BCC Minutes 03/24/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 24, 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
Tuesday, March 24th, board meeting of the Collier County
Commissioners.
If you would rise for the invocation by Pastor Michael Valentine
of the Gulf Shore Community Church. Remain standing for the
invocation.
MR. VALENTINE: Shall we pray. Our most gracious God and
heavenly Father, we thank you for the beauty of this day that you have
given us. We thank you for the privilege of living in Collier County.
We pray that you would be with our Board of County Commissioners this
morning as they decide on issues that will affect each and every one
of our lives.
Father, we pray that as we the public gather together also, that
wisdom from above would prevail in this meeting. We commit the
commissioners, we commit the public into your hands, for we come
before you in your most holy name. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Pastor Valentine.
I'd like to remind some of you who may -- this may be your first
time at the commission in awhile -- or maybe first time ever -- if
there's an item that you wish to speak to, I would ask that you
register to speak to that item before it is heard. In other words, if
you have -- if you're sitting here right now and there -- you know
that there's an item that you would wish to speak to, please go ahead
and fill out the form to speak and hand it over here to our county
administrator, Mr. Fernandez.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, I do. Good morning. The first is to
add item 10-D. This is additional appointments to the ADG, requested
by Commissioner Berry.
The next is to move item 16-A-3 to 8-A-1. This is a resolution
authorizing the county administrator to apply for the $750,000
economic development grant. DCA. This is staff request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What were we doing with that item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We're moving it from consent to regular.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To regular.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to withdraw item 16-A-4, final
acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for
final plat of Sapphire Lakes, unit one. Staff request.
A couple of notes. Item 12-C-2 should be heard before item
12-C-1. This is regarding privatization of roads within the Foxfire
subdivision. One really should supersede the other, because the other
is rendered moot, but the first one is not moot.
And then also under staff communications, I will be asking Mr.
Leo Ochs to present the allegations of the Isle of Capri board
members' request from last week's board meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You've heard the changes. Any changes,
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have just one. I need to abstain from
voting on 16-B-5, because I represent the Naples Players.
And I have an odd question for Mr. Weigel about -- actually, I
just want to make the record clear. The Foxfire road closure item
that we have on today's agenda, I was one of the attorneys in 1989 who
represented Foxfire in seeking -- and actually, we got approved for
the closure, and then the board reconsidered it. I mean for -- year,
for close -- privatizing the road and then reconsidered it and left
them where they are today.
I haven't had any association representing them since that time.
And actually, it was my former law firm. And I want to disclose that,
just so everybody knows where I was then, and be sure that I don't
have a conflict today as far as voting on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I am pleased to be able to comment on
that.
No, I would say that you have no conflict with your participation
with the Board of County Commissioners on today's item.
The only thought that you may have yourself is in regard to your
prior representation with the association if you are privy to
information or have confidences which might be violated in some way
with the association, but not -- no issue of conflict whatsoever with
the commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought about that as far as my
attorney/client privileges issues. And frankly, everything that I
learned then was what was presented in the public hearing at the time,
so I don't think I have any attorney/client privilege issues, and I
appreciate you clarifying that I don't have any conflict issues on the
board.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that all, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things. First is, I'd like to add
under Board of Commissioners a brief discussion item on trying to
resolve the issue of sheriffs' vehicles parking in public spaces.
We've tried this administratively through letters and have been
unsuccessful, so we need to develop a different tack.
I came in this morning to see almost a full room today. The
entire first two rows, half of them are sheriffs' cars. I mean, those
spaces clearly say public only on them. So we need to find a way to
either send a message or create some enforcement for our parking
rangers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ticket them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To ticket them -- no. But those spaces
are set aside for the public, and we need to send a stronger message
than what we have in the past.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So that's going to be 10-E, Tim?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
You know, my concern is the word's just not getting down over
there, but we need to make sure it does. And if it takes a public
hearing item to do it, then so be it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second item is similar to Commissioner
Mac'Kie. In my past life as a consultant, I represented Foxfire, but
it was on a rezoning petition for the new nine holes. It did not deal
with the -- with any privatization issue, but I felt the need to
disclose that.
And again, I've read the law and feel comfortable there is no
conflict of interest there, since I no longer work for that company,
nor for Foxfire, but I felt the need to disclose that just the same.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And based on that information, I will also
provide the legal opinion comfort that you may look for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we've also received a request to
hear item 12-B-6 and 12-C-6 together, since they're companion items.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 12-B-6 and --
MR. FERNANDEZ: And 12-C-6.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because they deal with the same piece of
property.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Perhaps when we get to those items, if you
could just remind us --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of that again. Okay?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further
questions?
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll move that we approve the minutes
of March 3rd, 1998 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- regular meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
approval of the minutes. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MARCH 23-29, 1998, AS IHMOKALEE
FRIENDSHIP HOUSE WEEK - ADOPTED
This morning we have a proclamation. If I could have Ed
Laudise come forward, please, and stand up here and face the camera.
