wasn't legible
on the map that I had at all, has no water, no facilities of any kind.
Immokalee Road -- I use that term very liberally, because it can't
even be described as a road by anybody with any sense at all. It's
not a road, it's a bunch of potholes. And it's very narrow. And I
don't see anyplace to widen it. In any -- west. I'm talking about
east of 951.
So the confusion that I was talking about, agriculture area is
not defined very good because the receiving area is agriculture area.
And one house per 20 acres, that's not really defined either as an
area where this is going to be. Which any kind of a residential area
at all, 20 acres -- you know, a lot of people have bought ground to
retire on and they're five-acre plots.
And I kind of go along with Barbara Berry on the fact that
there's going to be some -- a lot of lawsuits. And I don't side with
Tim Hancock on the bully type comment that we can win, don't worry
about it, we can win.
So some other comments is Mr. Guggenheim of the Conservancy says
the consensus of the environmentalist group has been reached. Well --
and a consensus of the radical environmentalists is certainly not the
consensus of the residents of Collier County.
Another comment, we don't want to build roads. I don't
understand that. There -- people is going to come. If you don't
build roads, you're going to have an awful lot of long parking lots.
Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ty Agoston and then Bruce
Anderson.
MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. Happy Easter.
If you look at the letters to the editor of the Naples Daily News
at the height of the season, you will -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you?
MR. AGOSTON: My name is Ty Agoston, I live in Golden Gate
Estates, that endangered northern Golden Gate Estates that you guys
are trying to put out of business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean the hub of diversity hot spot?
MR. AGOSTON: Yes, yes, yes. We have some black bears and some
panthers. I haven't seen a panther, and only my wife saw the black
bear, but hey, that's hearsay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's funny, in my house if my wife says
it, it's a rule.
MR. AGOSTON: In every house, my friend, I hate to tell you.
Coming back to the case at hand, if you read the letters to the
editor at the height of the season, you will find a constant stream of
complaints current residents have against our winter residents. The
protest against overcrowding and density falls into that similar
category.
I have attended a Republican executive committee meeting and Ms.
Gina Hahn, who is the Republican county committee woman, has made a
statement on a podium that the County Commissioners should make every
legal move that's within their power to reduce density. Is that what
you guys are doing?
Is this an unholy marriage between the coastal wealthy and the
environmental community to kind of iron out any further developing in
the county using any excuse that is convenient?
I find the issue refreshing when I listen to Ms. Barbara Berry,
because -- but in that essence, what you are doing is you are dealing
with her district. She has to face the music of whatever you decide.
Because her constituents are the ones who are going to lose money if
your actions will be dissatisfactory. You prevented water and sewers
to come into northern Golden Gate Estates in the name of making
northern Golden Gate Estates less attractive. I thought at that time,
and I still do, that that's kind of an elitist -- I happen to live
there. I kind of like the place. I have lots for my children. I
hope they like it. So far they're not that much interested.
But the fact of the matter is, listening to your Planning
Department and listening to directed development, I have asked the
head of your Planning Department yesterday afternoon in this
environmental advisory group that I happen to belong to by accident,
if this smacks of sustainable communities. And he was very rapidly
denying that not -- it has nothing to do with sustainable communities.
I hate to say this: I have read an awful lot of material out of
sustainable communities which I consider simply a one-world
Socialistic movement controlled by environmentalists or, flip sided,
environmentalists -- or Socialists are using the environmental group
or the community to achieve their ends.
And you listen and read the material, this is not something that
I'm pulling out of the air. There are some 18,000 pages that have
been published by the federal government on the various departments.
What I'd like to bring home is that I don't think you getting
paid for what you're doing -- and it's very convenient, and I can see
the vote right now, it's going to be four to one with Ms. Berry voting
against it, because she has to pay. And the rest of you don't, so
you're going to vote for it. But let me say this: Speaking for
myself, Ty Agoston, I believe that you are overreaching the reason
you're sitting up there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of quick comments. First
of all, your suggestion that no water and sewer are in northern Golden
Gate Estates, quote, to make it less attractive, is absurd; it's
economic feasibility of trying to run water and sewer. You can't tell
me anywhere in the country that runs water and sewer to two and a half
and larger acres. You go -- I grew up in Bangor, Maine, and in the
City of Bangor, you have water and sewer. When you go to the little
towns out around there where people have acreage, they have septic.
Thatws just common sense. You canwt economically feasibly hook that
up, Ty, so thatTs absurd.
Second, to suggest that the changes weTre doing only impact the
people at district five is equally absurd. When we look at the
population build-outs, when we look at the impact on roads, when we
talk about flyovers, zero of those are scheduled to be in district
five. WeTre talking about impacts to the entire community.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson, and then Robert
Duane.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Bruce Anderson and ITm appearing here -- my capacity is
chairman of your Development Services Advisory Committee.
The Development Services Advisory Committee voted unanimously at
its April 9th meeting to direct me to share with you the committeeTs
serious reservations about initiating density reductions as set forth
by county staff in an executive summary on this matter, without
quantifiable information on the long-term economic consequences to the
community at large.
This expertise may not be available on county staff. Therefore,
the committee recommends that the county retain a nationally
recognized consulting firm with expertise in fiscal impact analysis to
analyze the cost and benefits and various alternatives that could have
the effect of reducing 36,000 units from the urban and urban fringe
area, or merely shifting that growth and infrastructure demand to
other areas of the county.
The committee strongly recommends that this information be
obtained before initiating any amendments to the growth management
plan that would relinquish to the state any of your existing
discretionary authority on density issues. Once we give it away, itTs
hard to get back from those folks.
In conjunction with the study effort, the following specific
items should also be considered: Number one, evaluate the design
guidelines for automobile flyovers, along with other measures to
soften their impact on our community, including specifically the
streetscape program that so enhances and distinguishes our community.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: ITm sure colored concrete would make them
look a lot nicer, too, so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can have like Disney has on their
Monorail, kind of dress it up --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let him finish.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with vines.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the same intelligence and planning that went
into creating the commercial architectural guidelines --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, sure, hit me where it hurts.
MR. ANDERSON: -- can be brought to bear on flyovers. I really
believe that.
Second recommendation to the committee, specific recommendation,
is to evaluate alternatives to the existing and planned transportation
network.
Thirdly, assess impact on the cost and availability of homes for
low and middle income workers inside and outside of the urban area.
Fourth, assist the impact on future plans for infrastructure and
the funding thereof inside and outside of the urban areas.
Number five, further evaluate any density reductions in
conjunction with consideration of the proposed rural cjustering
program and the transfer of development rights program.
Six, evaluate the potential amount and funding source of
compensation that may need to be provided to property owners for
density reduction, undertakings law, the Butt J. Harris Private
Property Rights Protection Act, and other applicable laws.
Seven, funding for this study should come from the general fund.
The essence of the committeews recommendation is that before
initiating density reductions in the areas where basic urban services
and infrastructure are planned and available, the Commission should be
fully informed and consider all the future costs and benefits to our
community.
And itws respectfully submitted by the committee. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you'd agree, before we put a lot
of money and effort into trying to mitigate something, avoidance
should -- and I think that's what we're trying to do today. We're
probably going to realize we may end up with some. And I think then
what you're talking about for streetscape or aesthetic interest comes
to play. But I'm not willing to give that up just yet and just assume
there are going to be some at this point. I think we have to go
through the process to see if we can eliminate them. If we cannot,
then I think that's a valid recommendation. But I think it's a little
premature at this point.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Robert Duane.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, Robert Duane. I'm
representing the EDC chamber coalition here this morning as their
growth management chair. I'm also a member of your Development
Services Advisory Board, and we would like you to consider some of the
points that Mr. Anderson articulated in his little handout that he
went over with you.
I think it's important that -- to look at this as deliberately as
possible. And I share Ms. Berry's concern on a cautionary note. And
as we proceed with this, I hope we have the best information available
to analyze both the impacts, both good and bad, so when you make a
final decision you're as fully informed as possible. Thank you for
allowing me to share the podium. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Okay, Commissioners, at this time we've heard public speakers,
we've heard the presentation by staff. What's the desire of the
board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane's last comment there was --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane's last comment there was --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I thought you were calling
on me when you said "Mr. Constantine." CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I wasn't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was her teacher voice.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm sorry, Mrs. Berry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get your ruler out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If I were reprimanding you, you'd really know
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go to the corner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- unfortunately, the comments --
and Ty, you attend meetings regularly, so I was a little surprised by
some of your comments.
The reason we're here today is not because the environmental
community has forced an issue upon us. That's ridiculous. The reason
we're here today is because, quite simply, we've come to recognize
that on the path we're currently taking, the growth rate and the
available units to be built in this county, we simply cannot afford to
build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate that population,
period. You want to talk about a parking lot full of cars? Okay.
Let's keep going on this path. We are going to see eight-lane roads,
flyovers, congestion like you would not experience anywhere other than
the dreaded East Coast.
We have been forced into this position of trying to find a remedy
to a situation that unknowingly was created in the last 10 to 20
years. If we'd known then what we know now, I mean, is the -- the age
old adage, we could have avoided some of these possible impacts. But
we didn't. People tried to make the best decisions they knew at the
time.
We have a different set of information today. That information
says we can't afford this continued growth rate to build up population
exceeding a half a million people, period.
So we as a board have a responsibility to address that, since I
assume the people who spoke against it would also be speaking against
a 30 percent increase in ad valorem taxation.
But let's continue on this path, folks, and we're going to be
using your tax dollars to pay for the infrastructure. Because the
money that is anticipated from growth doesn't cover it, and we know
that as a board. So this is not an environmental issue, this is not
an issue of playing politics or playing to the media for popularity,
this is an issue of a known quantity being unacceptable on the basis
that we cannot provide adequately for it, period.
So the only alternative we have is to effect that quantity or to
just allow things on this path to a future that nobody here is willing
to accept as being in the best interest for all of Collier County.
With that, I'd like to throw out -- and I'll do it in the form of
a motion to at least get the discussion going -- a list of nine
directives to our staff to implement, investigate and return with.
One, reduce the urban density, base density, from four units an
acre to three units an acre for all projects -- and I'd like two
thresholds, exceeding 100 acres and exceeding 200 acres. I'd like to
see the difference between those two. I think the larger projects are
more capable of handling that than the smaller ones.
Second, reduce the agricultural density in the areas eastward of
the Estates from one per five to one unit per 20 with the following
caveat: Properties within one mile of a public roadway or provision
of a public utility remain at one unit per five acres.
Third, reduce the density band surrounding activity centers from
a maximum of three units an acre to two units an acre.
Fourth --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, say that one again?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. The density band around the
activity center, you can request up to three additional units per acre
for being within a mile of an activity center. We've seen most of
those come in really at six and less. This should be reduced from
three units an acre to two units an acre.
Fourth, to reduce the maximum density anywhere in Collier County
from 16 units an acre to 12 units an acre.
Fifth -- and this is one that's going to take some work -- is to
promote a traditional neighborhood design criteria that would allow
property within the urban area, if they follow that criteria, to
maintain four units an acre. In other words, you reduce the off-site
impacts, you let them maintain four units an acre. If they're not
going to follow that criteria, their base density is three.
That would have to be developed -- I've got a group working on
some of those parameters for the first meeting in about ten days. It
will eventually become a staff item, if this board so chooses, but
we're working on bringing something to you with those parameters.