You can come on up here, Ed, first, and then I'll give you an
opportunity to say some words.
Please come up here, Mr. Patterson. Come on up and turn around
so the people at home can see you.
This is a proclamation proclaiming the week of March 23rd through
the 29th, 1998 as Immokalee Friendship House week.
WHEREAS, Immokalee Friendship House was founded in 1987 and
continues to provide around-the-clock service to the people of Collier
County; and,
WHEREAS, the Immokalee Friendship House provides emergency relief
for the hungry and homeless of Collier County and annually provides
shelter for more than 1,000 homeless and serves 25,000 meals; and
whereas, the Immokalee Friendship House provides a home for many
services of value to the Immokalee area and to Collier County in
general, including meeting sites for AA, battered women's groups,
tutoring programs, job fairs and community service during college
spring breaks; and
WHEREAS, the Immokalee Friendship House sponsors innovative
programs and refers clients to programs for health, job placement and
education; and,
WHEREAS, the Immokalee Friendship House program recently received
the prestigious Harry Chapin Self-Reliance Award for getting the
unemployed back to work. The Immokalee Friendship House is the only
homeless shelter in the U.S. to receive this distinction; and whereas,
the Immokalee Friendship House has the support of an exceptional board
of trustees, a dedicated group of volunteers and an especially able
staff;
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 23rd
through the 29th be designated as Immokalee Friendship House week and
urge all citizens to visit the Immokalee Friendship House at 602 West
Main Street in Immokalee to observe the fine work they do and to
support their work as volunteers and as contributors.
Done and ordered this 24th day of March, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners.
It's my pleasure to present this award to Ed Laudise, who's done
an outstanding job, and also to the board of directors over there.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd like to say something, you're
welcome to.
MR. CARPENTER: I just want to say thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
And I have to attest to the fact, I've had the opportunity to eat
a couple of meals over there, and they have a fantastic cook. And
food like you just can't believe. So I do attest to that fact. And
thank you both so much for being here this morning. You do a great
job.
Item #5B1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Service awards. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, we have a service award today for
five years of service in OCPH for Richard Hellriegel. If he's here,
would you come forward? There you are.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your certificate, and a thank you.
Item #5C1
RESOLUTION 98-78 SUPPORTING PRESCRIBED BURNING PURSUANT TO THE "FLORIDA
PRESCRIBED BURNING ACT", SECTION 590.026, FLORIDA STATUTES - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also, we have a presentation -- or a
resolution supporting prescribed burning pursuant to the Florida
Prescribed Burning Act. I knew he would be here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: His associate in the back room is starting
to sweat.
MR. GRAHAM: Did it on purpose. Stepped out.
For the record, my name is Hank Graham with the Florida Division
of Forestry.
At this time, what we'd like to do is ask that Collier County
adopts a resolution recognizing prescribed burning as a valuable
management tool for land managers.
And without reading the entire resolution, I'd like to leave it
at that, unless there's any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly. Obviously this is in support of
prescribed burning. Does this in any way make it more difficult for
private landowners to do a prescribed burn? MR. GRAHAM: Not at all. Not at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Having just, in Leadership Florida this
past weekend participated in Tall Timbers Research Center, which is
sort of the father, mother, whatever you'd want to call it, of this
research, I'd be happy to make a motion in support of the resolution.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second in
supporting of the resolution of the Florida Prescribed Burning Act.
Any other comments? Do you have any speakers on this? Probably
not.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. I'll call for the question. All
in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you for being here this morning.
MR. GRAHAM: My pleasure.
Item #6B&C
COHPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 -
PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 6-B, present to the
board the comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year
ended September 30th, 1997. Good morning, Mr. Mitchell. MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, Jim Mitchell, the director of the finance and
accounting department.
We have two items back-to-back that both deal with comprehensive
annual financial reports. If it pleases this Board, we'd like to do
it all in one presentation.
As you are aware, the clerk of the circuit courts, serving in the
capacity of ex officio clerk to the board, is responsible for the
coordination of the annual independent audit, along with the
production of the comprehensive annual financial report, commonly
referred to as the CAFR.
The first presentation today deals with the CAFR for the fiscal
cycle ended September 30th of 1996, while the second issue deals with
the CAFR for the cycle ended September 30th of 1997.
For those of you who do not know, the government finance
officers' association has created an award known as a certificate of
achievement for the excellence in financial reporting. This award
program was established by the GFOA in 1945 to encourage all
government units to prepare and publish an easily readable and
understandable comprehensive annual financial report, covering all
funds in financial transactions of the government during that fiscal
cycle.
The GFOA, along with Collier County, believes that governments
have a special responsibility to provide the public with a fair
presentation of their financial affairs.
The CAFR's prepared by and for Collier County go beyond the
requirements of generally accepted accounting principles to provide
the many users of our financial statements with a wide variety of
information used in evaluating the financial condition of this county.