Six, to adopt a TDR receiving zone for an area -- for an area to
include the urban area in Immokalee and extending up to one mile from
the urban area. The density's yet to be determined, but to look at
what that as a true receiving area could accept on the basis of
ability to provide infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Up to one mile from the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The urban area of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the Immokalee urban area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Immokalee, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seventh, to support the cjustering
criteria presented; in particular, the areas that are actually marked
as receiving areas. I'm not sure I want those as receiving areas, but
they make a lot of sense to require cjustering criteria in those
areas.
Eighth --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, so you don't --
you're nixing the receiving, the TDR's, to that area? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are saying cjuster?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm saying that basically all ag areas
between the urban boundary and the Estates, those should be left at
one to five, but be required to utilize the cjustering criteria.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the boundaries within which cjustering
would be permitted or encouraged are what?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to decide the physical
boundaries, but they roughly correlate to the pink area on the map.
I know you had some concerns about the CREW area to the north.
Those boundaries have to be revised. But what I'm talking about are
basically estates and ag property outside of the urban area, but not
yet to the estates.
We've got a couple of gaps in there. The reason is, to go from
four units an acre to one per 20, and then per one to two and a
quarter is asking for a lawsuit, and you're going to lose it. What I'm
saying is leave them at one per five the way they are now, but require
them to follow the cjustering criteria.
This is tough to visualize, I know, but this is going to come
back, you know, in some form.
And the last thing I have -- I'm sorry, I had eight, not nine.
The last thing I had was to direct staff in working with the county
attorney's office -- and we're going to have to get some additional
policy directive on this -- to adopt a methodology to deal with the
existing units through sunsetting or directed reductions. And these
are the ones that have been zoned but not yet built.
That 108,000 dwelling units potentially out there, that
represents as big or bigger liability than what we're dealing with
today. We need to have a consistent methodology in dealing with those
so that the landowner understands it and so that we have an
opportunity to shape it and make sure it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we already have that with sunset?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have the mechanism through sunset to
review them. What I'm saying is when they come in, what are the
rules?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sort of firm policy guidelines.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like that you revert to ag or you revert
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Similar to when we went through ZRO. If
your property had met this, this or this, this was the result, not a
ZRO process again.
What I'm saying is that -- take Gadaleta PUD. Mr. Ferguson comes
in and thinks this is a no-brainer, this makes sense. And here the
board says no, no, no, for the last two years on these sunsetting,
we've been doing it this way. I think we can formalize those policies
to -- that doesn't remove our discretion but at least offers a known
set of rules to the property owner so that this Commission and
subsequent commissions can at least have some consistency in the
sunsetting of PUD's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it's not my turn, but if staff
would be telling us what the differences are between that list and
your proposal, just to have a list to tell us what -- compare and
contrast at some point, that would be useful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I can tell you the one thing that it
does is it removes the TDR receiving areas and reestablishes one in
the Immokalee area. Second thing it does is they were -- one of the
items was reducing from four units an acre to two in the urban area.
This is going from four to three on larger scale projects.
I think the reason four to two looked possible is because if you
were going to do TDR's into the urban area, that would be the
mitigation. I'm saying eliminate the TDR's and just go four to three.
Because the net result was the same.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask as part of it, since
we're still going to explore the TDR's to the Immokalee area, that we
do a snapshot picture of both four to two and four to three, just so
we can at least see -- I don't know that there'll be enough in the way
to realistically do that, if we're only doing TDR's to Immokalee, but
at least we'll know that -- the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And also, that as we study TDR's, we go
ahead and get the information about marketability of TDR's and to what
extent we have to offer them and to what extent there has to be a
market for them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's what -- I think our staff
understands that now that we -- if we -- even if -- established a TDR
area, although those questions now have to be answered, and it's also
county attorney's office being involved in that also. I will amend
the motion to also ask staff to do a four to two analysis. I think
yes, the numbers will be bigger, but I think if we're not going to do
TDR's to the urban area --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's not a plausible option from the
legal standpoint. That's my only concern. But I'll conclude that as
a staff analysis item. My personal desire is the four to three.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. If I remember, what you're
asking, though, is for all of these things -- for the staff to do this
and then come back to us -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- with everything that they have proposed or
will have proposed in what you have asked here?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And just so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, this is not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What we have today is not the final word on
-- you're merely looking into this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are areas that I feel we can explore
and have opportunities to reduce density in a manner that will get us
partway that we need to go without necessarily triggering a serious
Butt Harris claim. There may be a Butt Harris claim. We're not going
to keep anybody from filing suit on something. But the key to Butt
Harris, if you read it, is to -- is really a protection of property
rights. What we're talking about here are properties that are yet to
be zoned. No one's done anything with them. They're just sitting
there ag. They may be formed, but, you know, they haven't requested a
fezone.
And I think we can -- I think we can work our way through the
Butt Harris issue by doing these things. I think if we were more
aggressive than this, we would end up spending a lot of taxpayer money
in courts that is unnecessary. So that -- I'm trying to strike that
balance as best I can, strictly from the standpoint that we can't
provide the infrastructure for the population as it is today, as it's
projected today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think he --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm thinking -- I think it's Commissioner
Hac'Kie --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, but you said you had had -- I thought you
said you had a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No? I'm sorry.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just Parkinson's setting in.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I assume that what you want staff to come
back -- I can support this if one of the things we're going to ask
staff to report back about is the resulting road network --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- from this. Because 15 flyovers is
still awful -- or 15 potential flyovers. But we certainly -- I'm not
going to support anything that's gonna eliminate the reductions in the
road network. You know, that's the ultimate goal for me is to
decrease the building of wide roads and overpasses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this is still a part of that
four-step plan the board approved last year, using transportation as
the most limited piece of infrastructure. We're still in step three
on this.
When staff comes back, that -- if we don't correlate this back to
the inability to provide the roadway network, then I think we have
reduced our legal ability to do these things. So yes, it's -- I want
to see what this does to the roadway network, because that's where
this started from.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding that this and this alone is
not going to get us all the way there. We're going to have to look
at, as I said, step eight, in existing units and our continued
sunsetting and whatnot, to try to help us get the rest of the way.
But yeah, that's the direction I foresee.
And what I also see is staff coming back with this to the board
members. We have a public hearing on this again. From that point we
then decide whether we want to -- to pursue camp. plan amendments in
any or all of these areas so we will have plenty of public comment at
that point. If we choose to pursue camp. plan amendments on these
items or additional items that may arise from here to there, we can do
that, and then it goes through, individually each of them goes through
the entire public hearing process.
So the opportunity for comment for the public is going to be
extensive. And I think that's key. We're going to have two or three
hearings before we even decide whether there's going to be a camp.
plan amendment based on any of these. So we'll continue to keep the
public forum the place -- the appropriate place for us to make these
-- these graduated steps.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I can support this because the two
fundamental issues -- I just want to be sure I'm getting this. I
can't support any receiving areas for transfer development rights
outside the urban boundary. That was what I asked Bob to make me see
for sure that -- you know, these -- all of these receiving areas
currently proposed are outside the urban boundary. That's the
fundamental question, you know. We do not want to encourage
development outside the boundary except for Immakalee. So that's a
great idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you don't have a problem with
looking at the band around Immokalee --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Around Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because I think the housing needs 20
years from now in Immokalee are going to be different than today, if
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, especially --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're successful.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if we can see, you know, what the
economic development impacts of that would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the other thing I just feel compelled
to say, and I don't think you'd disagree with me too much about this,
is for me the driving force here isn't that we can't afford to build a
road network that would support the current population build-out, it's
that we are unwilling to live in a community that has that kind of
road network. Because that's what would make us more like the East
Coast than we ever want to be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I say we can't afford, there are
obviously two meanings to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay? When we look at 21 flyovers and the
cost of those, there is a fiscal issue -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there, that yes, we could afford it if
we jack up impact fees by doubling or tripling --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's not the big point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if we raise ad valorem taxes.
But the other part of can't afford is, there's a character and
quality to this community that we have responsibility to maintain.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I can't afford is to spend
that --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't think we can afford to watch
property values go down because we didn't plan effectively for the
growth we knew was going to come. And that's the other half of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tim, would you include anything regarding the
economic impact on this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the economic impact segment is
important, it needs to be done, but I think it's too early from here
to the next stage to go out and hire a national consultant to look at
the economic impact of these. I think we need to refine them a little
bit more and determine as a board whether we want to pursue any of
them before we go paying someone to determine the economic impact.
I imagine that is appropriate at the next step as we move toward
what we --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you are looking at this as a step? In
other words, this is the next step after what we've just received
today --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What you're proposing is the next step?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From all the impact we've received today
__
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from public, from whatnot --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then at some point in time, maybe the
following would be the time when the -- after they've come back with
information on this, that they would then present to us an economic
impact. Or we would get someone, a consultant to come in and take a
look at --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also, that economic impact has a
two-pronged approach: One is what is the economic impact of this
decision; the second is what is the economic impact of the do nothing
alternative? In other words, if we sit on our hands, what's the
economic impact?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But I think the point is we need to go
through this process and decide what it is we're trying to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- do before we can even talk about having
an economic --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- policy. So that's the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point noted that that's something that
will have to be a part of this before we actually physically entertain
a comp. plan amendment on a given day. I agree, an economic impact
should be a part of that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one question on the motion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- before you call it.
The urban fringe, did you make that a part of -- how did you
treat that in your motion, as staff recommendation?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did not treat it. I, in looking back on
it, think that the urban fringe has -- it's adjacent to urban
services. There's some rationale for it. If we were going to effect
urban fringe in any way, I would only want to effect it as a TDR
receiving area. But I wasn't --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you're not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not -- I'm not --
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: You're not changing anything in urban
fringe?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not a part of my motion. I
couldn't find a comfortable way to deal with that one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess my question would be better phrased
as does your motion include the eight points that you listed plus
staff recommendations? But you're saying it's only the eight points.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the eight points listed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, so I didn't --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me how your third
point was reduced to one to 20 in ag except within one mile of where
major roadways are, services? How did you establish one mile?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be honest, it's a section of land. The
reason I picked a distance is I'm trying to -- and this is something
that the county attorney's office is going to have to help us on a
little, is when someone buys property that is for the most part
landlocked, you know, it's not being served by public roadways, that
you have to access it through private roadways and whatnot. If you
have a 500-acre piece of land and you want to do residential
development on it, how far are you willing to build an appropriate
public road to get there? In other words, what's reasonable and
what's prudent?
I think what I'm trying to do is -- by that one mile band is
saying, people within a mile of a public roadway I think have a
reasonable ability to access their property for development purposes.
Beyond that, I think what we're recognizing in this area of the county
is those properties were purchased for the most part for agricultural
reason, not for development reason. The one mile is just a number I
picked so that we get a response back on what the density reduction
is.
But I'm trying to look for a reasonable distance from public
facilities that recognizes -- that shows that this board recognizes
that there's a difference between buying 20 acres on Immokalee Road
and a mile -- and away from Immokalee Road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And are we saying any specific kind of
roadway, or just any roadway?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Public roadway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if it's 20 foot wide but it's
publicly owned, it's a 20-foot wide dirt road but it's public -- and
that's my -- where I'm going with this is I understand the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a good point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Immokalee Road, but it seems like
we ought to have a certain level of road as opposed to just any public
road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's something that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we can get through that in the
process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there are probably platted easements
out there --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, that -- doing the research on
and finding anything within a mile of those would be just an absolute
nightmare. I don't have a real good answer. My -- what I'm
envisioning are minor collectors and up. You know, basically things
that show up on our roadway network system that we review as a board.
But that may not be comprehensive enough. We may need a local
road classification. I really haven't gone into it to that point. My
-- what I was envisioning was basically what our roadway network -- if
you pull out a Naples area map, everything that's a public roadway on
that right now is what we're talking about. Not necessarily a platted
easement from 20 years ago that's never been used.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But even that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I don't know how to make that
distinction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And even that concerns me a little. I
guess if we can -- maybe that's what we need to do through the
process, and that's part of that step. But if you take every road
that is a public road and go a mile from it, it doesn't seem like
you'll have a whole lot left.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about our 2020 future needs? Not our
financial feasible, our 2020 future needs, I think if we link it to a
map that we have produced, recognizing public thoroughfares that the
county is responsible for in the way of construction and long-term
maintenance, that seems reasonable to me. Would that be a good base
mark to -- to -- to go from?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly to work from. Maybe we can
have a map or a graphic made up showing exactly what that -- what
impact --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as part -- when it comes time for
our next presentation?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm picturing a one-mile band working
around the perimeter of the Estates, and when it hits a public roadway
that goes beyond the Estates, it runs one mile along that roadway.
But it basically -- then it also gives a transition between the
Estates, which is one per two and a quarter, and the outreaching
agricultural one to 20, it gives that one to five transition from that
to there that again I think deals more with a compatible land use
scenario than just cutting it off at the edge of the Estates.
So, for example, as we go up to the edge of the Estates, we hit
Oil Well Road. We go out Oil Well for a mile on each side, come back
in, and go back up the Estates to Immokalee, out on Immokalee for a
mile. So that's the approach. And if we, as a base map, want to use
the 2020 needs analysis initially, that's -- I'm comfortable with
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have a concern with that
particular item -- not enough to vote against the motion, but just
maybe we can red flag that one as we come back and see what the
impacts of that are with and without -- or with or without certain
levels of roadways.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why staff gets the big bucks, to
figure out how to accomplish this.
But I think you're hitting on something that as we look in each
one of these, we're going to find similar points that need to be
clarified, and rather than a full public hearing, we may have to have
staff maybe to come back with items as they go through to get
clarification from the board in total on some of these things, because
again, it is a big issue and we don't want to be too hasty about it.
I know two years isn't hasty, but when it comes down to gathering the
information to make the decision, I think we all want to make sure
they're operating off a consensus point.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add a couple of things. Again, Bob
Mulhere, planning director.
If we look at, for example, Immokalee Road, Oil Well Road, State
Road 29, State Road 82 as the primary arterial network in there, I
think we'll be covering. And put the band adjacent to those roadways.
We'll be addressing your concern that you brought up, which is
reasonable investment backed development expectations.
On the other hand, I tend to agree that we'll also be probably
exempting those parcels that exist today that are five acres. So
we're going to take care of the little parcels that are adjacent to
smaller local roadways --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- other than the large. So I think if we start
with that, then we'll bring that back to you for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's stating pretty much what I
envisioned. So if that's acceptable to the board as a starting point?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
MR. MULHERE: I just had one other question for clarity purposes.
One of the things we were looking at was whether or not the board was
supportive of an intersection -- comprehensive intersection analysis
on one or more intersections in the urban area; maybe various
locations within the urban area which we've identified at a very
ballpark cost of 25 to 30,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're premature, Bob --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because we need to know where our
pivotal key intersections are that are going to be problematic before
making that decision is my feeling on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to go through this next
planning step, get to the point that you come back to us with the
information based on this motion, and that's going to identify the
problem intersections, and we'll have -- we can make that decision
then, if that's the consensus view of the board. That seems to make
sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When they get that information, though, Tim,
would they not be able to identify those intersections?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'm saying they will be able --
because just as Commissioner Mac'Kie -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- had asked for, well, how many flyovers
are left, so to speak, you're going to know those at grade
intersections that are exceeding 100,000 in volume or -- volume that
qualify for --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was just wondering, could you do this
simultaneously, at the same time that -- MR. HULHERE: We could.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- you're getting this --
MR. HULHERE: As soon as we calculate the impacts of the board's
direction here, we could then look at for our consultant at analyzing
__
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But '-
MR. HULHERE: -- those impacts on certain --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we don't know until we see the results
of that --
MR. HULHERE: Whether or not.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- calculation whether or not that's what
we're buying. So we don't know if those are the intersections that
will need to be studied until, you know, this is what we want studied,
but don't -- my vote today is not this is the policy I want you to
adopt, this is what I want you to look at next.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And I think before we authorize 15
to $25,000 per intersection, we want to see them back in our hands,
see the result of these questions and what it produces and go from
there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's the same thing as my comment on the
economic study. We're not ready for this yet. You know --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we haven't -- I mean, we're trying to
formulate a policy, but we haven't done that yet. Let's get our
policy together and see where that leads us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of questions of that issue.
My favorite part of this is that we don't have TDR's except for a
limited number, that the receiving area's only in Immokalee, but that
-- and that I guess balances the change in a reduction from four to
two to four to three.
And I especially like that traditional neighborhood design lets
you keep four. Because that's what we've been looking for a way to
encourage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're also going to do a traffic analysis
on that traditional neighborhood design. Is it -- you know, is it
worth that extra unit? In other words, are you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- reducing enough external trips? So
there will be an apples to apples on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I've got like three questions. One is
-- well, one Commissioner Constantine already addressed, that business
about one mile from the public facility. I don't know what that
means. And I hear that's addressed.
I still want an answer to the staff question about what are the
differences between this proposal and what you had proposed other than
-- I hear that we've got the TDR change and we've got the four to two
to four to three. But I had missed, Commissioner Norris, the urban
fringe being left out of this. But staff had recommended a change in
urban fringe?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, commissioner, I was taking some notes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help me with --
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
The recommendations that we made that were not in the motion are
the urban fringe, specifically PUD's over 500 units. However, there's
been some talk in the motion about looking at a methodology for
sunsetting PUD's as well as other developments. We had two
recommendations on PUD's. One was over 500 units initiated by
developer. And one was over 300 units reduced by 15 percent. That's
primarily the sunset issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I pause you on that one?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did I understand that the staff
recommendation there was that for purposes of calculating the
build-out number, you assume a 15 percent reduction in the 300 and
whatever the developer number is in the 500? And Commissioner
Hancock, I think you would support that. Maybe that's something that
just got left out. Because that's -- the reality is, you know, that
we're scaring people with a build-out number that's higher than it
should be. Because they're not building those that -- what they're
zoned.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I wish you would put that back in.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't -- I wasn't excluding it for
purpose other than if we adopt a -- I didn't want to blur the focus.
If we adopt a methodology to handle the sunsetting as it comes in and
establish that, per se, as a goal.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's two -- that's separate from
when they're doing the calculation of the build-out, are they making
an assumption of 100 percent build-out when they give us the magic
number that scares people?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you're asking me am I comfortable
allowing our staff to use their professional discretion in that
build-out number to that degree, certainly, that's what we -- that's
what we hire professional planners for.
MR. CAUTERO: To answer your question, or to address that issue,
that will come out in Commissioner Hancock's motion, if approved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: Those numbers that you see here or other
calculation that we deem appropriate will come out. The motion allows
us to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does allow you to.
MR. CAUTERO: It does allow us to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, thank you. Now continue from --
MR. CAUTERO: The last one was the RMF-6 parcels --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: RMF-6 --
MR. CAUTERO: -- from six to four. That was the only --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was your reasoning on that one,
Commissioner Hancock, to not do RMF-6 down to RMF-4?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 91 units. And if we're going to go
four base density to three base density -- I also looked at that as,
you know, RMF typically can be a small parcel.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all that's left is very small
parcels.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I looked at 91 units and looked
at the potential challenges and said, you know, that just -- I don't
think it's enough to qualify.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's -- it may only be 91 are
available. Would it be a larger number when we look at all the sunset
items?
MR. CAUTERO: Possibly could be. I would expect it would be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then let's fold RHF-6 to four units an
acre into the --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sunset.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- point about sunsetting and establishing
a methodology.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See if it's worthwhile.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes sense to me.
And then what's the significance of eliminating the staff's
recommendation of urban fringe? How many units do we get back that we
hoped to eliminate?
MR. CAUTERO: That's just under 6,000. But quite frankly, after
talking about it amongst ourselves internally, even before a
presentation today, we're not uncomfortable with you eliminating that
from the motion. We -- that would be contentious in our opinion, and
we feel compelled to tell you that. So I don't have difficulty
eliminating that. But his --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the -- that's the strong private
property rights argument in urban fringe, stronger than other ones.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The history on the establishment of that,
if you go back and look at it, is pretty solid. And again, if we're
going -- I'd rather make wholesale successful changes than fight a
6,000 unit battle that I think we have a better chance of not
succeeding in and not being fair in than going the other way.
that's why I left it out. It's just knowing the history of that
piece, I wasn't comfortable that that was an approach we wanted to
take.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Last question was, and I still don't
understand, where the cjustering would be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, let me -- the one area that's
probably a little confusing is up by the CREW trust area.
I'm not asking that we define the boundaries in this. What I'm
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean those three green spots?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The areas that were designated as
receiving zones on here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, they're pink on that map.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. These are what people would call '-
I've heard it called the hole in the donut, okay. This is where you
have -- you would have potentially a very low density parcel of one
unit per 20 acres with urban on one side and estates on the other.
Now, from a compatibility standpoint, that just doesn't make
sense. So I think we have to recognize that if that property owner or
collectively those property owners took it to court and said I've got
four units an acre on one side, I've got one per two and a quarter on
the other, and they're telling me one per 20 is compatible? I think
those areas, we need to recognize as leaving them at one unit per five
acres, but requiring them to use the cjustering criteria where any
sensitive lands are involved. It's kind of -- it's splitting the baby
a little bit, but I think again, you have to look at the possibility
of again not just a successful legal challenge, but a fairness issue
to those property owners. You know, they bought in between high
density here and -- they have higher density on both sides.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forget that.
That's my question, though, is when we say cjustering, does that
include all of the provisions that were brought forth today with the
Conservancy and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So essentially what -- it's
cjustering outside the urban boundary, but it's under strict
environmental guidelines similar to what we discussed in Twin Eagles,
similar to what we saw today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's precisely the intent. And the
other thing is, is for staff, with that being the board's direction,
to look and determine whether these areas are appropriate for that, or
whether they should go to one to 20. That's part of their evaluation
also is not to take just the pink borders and make -- and assume that
that is it, but to look at them and determine what areas are best or
make the most sense for cjustering.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
Well, I feel that we need to go ahead and let this motion work,
and also with the idea of the issues that are listed here. I think
we'd be remiss if we didn't at least get all the appropriate
information, to stop it at this point in time to end -- and say I
don't want to hear anymore, I don't think that's a fair way to go. So
we need a lot of information. This sn't a quick fix by any means.
So I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #9A
DISCUSSION REGARDING TOURISH AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND MARCO
ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL, INC. REGARDING 1998 MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL
AND DISCUSSION OF PROCUREHENT POLICY - NO ACTION AT THIS TIME IN
ANTICIPATION OF COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE'S PROPOSAL TO BE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE BCC IN 5 OR 6 WEEKS
Hoving on then to item 9(A), the tourist agreement; the
procurement process with the Marco Island film festival. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Assistant county attorney Heidi Ashton
is here to present the item. We're both here for questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go into a great deal of
detail, just as I read through this, it seems like one of those items
where we have a legal staff and we depend on your expertise, and some
of the things seem like they should be your expertise. And we're
trusting you here, as opposed to coming back and asking us whether we
believe your expertise. It just seems like you're kind of --
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county
attorney. Good morning, Commissioners.
We brought this item back as a housekeeping item, and in order to
fully inform the board of an issue that was brought up by the clerk's
office.
This agreement -- this standard form agreement for this entity
was approved in November, and then the clerk -- as part of our
procedure in our office, we send letters to the clerk so that we're
making sure that the two entities are working together. And the clerk
raised the procurement policy as an issue. We wanted to make sure
that the board recognized the issue that was brought up. And we wanted
to have the board have the opportunity to discuss, if it desired, the
inclusion maybe for future contracts of a procurement policy.
The standard contract that we currently use was a contract that
was discussed and negotiated with various members of the county,
including the tourism industry, and we came up with something that we
thought was workable.
As far as procurement guidelines, the tourism industry preferred
to keep a procurement policy out of the contract and continue with the
way we have historically proceeded, by not including that and giving
them a little bit more authority. However, they discussed that even
though it wouldn't be required, that they would be receptive to
getting quotes for part of the record. So we came up with the current
contract that we have that does talk about the reasonableness of the
expenditure and gives the county an opportunity to object if it's not
reasonable.
So from our standpoint, from the county attorney's standpoint, we
were comfortable with the language. It did give the county some
protection, if there was an expenditure that was outrageous.
So we wanted to just bring this forward, give the board an
opportunity to discuss it, if you desired. Some counties, like Palm
Beach County, for example, they do have a procurement policy that they
include in their contracts. Contracts between 1,000 and $5,000
require three oral quotes. Just a matter of recordkeeping by the
grantees. Between five and $10,000, they're required to -- in each
case, they're required to make a reasonable effort. If they can't
obtain it, they can't obtain it. Between five and $10,000, three
written quotes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those policies are all readily
available, regardless of the contract, in the clerk's office or in our
purchasing office or somewhere? MS. ASHTON: Well, if --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume the policies are readily
available somewhere.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we make exceptions for -- you don't
have to go through -- abide by those policies under the current TDC.
MS. ASHTON: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then that troubles me. I don't understand
why that is. And I don't -- I wonder if this might be -- you know,
there's so many things that we all would like to do about TDC policies
and how many problems we've had. But for example, if we had a
procurement policy on the Indian epic drama, whatever you want to call
it, might we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The grand ripoff?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, the grand ripoff.
Might we have gotten some -- we would have gotten bids from
people for who should provide this secretarial service, and we would
have known that maybe the wife of the proponent was not the right
choice. You know, it seems to me procurement policies should be a
part of the TDC process and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I would like to change the policy so
that procurement policies are used in TDC's.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of thoughts. One, I'm
bringing forward a -- this is very important to this discussion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to be bringing forward a
suggestion that we alter the TDC format radically and that the
category C go away. Category B, they may be doing some things on
their own, taxing themselves or choosing whether or not to participate
in just having our tourist tax money collected for beach and pass
renourishment and let the rest -- private industry take care of
themselves.
And so a great deal of this may go away anyway, but I think we
need to be careful when you start micromanaging. You can make that
example of Rick Compton and him not keeping his word, but the point is
that the county can't procure -- if you're going to allow private
industry to come up and -- as I say, we may vote this out in a couple
of months anyway, but if you're going to allow private industry to
come forward with ideas on events or on how to do things, let private
industry do that. I think to try to plug in the public purchasing
policy -- we always say we'd like to run more like a business, but
certain laws prohibit us from doing that.
I think someone who is trying to create a brochure, trying to
create sales mechanisms, itws not going to be necessarily by the best
bidder, or itws not necessarily going to be -- you have to allow for
some creativity in there. And I think you may be -- while it may
solve that one problem, I donwt think thatws really a good example.
Because I think Mr. Compton, hels either kept his word or he didnlt.
But I think you may be creating yet another problem, micromanaging how
every individual thing works that way.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: But Tim, I think our problem -- and I
think your proposal sounds like it has a lot of merit, Iim interested
in hearing it. But until we get some -- until we make some kind of a
fundamental change, you know, that one example is only one. We had
the Marco sports festival where money was spent we didnlt like. I
mean, I think whatls wrong, whatls been wrong with category C events
is the lack of micromanaging when youlre spending public money.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, frankly, I think itls the lack
of sticking to our rules. We have certain things in place that the
moneyls eligible for, and itls not. And there have been about a dozen
times that welve just waived those rules and said well, it fits. And
thatls -- those are almost to the T. Those are the ones welve gotten
in trouble on. They didnlt meet the requirements in the first place.
But if the senior pro bowlers tour comes through town and the
folks that run the bowling alley say theylre going to operate that
tournament and they need X dollars to do it and Y for advertising and
Z for things going on at their facility, then I just think we need to
accept or reject that -- those number of dollars are appropriate for
that use. And if they get vendor A or vendor B to provide that
service for them, printing or doing other things, thatls really going
beyond what our business is.
Now, I happen to think we ought to do away with C altogether, but
until we do, I donlt think we should be micromanaging every single
expenditure, unless welre putting the event on ourself.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I just think we ought to make them comply
with procurement policies. So I mean, Iill stop debating, because I
donlt think welre changing each othersi minds. But I think that a lot
of the problems -- even when we have made mistakes about which events
we approved, a lot of those problems that resulted could have been
avoided if we had had more control over how the dollars were spent.
And I think we have that obligation when itls public money, whether
itls tourist tax or other tax. So I quit. Thatls my position.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Iim sticking to it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Another part of the reason that this
item was put on today -- and I think it is timely to have the
discussion today -- is that county attorney office and other offices
of the county had had the opportunity to speak relatively recently
with the Marco Film Festival representatives, two of which are here
today, although theylre not signed up to speak. And they had -- their
grant was approved November 14th of 1997, as well as some other grants
on that date, and I think subsequent to that date.
And it seemed appropriate to come to the board for some
direction, because they had had tendered to them and had executed on
their behalf the standard agreement which is the one that welve, you
know, had in place for a significant period of time. And it had come
back to the county, but we had waited for and received the helpful
comment from Jim Mitchell in that regard to the question of the
absence of procurement policy within these contracts.
And as noted in the February 9th memo he provided, which is a
part of this package, he indicated that with it or without it, they --
the clerk's office can perform its function. And I think it's very
important for us to know that, and we appreciate his comment there.
But in regard to the Marco Film Festival and other similarly
situated, based upon the fact that their events are very time critical
and the approval of the board -- this board in mid November, they had
gone forward and made certain commitments for services and other
directives which ultimately require a payment for services to be
provided.
And in our discussion with them, I thought it was very
interesting that they mention the kinds of things that they need to
target and work with for the expenditure of some of the grant money
that they receive has to do with very specific publications in the
advertising element, which is part of the milieu of TDC -- tourist
development tax funds -- expenditures anyway for Collier County.
And so, therefore, some of the expenditures that they need to
make, whether it's above or below a five thousand dollar or ten
thousand dollar threshold don't lend themselves with great ease to a
specific procurement policy, because they target and know specific
magazines that work for them to make the event successful. And if they
go out and got quotes from different kinds of magazines or different
kinds of other service providers or vendors in some circumstances
here, it would make it very difficult for them, not only in a timely
way but to target and be able to expend the way that they know as
specialists in their field to achieve the result that they want.
So we recognize that to have this discussion with the board that
for the success of the events, which is ultimately a very important
part of the expenditures of money in any event, we have to be careful
about stating that and adopting a policy of the board that a
procurement policy or the county's procurement policy per se shall be
applied here.
Now, what Palm Beach County has done is they have a procurement
policy that is unique to these kinds of contracts. It's still very
specific, and it's gradated. It goes from 5,000 below and then up to
10,000 and 10,000 and above. But it includes such other -- call them
micromanagement techniques -- of having the tourist development
council of Palm Beach County chairman involved in the selection and
approvals that are necessary. And it obviously is perhaps a bit of a
concept that isn't yet contemplated here in Collier County.
Our model follows Palm Beach County very closely, except for the
procurement policy respect. In other ways it follows, by the lack of
a specified procurement policy to the individual contract, the
Sarasota County model.
Now, neither of those models have been particularly problematical
for those counties, as far as we know, and so there is obviously an
element of choice that we can have that this board and the staff and
the grantees can get comfortable with.
I would suggest, though, that if there is a determination from
the board to -- for the staff to develop and provide some kind of
procurement policy in contracts, that it be -- that the staff develop
the procurement with the limitations or guidelines that you give us
today and bring that back for you as part of a standard contract
format briefly, but in the meantime, those grants that were approved
from November 14th up to today not be fettered because they're so far
into the process of getting ready for their events and expenditures
that have -- services have been requested that they have to pay for,
that they not have to go back, because they would have, I think, a
significant difficulty, if not inability to go and get three quotes
for services that they've already gotten in good faith.
So that's why it seemed like ultimately it was timely to bring it
before us today. This isn't a bad problem, but it's an opportunity to
make it better, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would -- I certainly wouldn't think we
should change rules midstream. We don't -- we haven't been imposing
procurement requirements, policy requirements, on the recipients of
tourist tax money. But I would hope that they're supporting the board
to at least ask staff to propose procurement policies specific to
tourist development grant projects, looking perhaps at the Palm Beach
model. But also just that we recognize that we've got to make some
change. I hear -- your point is valid that, you know, too much
government is a bad thing and it inhibits our ability to work well.
We certainly don't want to impose that on others. But some level of
review is appropriate for public money. And so maybe we could ask
staff just to develop something to recommend to us about a procurement
policy that would be incorporated into these contracts.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things I might ask is if
this passes, and I hope it doesn't, because it's not as though we have
no level of review right now. But if this passes, I would ask that
maybe we can have staff wait about five weeks. I've got whatever the
advertising requirement is before I bring my item. It may render all
of this moot anyway, and I'd hate to have them put in 15 hours of
staff time on something that's rendered moot in five weeks, so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make that a motion, by the way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the motion then?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is to not take any action today
and in anticipation of Commissioner Constantine's proposal to revamp
tourist development tax funds.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I guess the position we are about to
advertise for is an ad hoc member on category C funds to the Tourist
Development Council, we're now reversing that decision?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It looks like it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's don't --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Looks like we're going to discuss doing
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- prejudge that, because I'm not sure
what -- you know, what our decision is going to be about completely
revamping tourist development tax when it was voted on by the public.
And I'm sure you're going to take that into account and we're going to
hear something about that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My motion was not to revamp it, my motion
was to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm talking about Commissioner
Constantine's proposal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And I don't want to have that
debate today. That's not the item today. But I'm just saying it's
too bad to waste our time or waste staff's time or waste advertising
dollars looking for a person and waste Ms. Filson's time when it may
all -- and may --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- all be moot in five or six weeks.
So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll second the motion and then if
it is not moot in a few weeks, then we'll move forward with -- if
there's a majority -- your suggestions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just make a comment about this. I see
the two individuals, Maurey Dailey (phonetic) and Pat Berry (phonetic)
from Marco that came up, and they had come up to discuss this
particular issue. And I -- if I can clearly state this, correct me if
I'm wrong, they had a concern regarding verbal -- they had asked for
quotes, I guess, and they had received them verbally.
Their concern was that when the clerk would review this or
someone in the future, that there wouldn't be anything in writing, if
I understood you correctly. And this was a concern. Though right now
everything is understood and everything is done just fine, if somebody
in the future would go back and review this, and I think -- what's the
time frame, is it five years, three years? Three. MR. WEIGEL: I think it's three.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And if the people are different, if suddenly
someone would say to them, well, we don't see where you've gotten
three quotes here, you're going to have to repay this money. And so
this was one of the concerns that they raised with me.
And when they raised this concern with me, Mr. Weigel got a call
and said I think we need to take a look at this situation here.
Because it puts them -- it gives them concern -- they were obviously
concerned enough to ask about it and certainly didn't want to
jeopardize somewhere three years from now being questioned about how
did you spend this money and we don't see anything here in writing
where you received three quotes for whatever it was that you were
looking for.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's all --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's how this issue came about.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- I don't understand the staff
time necessary to take what Palm Beach has already done to say board,
is this the policy you want to have followed and we say yes. It's an
interim step. We don't have to amend the ordinance. We have made at
least an official statement that that is the policy that would be
followed. It can be attached to the ordinance.
And it -- you know, I agree with you up to the point that
Commissioner Berry expressed that the people who have received the
grant themselves are placed in jeopardy -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of repaying it. So I don't think it's
fair for us to put them in that position. So we need to do something
to formalize the policy to keep them out of hot water.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel had just said we were going
to waive it for the folks who are already well into the process
anyway. So I'm -- maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see
how passing something now is going to impact them if we're going to
waive that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would request that either with a motion or
kind of consensus from the board that for the benefit of the Marco
Film Festival people and those other grantee agreements that have gone
out, the standard agreements, in the meantime that the board might
affirm that those are the agreements that are appropriate. Because
we, you know, have not changed or infused a procurement policy
language into the agreements yet at this point in time. But I don't
-- I frankly don't think it's too time-consuming for us to provide a
pretty quick report or response back to you on some things that we
could include in specific agreements in the standard TDC agreements in
the future. But I think itws not advisable in an agreement to state
that the countyws procurement policy hereby applies, because then I
think it gets --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: -- very problematic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree with that, I think it's too much. I
think it's overkill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's too much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll amend my motion to reflect the
comments of Mr. Weigel relative to not having any future policy apply
to those contracts that are already -- been approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
further comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The motion then eliminates -- or postpones
the discussion about getting the staff to propose the Palm Beach
standards?
MR. WEIGEL: No, standards, not necessarily the Palm Beach
standards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, the Palm Beach kind of
procurement policy, the motion is not to do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff will be glad to provide that for you
if that's what you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, I don't want to read them, I want
to impose them.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is to take no action to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And also knowing that it's not going
to affect any previous people that have been involved in these
contracts. Okay, this is something strictly for the future.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the film festival people, their
exposure is reduced or is it untouched at this point? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Untouched.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Untouched, I would think.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't support it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't either.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to operate under their original
contract.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which leaves their flank exposed three
years from now --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: It was approved, it's just never --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't know if that's the case.
MS. ASHTON: Actually, the books and records are required to be
open for three years, but the actual repayment issue is only one year.
Under the current policy, I know staff was looking at amending the
standard contract to change that to three years, which that was
discussed with the Marco people.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, why would we put them in a
position of having to repay anyway because we didn't adopt a pol --
you know --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, actually, see, though, we do have a
policy. We do have a procurement policy, as slim as it is. It's in
there. It's in those rules. They have rules that they have to comply
with, and they have reporting requirements that they have to comply
with, and if they do everything properly, I don't think they have any
exposure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they're not adequate.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, depends on your position. Some
people say it is, some people say it isn't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I imagine -- I think the main concern, and I
think the concern of the Marco Film Festival was the idea that what
they have done, they have done correctly according to the current
contract.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They don't want us to change the rules
midstream.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, that's exactly right, that
when they get out here, they don't want to be recalled and say, you
know, you didn't do things right. And at that point it's --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I'm in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- not their fault. It's -- you know, it
probably would come back to us, if anything, and come back to the
contract. So if -- am I misstating that or -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you're absolutely correct. And it's my
understanding that the 11-14-97 approval of the grant also authorized
the chairman to sign the agreement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: Marco Film Festival was tendered and signed an
agreement that was the agreement contemplated at that time, it just
has not come back to the chairman for signature after it was received
by county.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the reason I'm not going to support
it is not because of that. It's because I wish that we would go ahead
and let staff begin the process of what they said would be a very
limited investment of their time to look at imposing -- or creating
standards similar to Palm Beach.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me do this then. I'll amend the
motion to direct the staff to do that with -- under the condition that
we don't discuss it separately before we discuss Commissioner
Constantine's new proposal.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's good.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second amend?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. It seems like a waste of time,
but sure.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It does, but --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it will make Commissioner Mac'Kie
happy, then --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that's a reason for living.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call -- and we have no speakers, I'll
call for the question. All in favor of the motion?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, Mr. Weigel, that was
a fairly limited amount of time, I thought you said. I'm trying to
remember exactly how you phrased that. I just -- I'd hate to think
that you'd go out and spend 20 hours on something that we may not even
have any need for.
MR. WEIGEL: We've looked at it sufficiently now that we can put
something together relatively quickly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm hungry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was just going to say, Commissioners, it's
Item #10A
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY SUB-COHMITTEE ON SHERIFF'S
OFFICE OVERTIME REPORT RECOHMENDATIONS RESULTING FORM THE FY 1997-98
BUDGET HEARINGS - REPORT PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- we have our productivity
committee folks here, and that's the one item left on --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know, I understand that. And how long do
you think this is -- how long do you think your presentation would be?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's Bob Laird giving the
presentation, so it will be quite a while.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we're going to go to lunch, Mr. Laird,
so it depends on how hungry you are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's do it before lunch.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will stay and allow you to do this so you
don't have to return this afternoon, if this is agreeable to you. MR. LAIRD: It's very agreeable.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, then we'll hear it now.
And as soon as this item is over, we will be going to lunch, so
if some of you want to get a jump at your favorite restaurant a little
quicker than others, you may do so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did note in Mr. Laird's executive
summary that it says he was volunteered to head the sub-committee when
he arrived slightly late for a meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just slightly.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's boo him.
MR. LAIRD: I have down good morning, but already that's
incorrect. But Madam Commis -- Madam Chairman and board, it's a
pleasure to be here. Bob Laird. And you already know the reason why
I'm here. And Commissioner Norris asked me that in the hall, and I
said because I was late for a meeting, all of a sudden, I was in
charge.
I'm representing the Collier County Government Productivity
Committee. During the September, 1997 public budget hearings, the
Board of County Commissioners requested that the Collier County
Government Productivity Committee review the sheriff's office overtime
hours. And like I said, I was volunteered to head this sub-committee.
I accepted the assignment on the condition that other committee
members would help. Now, not surprisingly, every committee member
offered to help. I think that certainly shows the enthusiasm and
dedication of the productivity committee. And yes, I took advantage
of their request -- or their help.
The productivity committee representatives performed a thorough
review of the sheriff's office overtime and focused specifically on
three areas responsible for the majority of overtime hours. These
areas were determined to be the judicial division that includes the
bailiffs' bureau. We have Ed Ott and Mario Delgado. Mario is here.
So if we have any real tough questions, we'll get Mario.
The telecommunications bureau investigated by John Stockton and
John Schoemer -- and John Stockton is here. Thank you, John.
And the corrections division, which include the jail and the
DRILL Academy. They were investigated by Carl Otto and Bill Neal.
Bill Neal is here. Stand up, Bill. Bill is the chairman and is just
recovering from heart surgery and it is certainly pleasant to have him
with us. And I've already told him if he will attend our meeting
tomorrow morning, we will not give him a bad time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, right.
MR. LAIRD: The overtime sub-committee held meetings with under
sheriff Bob Burhans, Captain Greg Smith, commander Scott Salley,
lieutenant Fred Schoenrock, telecommunications supervisor Stephanie
Bradley. Since then we have a new manager and that's lieutenant A1
Beatty. And it's a very positive move. Finance director Chris
Kinzel, and budget analyst Jean Myers.
Now, we have a write-up on each of those three areas. Do you
want to set a time -- I mean, do you want to ring the buzzer after
five minutes? That's okay with me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Start talking, Bob.
MR. LAIRD: Thank you.
The use of overtime is not unusual in most organizations. In some
cases it is a remedy in lieu of adding personnel and subsequently
increasing benefits. However, overtime use can be excessive, can
sometimes be attributed to inefficient staffing, mismanagement and/or
operational constraints.
The productivity committee reviewed overtime use of the sheriff's
office for the judicial law enforcement, including the
telecommunications bureau and corrections, including the DRILL Academy
divisions. These areas were the bailiff bureau, telecommunications,
dispatchers and the jail operations, including the DRILL Academy.
Numerous meetings were held and scheduled tours of the areas
selected for analysis. It's the productivity's opinion that overtime
use in the sheriff's office is not excessive. We have randomly
surveyed other counties, Sarasota and Lee counties, and found that the
other sheriff's offices have varied circumstances and operations that
may not relate to Collier County.
After review of the Collier County sheriff's overtime, we feel
that the judicial and law enforcement divisions are doing an excellent
job managing overtime use.
One area of concern is the corrections division. Corrections
division has shown an increase in overtime hours, the total hours
worked. This increase appears attributable to the following: The
jail frequently sees staff transfer to law enforcement division. It's
a natural career progression, but creates turnover in the jail. Sick
leave use in the corrections division is higher than most sheriff's
office divisions. This appears attributable to stress levels in
dealing with inmates, proposed work environment and inmate
overcrowding. The proposed jail expansion should help to reduce the
negative impact of these issues.
Overtime use for the DRILL Academy, while high, does not appear
excessive. Most of the overtime is mandated by the deputy to
candidate ratios and program requirements prescribed by the department
of juvenile justice. Incidentally, the DHA pays for approximately 75
percent of our DRILL Academy operation.
We made at least two visitations to the DRILL Academy -- Madam
Commissioner Berry attended one of them with us -- and we have
something to be proud of. The DRILL Academy has been chosen as number
one of the other eight drill academies and boot camps in the State of
Florida. Collier County DRILL Academy has also received inquiries and
visits from representatives from the states of Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Iowa and Canada. And the recidivism rate is certainly
the lowest of the state.
The productivity committeews review and summary of the four
percent level of overtime finds that the sheriffws office overview
level of overtime is not unreasonable.
Of the w97-w98 authorized budget -- I believe I have this correct
-- was 53,620 or 29, and our overtime, four percent, was two million,
one, which -- you know, most of the members of the DRILL Academy are
either owners of companies, have been owners of companies or have been
directing companies, and all of them will tell you they wish that
their company had been able to have as low an overtime as four
percent. So we think thatws certainly in our favor.
Unless you have some specific questions, Iwll be happy to stop
now.
CONNISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Laird?
MR. LAIRD: Yes, sir?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you help me understand how your
displays there relate to your presentation?
MR. LAIRD: I could make up something, since I've known all of
you Commissioners --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We know you're creative, Mr. Laird.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's all part of the grand UN conspiracy.
Just wrap it right in. It's all connected.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions? Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just looking at the numbers on --
and you referenced a four percent overtime?
MR. LAIRD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is that based on number of hours or
dollars?
MR. LAIRD: Dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because the number of hours is 6.1
percent --
MR. LAIRD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as I look at it.
MR. LAIRD: Okay. All right. Which is the true measure of
overtime. Is it dollars or number of hours, and is a 2.1 percent
difference significant?
Knowing how you Commissioners deal with budgets, I think we were
dealing with the four percent money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference is four percent of 20
million is a lot more acceptable than four percent of 53 million, but
I was just curious, when you went through and you looked at the other
-- you said you looked at Lee County and Sarasota? MR. LAIRD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you look at dollars or hours there?
MR. LAIRD: Okay, the difference there, the reason we didn't get
a good comp., they use comp. time --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LAIRD: -- instead of the overtime. And that sounds great,
but when I -- what little bit of checking I did on that is --
increases certainly liability in the long run. So is it good? I
don't know. I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The nature of overtime for particularly
road patrol, what did you find that to be? Did you go far -- were you
able to go far enough in detail to determine that, say, for road
patrol or the non jail deputies, the nature of overtime was? Was it,
you know, 10 percent or 20 percent spent in court, was there -- were
you able to go to a level of detail on that? MR. LAIRD: I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because let me express --
MR. LAIRD: I know what you're saying, Tim, but I don't think --
in these -- I do have these in --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I do.
MR. LAIRD: That will show the hours by fund, the hours analysis.
I don't know if that answered your question. If it doesn't, as I used
to say in the real estate business, if it's very important to you,
I'll get back to you on it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is my brother was a
deputy for 10 years in Hillsborough, and they had pay freezes every
year, and one thing that the sheriff did was he authorized increased
overtime on an annual basis as a way of supplanting their income.
So when we look at the nature of overtime, is it off-duty jobs,
is it filling a shift on patrol? It tends to help show, you know,
administratively how overtime is viewed from the sheriff's office.
that's the -- that's kind of a question that I had that I wasn't sure
if it was going to be covered here or not.
I can understand it's a tough question to get answered. And I'll
be talking to the sheriff later this year on those same things, but I
was just curious if in your course of looking at them and doing a
comparison, if anything of that nature cropped up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In regard to the drill camp, that -- the
reason for the overtime out there, as I recall, is just shortage of
manpower.
MR. LAIRD: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was the biggest problem. They do not
have enough people. And unfortunately the deputy that was killed on
the way back, he had served a double shift. And this was a big
problem that they have with the drill camp in terms of having enough
people to be able to service that drill camp. So that's where a lot
of the overtime is in that particular area. Now, I can't speak for
any of the rest of them, but that was a point when we were out there
that was made is the number of people. And they get into it, when
they receive a class in, the hours that they spend out there.
And many of you are well aware of that already, that the hours
they spend on the intake process, many of them are -- have very few
hours of sleep that particular night. That's just one night. But for
the most part, there's a lot of double shifting on that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. I was just curious about the
patrol side, if there -- if there's anything. But I can --
MR. LAIRD: Specifically on the patrol, I don't think we have '-
I'm looking through here, and I don't think we have that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. I was just curious. Thank
you.
MR. LAIRD: I will be happy to get it for you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll give you a call, Bob, because I'm
going to be meeting with the sheriff on budget items in the coming
month or so, and it may be just as easy for me to ask for that
information. But thank you.
MR. LAIRD: We had, of course, a large problem in the
telecommunications bureau. We all know about that. The -- it's a
very stressful job. And they were above average. I think we're about
42 percent, and the state average is like 38 percent. But I think the
-- if you have met Lieutenant Beatty, I think this should aid most of
our problems there. He's great, and I think he'll do a great job.
Gentlemen, do you have anything to add to that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Come to the podium, please.
MR. LAIRD: Come right up here. Now, you will have to stay a
little while now, we have Mario here. I'll have to explain that to
you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll get the hook if it gets to be too long,
Mario.
MR. DELGADO: I just want to reinforce what --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please identify yourself.
MR. DELGADO: Mario Delgado, for the record.
The bailiff -- I looked at the bailiffs, and the situation with
the bailiffs is understaffed. Under the minimum conditions, they are
about approximately 320 hours short month -- every month. Under ideal
coverage, they are about nine bailiff short, the ideal situation. Of
course, I took those figures from the standards determined by the
sheriff's office, by the lieutenant in charge of the bailiffs. So
that in itself is part of it.
The only thing that it might have been a chance and connected to
Commissioner Hancock's question on the bailiffs, the coverage of the
other duties. The bailiffs rotate with law enforcement. And there is
apparently -- and the figures that I got, apparently they do that
mostly on an overtime basis from the bailiffs' side. And this
coverage the only way, too. From the law enforcement, they cover the
bailiff. So there is understaff. But above all, it's understaffed.
MR. LAIRD: Thank you.
We visited all of the courts. We visited Judge Blackwell's
court, and he happens to be a good friend of mine, and I met with him
later. He wanted to know what we were doing. And he made a
suggestion. And I pass this along to the sheriff and to the
lieutenant that was in charge of the bailiffs. And the Judge
suggested a civilian training program to help some of the overtime
problems.
Now, I know and he knows it can't be for his court because of the
trials that he has. That's mandated, he must have three bailiffs and
they must have side arms. But that's certainly a possibility. Both
Judge Wilson and Judge Turner called me and wanted to know what we
were doing. And they said if they could help in any way, they'd be
happy to do it. But that's the kind of response we got anyplace we
had attended.
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have one speaker behind you, Bob.
MR. LAIRD: Oh. Yes, sir.
MR. STOCKTON: For the record, John Stockton, productivity
committee.
I did some work in communications center, and I just wanted to
comment on the fact that in the operation such as that where you have
a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day operation, you almost have a
built-in overtime requirement because you have sick leave, vacation,
personal days off and so forth, and this is usually budgeted.
But in this case that -- it is a very stressful job. It's what
they call a dark environment. They sort of sit in semi darkness. And
I might point out that the calls that come through can be -- the 9-1-1
calls, which by the way are the only ones that are shown on those
charts and graphs. And those calls can range from my cat is up in a
tree, I'm having a baby, I'm -- my -- I'm being beat up. Someone is
being held hostage. I was there while there was a hostage case going
on, and everybody starts running around.
The operators have to be part psychologists, medical operators
and so forth. They have to know the dispatchers. It's a tremendous
strain. They eat at their desk. They don't supply Port-a-Johns or
anything like that, but they're in and out. And I think they're doing
all kinds of things that help us hard to get. They look at training
exercises, they work with Edison Community, International College,
Vo-Tech, trying to get training for these people. It's a specialized
type of job.
I think they're doing a great job. The sheriff's office, it's
not a Lee County situation, they do the best they can with what they
have. And they keep trying. And I think we should be very proud of
the crew we have there. But it's a bad job. Hard people -- it's hard
to get, hard to keep. But they're doing their best. And I think on a
follow up, they just went to a 10-hour four-day week -- did I say it
right, ten hours, four-day-a-week session, and they are hopeful,
they're optimistic, that this may help them reducing this extra time
that's been taken.
I didn't mean to take so much of your time, I know we're all
hungry, but I felt it was important to get that across. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. LAIRD: Thank you, John. The charts he talked about were not
in your -- and I don't know why -- summary. We should get those. And
my comment, I'm going to ask our chairman to wind up, but we were so
happy to have Commissioner Mac'Kie with us, and we missed -- excuse
me, Chairman -- no, Madam Chairman Berry, we miss her also very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My God, Bill Hartzler (phonetic), he
turned your hair white.
MR. NEAL: I'm Bill Neal. Yeah, that's the same guy, Tim. It's
real, too.
I'm Bill Neal. I'm going to get us out of here. Let me sum it
up real quickly. The Sheriff's Department was very receptive to the
productivity committee, and we worked a lot of hours with them.
I know the million dollars sounds like a lot of overtime. The
thing -- and Tim, we did look -- Commissioner Hancock, we did look at
both hours and dollars in our study. We looked at both of those.
The important thing I think that we should pass on to you -- and
we recommend to the Sheriff's Department and county administrator
might want to think of the same thing. There is a point in staffing
and manning the organizations where overtime is too expensive and
adding people is the right answer. So I encourage all of us to take a
look at a point in running our organizations or our staff where we
have a rule of thumb or guideline that says if you're working X number
of hours of overtime, perhaps you should look at adding people.
Because it becomes more economical that way, or less economical by
having overtime because of the fringe benefits.
So having said that, that's sort of the summary that we should
look, not so much at that million dollars, we should look at each
department and have them set up guidelines as when overtime is more
economical or hiring people is more economical.
And thank you for letting us have the opportunity to work with
you again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Bill.
MR. LAIRD: I didn't think I'd ever say it, but I'm certainly
happy to have him back.
MR. NEAL: It's nice to be vertical rather than horizontal.
MR. LAIRD: Thank you-all very much. It's a --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you all for your work.
MR. LAIRD: It's a pleasure dealing with you, meeting with you.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We appreciate all your efforts and
continued efforts in many of the areas I know that you're pursuing at
this time as well. So Bill, stay vertical and keep on trucking.
Anyway, I'll --
MR. LAIRD: I'm going to be on time for any meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll recess the meeting now until
approximately 20 minutes to 2:00.
(Recess was taken.)
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 98-26 RE PETITION CP-97-02, JIM COLOSIMO, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREAMASTER PLAN BY ADDING A NEW
DRISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PINE RIDGE ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT LOCATED
WEST OF NAPLES GATEWAY PUD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD -
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to reconvene the afternoon
portion of our agenda. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Item
12(A)(1) happens to do with the request for an amendment to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan by adding a new district to be known as the Pine
Ridge Road Mixed Use District. Ms. Layne?
MS. LAYNE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Lee Layne, for the
record.
This is a petition that you had previously heard back in November
for the transmittal hearing. It involves three tracts lying west of
Gateway PUD and is 12.79 acres in size. The eastern 2.59 acres is
wetlands and will be left in its natural state with C1/T office uses
with a max of 35,000 square feet on the eastern portion of the site
and conditional uses on the entire site.
We received the ORC report from DCA, and their main objection is
related to not listing the types of conditional uses, the intensity of
those uses and not providing for the protection of the wetlands.
As you can see on Page 2 of your executive summary, those areas
that are double underlined are what we have added to satisfy DCA's
objections. We added a floor area ratio for the conditional uses, we
listed all those types of conditional uses that could be allowed, and
then we put a stipulation that the eastern 2.59 acres shall be
preserved as wetlands, no development shall occur.
The Planning Commission heard this petition on March 19th and
unanimously recommended approval.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Just for the public benefit, Lee,
could you give a little better description of where this is located,
just for those people that might be looking at us at home.
MS. LAYNE: This is the Golden Gate -- this is the Golden Gate
Area Future Land Use Map. The property in question is very small.
This is the 1-75/Pine Ridge activity center. This is the northeast
quadrant where the Vineyards PUD is and their little shopping center
there with Publix, and I believe Cleveland Clinic is going in over
there. The west side you have several PUDs that have been approved,
none have been developed yet. The property in question is one lot
east of Livingston Road. It's those three lots between Mr. Grant's
house and the activity center on the north side of Pine Ridge.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Questions?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Not from staff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyone have any questions for Ms. Layne?
No questions?
Do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers on this item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a question of the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, first I -- go ahead. Nothing? Go
ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property owner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all he wanted, just to know who you
were.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why put this in the Golden Gate Master
Plan, why not just make the change on the property itself?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it is already in the Golden Gate Master
Plan, and it's staying there. We're just putting a new designation on
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That isn't currently allowed in the
Golden Gate Master Plan.
MR. ANDERSON: On this property, correct. Correct. If this same
property were located in the urban area, this amendment -- and this
property is right next to the urban area, but if it were in the urban
area instead of estates, this amendment would not be necessary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you have any objection to taking
social and fraternal organizations out?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I probably -- probably not, no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to, you know, bring up any
color concrete issues at this point, but do you find it odd, Mr.
Anderson, that the state would, for some reason, want to dictate
specific uses to a county; does that strike you as off or unusual, in
your experience as a land use attorney, of course?
MR. ANDERSON: I find it odd and unusual and heavy-handed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Egregious.
MR. ANDERSON: They -- the property owner has gone along with the
ORC report that was submitted by the Department of Community Affairs.
However -- and let me disassociate my client from this statement -- I
think this is a perfect example of the state trying to turn the
comprehensive plan into nothing more than a zoning ordinance with all
the specificity that they have asked for in there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And we need -- we all need to be aware of that, on
our comp. plan amendments, that they are going to try to do that, and
try to avoid it whenever possible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I asked that -- well,
obviously Mr. Anderson has a lot of experience in the land use side,
but also we may see an opportunity to decentralize DCA in the future,
and I think this is a perfect example of why Tallahassee control over
local land use matters makes absolutely no sense. This is ridiculous
we have to go into this level of detail. That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do you feel about --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll open up my feelings a little later,
and we'll explore those. Close quote, please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
We have no speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item without
social and fraternal organizations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Did --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding. That really was not a call
for the question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do those practice votes more often.
It's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She was just trying to see where everybody
was falling before she voted.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I heard the microphone and -- right.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 98-27 RE PETITION PUD-92-5(2) MARK W. MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR
& ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON OF
STERLING OAKS, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STERLING OAKS PUD WHICH
IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE LEE COUNTY LINE BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND OLD 41 -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then to Item
12(B)(2), regarding the requesting an amendment to the Sterling Oaks
PUD, Ordinance 92-79.
All people that are wishing to speak to this, would you be sworn
in, please.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any commissioners that have
anything to disclose on this item? Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for interest purposes, I can't
imagine that there's anything that needs to be changed in the PUD
because it was the very last one that I did when I used to get to do
these for a living. But I haven't represented this client for years
and years, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosures.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And have had no -- sorry. And the more
important disclosure I forgot to make and that was that I haven't had
any conversations with anyone about it before the meeting. I apologize.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No disclosure?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with the petitioner on this, and
just simply asked that they contact the homeowners that would be
affected by this internal change to determine if there was any
complaints regarding the change. That's the extent of my contact, and
I'm sure Mr. Nino and the petitioner -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Nino.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- will let us know what happened.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino, your Planning Services Department.
The petition that's before you asks that you amend the
development -- the table of regulations within the Sterling Oaks PUD
which is located between U.S. 41 and old 41, just south of the Lee
County border.
As I've indicated in the past, we have a number of petitions
where the development regulations are kind of unclear causing a
considerable administrative burden on the part of people who issue
permits. And, quite frankly, this amendment was in part initiated by
staff, encouraged by staff.
This amendment, I think, clearly spells out that we want to
establish the relationship between single family residences and zero
lot configurations as either five or zero feet, and that was not
adequately described in the table of regulations.
And another amendment that was initiated by the developer, which
is to allow a swimming pool enclosure, or screened-in enclosure
accessory structures to go out to the long side of the corner lot
properties, and that regulation would only apply to undeveloped tracts
within the Sterling Oaks PUD.
There were no objections to this petition. The Planning
Commission unanimously endorsed it, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You already answered one of my questions,
you have received no objections from -- MR. NINO: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second one is, I had talked to the
petitioner about sufficiently narrowing the application, and you said
only to undeveloped tracts. MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought there were some that had been
started, that there was a lot or two in question within those.
MR. NINO: I believe that was the zero --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, zero lot line.
MR. NINO: -- to five foot situation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: That applies to all of the development, and in fact is
consistent with what we've been interpreting the regulations. But
they've always been unclear precipitating questions of the planner by
the people who issue permits.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's sufficiently narrow enough in your
opinion not to cause an area that's been developed to make additions
or changes that are not compatible?
MR. NINO: Definitely.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my concern. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
Any other questions?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Would you mind closing the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd be more than happy -- do we have any
speakers?
No speakers? I will close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve
PUD-92-5, patens 2.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Could you say that again?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're loving it, aren't you?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12B6
ORDINANCE 98-28 RE PETITION PUD-87-13(3) REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD,
GADALETA DEVELOPMENT - HAVING THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE GADALETA PUD
IN RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED
Moving on then to an addition, 12(B)(6), Petition Number PUD
87-3, parentheses, 3, fezone of the Gadaleta development.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would any of the board members mind if we
continued this for a couple weeks?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The perpetual continuation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think Mr. Ferguson may mind a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We probably need to do a disclosure on
this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. First off we need to swear everyone in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All interested individuals wishing to speak
on this topic please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
Any disclosure from commissioners? I think we've all --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've met with Mr. Ferguson on this matter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have spoken with Mr. Ferguson on this
matter, but I will base my decision on what we hear in this hearing
today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have spoken with him likewise and I will
base my decision according to law. Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino, Planning Services Department.
The Gadaleta PUD is a PUD that came to you under the Sunset
Provisions. We talked about it at some length. We indicated to you
that, insofar as the normal boiler plate issues are concerned, and the
responsiveness to requested staff stipulations, this PUD is responsive
to our normal requirements. The only issue that remained outstanding
was for this board to decide how many dwelling units you were going to
allow in this PUD. As I understand it, you've already agreed that the
C1 commercial ought to be retained and they ought to be allowed to
have a driving range there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In addition to the C27
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With that the driving range is one of the
C2 uses, is the way I remember it.
MR. NINO: No, the C2 -- no. The driving range is -- because
the driving range covers the entirety of the property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. It would just be allowed as a use
and, should the driving range be terminated, they are left with two
acres of C2 and the balance with a residential density that we were
discussing. That's my recollection.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. NINO: I would be happy to answer any questions. There's
nothing more.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Nino?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ferguson.
MR. FERGUSON: Good afternoon Mrs. Chairwoman, board. For the
record, my name is Tim Ferguson, representing the Gadaleta PUD. I'll
try to make this as easy as possible. I just want to make sure that
all of the things that were moved into the record from the previous
hearings are moved into this record.
Staff says that eighty-eight units and two acres of commercial
are compatible as surrounding area. If you'll look at your maps it
indicates that you have quite a bit of density around the Gadaleta
PUD. The average is about 7.5. We heard some numbers. We've got to
make sure we all understand that that turning lane was developed for
the project after it was built out. The turning -- the driving range
itself never needed a turning lane a half a mile long, so there was
some discussion that, you know, what have you done for the rest of
property without the turning lane?
A couple acres of Xeric Scrub's been dedicated, or will be
dedicated, according to the PUD. We've already dedicated road
widening. We've dedicated stormwater easements. No one's ever
objected to staff. Staff says eighty-three units with the surrounding
density at about 7.5 units an acre. We went home and we sharpened our
pencils and we decided, now, what exactly can we live with? And if we
-- if this board would see it in their graces to allow us to have
seventy-seven units in this property, that would be a gross density of
4.45 units. That's a forty percent reduction in the density of the
surrounding area, and that's what I think this board wants, a
reduction in existing densities, and that's what we're here to, to
offer the board. And --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ferguson and I talked last week,
and they had been looking originally at eighty-eight, and we had -- or
more than that originally -- but they had agreed at eighty-eight. We
talked about sixty-six, seventy-seven was halfway in between, still
gives us a decrease, gets it down to four, four or five. Is that right?
MR. FERGUSON: 4.45, with the density.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And allows them a reasonable rational
usage consistent with what's surrounding. That seemed to be a fair
offer.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're committing on the record today, Mr.
Ferguson, that seventy-seven is acceptable to you and your petitioner?
MR. FERGUSON: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
Close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ferguson is the only registered speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
If there is no further question, do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item with a
quantity of seventy-seven units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, 4.45 per acre.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Did you second it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I did.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further
questions or discussion?
If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No reseponse)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #12C1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-18 WHICH CREATED THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - CONTINUED FOR FIVE WEEKS
Item 8(C)(1), recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending
ordinance 92-18 which created the Tourist Development Council.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we roll that in with Commissioner
Norris' earlier motion to continue until we get Mr. Constantine's
proposal back?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Obviously this was something I
proposed, and I would like to see it happen, but I'm not going to go
through the process of trying to drag somebody on if the majority of
the board wants to just eliminate the funding all together.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Continue it until we decide if we're going
to have a Category C.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as I can be assured that the time
frame is solid, that we're not going to -- that this isn't going to
drag on so that we can have the discussion. If the board's willing
then to add this item on, should it be necessary, immediately
following that hearing, then I would -- then that's okay with me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to continue this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought Mr. Weigel might have a comment
on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Just to remind us all that, if we continue it
indefinitely, we will need to re-advertise. Nothing more than that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How long can we go without re-advertising?
MR. WEIGEL: We can go to five weeks from the initial
advertisement date.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have been promised that we would have
this discussion in less than five weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if we -- I think we were
promised that we will, in the minimal advertising requirement, if
possible. I don't know if that's five weeks but it should be within
five or six weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask that we continue --
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: We can read the record back and see the
number 5 in it, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The number 5 is mentioned in
there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to continue the item
for five weeks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to continue
this item for five weeks. If there's no further discussion, all in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 98-29 AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-82 WHICH CREATED THE BAYSHORE
AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED
12(C)(2), recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending
Ordinance 97-82, which was the Bayshore Avalon Beautification
Municipal Service Taxing Unit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we do things as quickly as we did
move on this one to try to get it in before the end of the year,
there's going to be mistakes. This was just a mistake in the legal
description.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Shouldn't we be closing these public
hearings?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will if -- you-all are jumping to the --
okay.
We will close the public hearing. Do we have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- any speakers on this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this the --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion to approve and a second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does this still allow everything to go
ahead as we had hoped?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're still confident you have the
community support, everything you've been working with?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've had two MSU board meetings so far
and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got it right this time?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. It's all going well. Going to have
lots to report soon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Okay.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 98-100 RE PETITION SNR-97-12, BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC.,
REPRESENTING BILL SPINELLI OF TITAN HOMES, REQUESTING A STREET NAME
CHANGE FOR THE NORTHEASTERN MOST PORTION OF BRIARWOOD BOULEVARD TO
TERRAZZO COURT, LOCATED IN BRIARWOOD, UNIT FIVE - ADOPTED
12(C)(3), Petition SNR-97-12, Butler Engineering representing
Bill Spinelli of Titan Homes requesting a street name change for
the northeasternmost portion of Briarwood Boulevard to be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- known as Terrazzo Court.
Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'll defer to Commissioner
Constantine. He had a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. I'm looking at the map here
and it shows Briarwood Boulevard and what appears to be kind of a
rounded cul de sac area, and then it takes a button-hook down and then
it's still Briarwood and they are suggesting that that little
button-hook area would become something else. It appears from this
map that Briarwood Boulevard, on the top half, continues in an
easterly direction. Is that accurate or does that dead-end right
there, or is that a round cul de sac right there or --
MR. NINO: No. It's a dead-end because there's -- that's not
part of Maplewood, and -- but it's intended that, should that property
be developed, that street would then provide an interconnect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So a future interconnect would logically
still be called Briarwood Boulevard MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why would anyone want to name their street
after a floor?
MR. NINO: After a --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Terrazzo.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Anyway --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's actually Bill's wife's maiden
name.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Briarwood, floor? Forget it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone live on the street right now?
MR. NINO: Yes. Let's see. Of the thirty-seven platted
residential lots in question, Briarwood owned twenty-eight, the
remaining, there are nine owned that -- that doesn't say -- well,
proposals have been received -- no objection has been received from
six of the nine homeowners, so I assume there's nine homeowners.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that mean there is an objection
from the other three?
MR. NINO: There is no objection. Other than by three people,
Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion.
Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
street name change.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, this next item is just a
sorivener's error.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not a need for an extensive
presentation. Of course -- is that one continued? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We moved -- no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I won't -- I won't make a
motion on it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think you should.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I won't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably not.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 98-101 RE PETITION CU-97-26 TERRANCE KEPPLE REPRESENTING
JOHNATHAN BURT REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USES
19, 20 AND 23 TO ALLOW A SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL AND CAMP/SPORTING
AND RECREATIONAL CAMPS/CULTURAL, EDUCATION OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IN AN AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL/SPECIAL TREATMENT DISTRICT OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE
ROAD WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll move on then to Item 13(A)(1),
Petition Number CU-97-26. This is a request requesting a conditional
use approval for conditional uses 19, 20 and 23 to allow a sports
instructional school and a camp, dash, sporting and recreational camp,
slash, cultural, educational or recreational facilities, in an
agricultural and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Slash.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- agricultural/special treatment diverse
district --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Slash.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All persons
wishing to speak to this issue please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Disclosures on this particular item?
Commissioner Mac'kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have none.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ahh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know how you're going to get
that, "Ahh."
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, Planning Services
Department.
The applicant is applying for conditional use approval in an
agricultural zoning district in order to construct a sports
instructional school and camp on a five-acre parcel of land. The site
is located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road and it's just west of
its intersection with Livingston Road. The school primarily will
operate to teach classes or aerobics, yoga, various types of indoor
recreational, lawn bowling and croquet. The applicant does plan a
phased development of the project. Initially classes will be taught
in a single 5 to 10,000 square foot building. And then future phases
include the addition of two structures for a total of three structures
and a total building square footage of 38,000 square feet. The
applicant is also proposing to add at a later phase, to construct
three cabin buildings which would be used to house camp participants
and out of town instructors.
Access to the site is planned via a driveway entrance off of Pine
Ridge Road. The site plan also proposes an interconnect at the
northeastern boundary of the site at the end of the parking lot with
one of The Community School's parking lots.
The conceptual site plan shows future access drives, parking lots
and structures are to be located primarily on the eastern two-thirds
of the site, and this proposed lay-out is sensitive to the western
portion of the site which is comprised of jurisdictional wetlands and
has an ST overlay district.
Staff analysis revealed that the proposed uses would be
compatible to the neighboring uses and in fact the surrounding land
uses are very similar and may be even more intense in nature than the
proposed use. To the north we have The Community School, to the
south we have the Pine Ridge Road right-of-way, to the west is The
Progressive Gymnastics School, and to the east is Pine Ridge Nursery.
Upon further analysis staff did find that the subject petition is
consistent with all the applicable elements of the growth management
plan. The Collier County Planning Commission approved a motion to
forward a recommendation of approval to the BZA for the requested
conditional use, subject to the stipulations found in the resolution
of adoption.
And I would call your attention to two of those stipulations that
might be of interest to you, the first being that the buildings will
be required to comply with architectural and site design guidelines of
the LDC, and the second relates to the cabin structures I mentioned,
that the proposed cabin shall not be made available for any type of
continuous rental through any type of lease agreement or other legal
documents which sanction or authorize or approve rental or occupancy
of the dwelling units.
Terry Kepple is here as the applicant's representative, and if I
can answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions?
Commissioner Mac'kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just out of curiosity more than anything
else, who is the clientele; is this kids or adults, or do we know; is
this going to be in conjunction with The Community School and The
Progressive Gymnastics in any way or is it entirely separate? Do you
know any of that or should I save it for --
MS. HURRAY: Probably the petitioner would be better to answer
that. It's my understanding it's going to be directed both at adults
and children.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the only other comment is, we often
say, "Great tie," that is a great dress. Okay. Nevermind.
MS. HURRAY: Thank you. It's my Easter special.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like it.
That's it. I can save it for --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We want Mr. Kepple to get up here and
explain himself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one of my fantasy camps,
basketball.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. What is this?
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. For the record, Terrance Kepple
representing the petitioner.
To answer your question, in general, it would be directed towards
children's instruction but there will be classes for adults also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is the market; I mean, is it Community
School in conjunction with --
MR. KEPPLE: Not necessarily. They would like to possibly talk
to Community School. They have not done that at this time, as I am
aware, to offer some classes for them, or maybe some afterschool
instructional classes, that type of thing, but not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this going to be more day care?
MR. KEPPLE: It's open to the public. It's not day care, no.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not day care. Is it afterschool
care?
MR. KEPPLE: It's not care, it's instructional in various
recreational activities, whether it be yoga, karate, aerobics.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A general use facility.
MR. KEPPLE: A general use facility, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which all sounds great but, you know, what
aged kids do aerobics or yoga or lawn bowling or --
MR. KEPPLE: The lawn bowling and the croquet would be directed
towards the parents dropping their children off.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a problem with croquet,
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't want the National Croquet
Association on your back, trust me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm willing to take a stand on
this one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a major croquet lobby in this
county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just can't picture it. I'd like to just
have some picture in my mind of what it is we're approving, and I have
trouble with this.
MR. KEPPLE: I've got some preliminary architectural plans that
are real rough but might give you a better overview of what's going
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kepple, if you show those to her, you
have to leave them here for the record.
MR. KEPPLE: They are yours, if you would like them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I wanted to make sure --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie, what I pictured when
I read this was, remember when you were a kid in the summertime you
went down to the school cafeteria or gymnasium and they had a hundred
different things going on?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this the YHCA?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I don't. Our school was too
small to have either a cafeteria or a gymnasium.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You had schools in Oklahoma?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're from Oklahoma. There were no
schools.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it a little YHCA?
MR. KEPPLE: I would not call it a little YHCA, but some of the
types of classes that the Y offers could be offered here. You know,
the Y has aerobics classes, things of that nature. They could be
offered.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's close this meeting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm ready to vote on it. It's not really
__
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, there's basically going to be --
at this time there's three studios planned with area for change rooms
and things of that nature, an up-scale type development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like an extremely appropriate
use of the land to me.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It does. And I'll talk to you more about
it later if I want to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of what age it is.
MR. KEPPLE: A little bit of everything is what it's planned for,
with some major directions as their plans formalize a little more.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could I ask, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do have a, kind of a -- I think the
county owns that campground, Tom, that the Girl Scouts meet at down --
off Wiggins Pass Road. Is that county or private owned? MR. OLLIFF: Private.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's at the end of a neighborhood
street and people will park along the street and whatnot. Is this --
would the cabins that you're having support the, say, if the Girl
Scouts or the Boy Scouts wanted to have a weekend retreat --
MR. KEPPLE: The cabins are intended in case there is an
instructor coming from out of town for a weekend or a week --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay.
MR. KEPPLE: -- or maybe they have a special event, they -- maybe
somebody comes in from out of the country to come in for a week to
take a class, or should they have a special event. It would be
intended for that. Right now the cabins are not high on the priority
list. They are there because maybe they might need them in the
future, and then come back before the board. We're asking for them at
this time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ha'am Chairman, if we grill Mr. Kepple any
further we're going to have to slather him with barbecue sauce, so can
we close the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close it. There no speakers? I'll
close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second it, despite the slather
comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for approval of
Petition CU-97-26.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Kepple and Hiss Hurray.
MS. HURRAY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can tell when John goes to Hichelbob's
for lunch.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Staff Communications.
Do we have any?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No communications?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No communications.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Have the record note that our administrator
doesn't want to talk to us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And how much we appreciate that, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you please close this meeting?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'kie, any comments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING UPDATE ON SENTATE BILL REGARDING EHINENT DOMAIN
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick update. The Senate bill on eminent
domain is being heard today. They did schedule a house transportation
committee special meeting for this Thursday. So the eminent domain
bill is not dead. It may very well be alive as we speak. So we'll be
monitoring that and I'll report back on Tuesday, where we are on it.
They wanted me to come up today but I thought we had a few issues
that were a little too important to miss today's meeting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good choice.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good choice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What time does your plane go?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there are no further comments, Miss
Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have nothing to add.
I think it's time we went home.
Heeting is adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 98-99, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAJESTIC
PINES"
Item #16A2
PERFORMANCE AGREEHENT FOR A SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLAR ($60,000) RENTAL
REHABILITATION LOAN TO COHMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP OF COLLIER COUNTY,
INC.
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE V GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE INTEGRATIVE
CORRECTIONS STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PROJECT NO. 80003 - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $420.00
Item #1682
SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO TERM EXPIRATION DATES FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS' APPOINTEES TO THE BEACH RENOURISHHENT/HAINTENANCE
COHMITTEE
Item #1683
AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS TO COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PERFORM THE THIRD YEAR OF POST-CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION
PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $303,000.00
Item #1684
FACILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAUREEN MORAN, INC., JOHNSON ENTERPRISES,
LTD., AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS DEALING WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF A SEWER FORCE MAIN FROM THE BARGE MARINA
Item #16C1
BID #98-2270 FOR TROPHIES, AWARDS, AND PLAQUES - AWARDED TO U.S.I.
SPORTING GOODS, INC. AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR, AND UTILIZE GOLDEN GATE
TROPHY AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR
Item #16C2
CLAM PASS CONCESSION AGREEMENT - AWARDED TO ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS
OF THE REGISTRY HOTEL AT PELICAN BAY, INC.
Item #16D1
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF MARCH 21, 1998
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-194
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:23 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 SERVICE BY:
CHERIE LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
ELIZABETH H. BROOKS, RPR