Collier County has received this award for ten consecutive years,
and it is with great pride that we present to you today the llth
consecutive award for the CAFR that was prepared for the fiscal cycle
ended September 30th of 1996.
I'd like to read the award to you. It says certificate of
achievement for excellence in financial reporting, presented to
Collier County, Florida, for its comprehensive annual financial report
for the fiscal year ended September 30th of 1996.
A certificate of achievement for excellent and financial
reporting is presented by the government finance officers' association
of The United States and Canada to government units and public
employee retirement systems, whose comprehensive annual financial
reports achieved the high standards in government accounting and
financial reporting.
Madam Chair, on behalf of the clerk and all of us in the finance
department, we would like to present you this award.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another one.
MR. MITCHELL: Number 11.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Big wall.
MR. MITCHELL: Moving on to the second item, the clerk of the
circuit court, also in his role as an ex officio clerk to the board,
is responsible for the production of the comprehensive annual
financial report.
In this role, the clerk is pleased to formally present to you the
CAFR for the fiscal cycle ended September 30th of 1997. The CAFR
represents a significant investment of effort by the finance and
accounting department, along with those involved county employees.
Before we present you with the CAFR, we'd like to express our
appreciation to this board, the other constitutional officers, along
with the county administrator, his division administrators and the
department directors, not only for their assistance with the CAFR, but
for their assistance throughout the year in matters pertaining to the
financial affairs of Collier County.
Derrick and Terry, would you distribute them? We apologize for
not getting them to you sooner, but we just got them back from the
printer yesterday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll get this read by lunch and get right
back to you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: We would also like to thank Arthur Anderson, our
external auditors, for a job well done. And I'd like to turn the
podium over to them for some comments.
MR. BRADLEY: Thanks, Jim. Good morning. My name's Tom Bradley,
I'm a partner with Arthur Anderson, and I'm very happy to be here
today to talk to you about our audit of the county CAFR.
I'd also like to introduce Cynthia Bordersberg. Cynthia is right
here. Cynthia is the manager on the engagement and works very, very
hard throughout the year to make sure that our audit is completed on a
timely basis.
This report that you have in front of you, the comprehensive
annual financial report you can see is quite comprehensive, as the
commissioner made a comment.
The CAFR is the responsibility of the county, and our
responsibility as their external auditors is to provide reports in
three different areas. The first area is a report on the financial
statements themselves; the second area is a report on the internal
controls of the county; and the third is a report on compliance with
laws, regulations and your grant programs. Those are federal and
state grant programs.
And I'm very happy to tell you that we have issued a clean
opinion on the county's financial statements, which is the best
opinion you can get. It says that the financial statements fairly
present the result of the county's operations and also its financial
position.
And also, we had no material compliance matters that you need to
be aware of and no material weaknesses in internal control. And that's
the end of our report.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's nice to get a report like that.
MR. BRADLEY: That's right.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, once again, I apologize for only
getting the reports to you today, but I would like to offer each of
you, if you have any questions as you go through it, please feel free
to contact me. If we need to bring the auditors back, they'll be more
than happy to come back to discuss those items with you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
MR. MITCHELL: With that, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Mr. Mitchell. You've
always been very open, I think, about trying to answer questions and
working with us, so we appreciate that. Thank you. And also to Arthur
Anderson, thank you.
Item #8A1
RESOLUTION 98-79 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPLY FOR A
$750,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT THAT IS OFFERED THROUGH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS - ADOPTED
Moving on then to item 8-A-3, resolution authorizing city '-
I'm sorry, county administrator to apply for an economic development
grant. Mr. Hihalic?
MR. HIHALIC: For the record, I'm Greg Hihalic, director of
housing and urban improvement.
And we asked this item to be moved from the consent agenda which
authorizes the administrator to sign for the application for an
economic development CDBG grant, because we have a substitute
resolution. I believe you received that resolution to substitute for
the one that was in your packet.
But the only changes was in the last whereas. The location of
this grant would be for the White Lake Industrial Park, which is at
951 and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
approve this item. Any other questions or comments?
I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you very much --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was a great presentation, Mr. Mihalic.
Item #SB1
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN TO PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
SERVICE THAT WILL MEET COLLIER COUNTY'S CURRENT AND LONG RANGE NEEDS -
ALTERNATIVE #2 AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVED WITH
CHANGES
Next item is 16-B-l, approve a solid waste disposal plan to
provide cost-effective waste disposal service that will meet our
current and long-range needs. Mr. Ilschner, good morning.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. For
the record, my name is Ed Ilschner, public works administrator for
Collier County.
Recently the Board of County Commissioners directed your staff to
investigate two issues: One issue was to have an RFP issued for
export trucking to determine what it would cost Collier County to
export its waste out of the county; and secondly, I directed staff to
prepare cost estimates for constructing and operating a new landfill
at a site called L in Collier County. Today we're presenting the
results of thee two requested actions to you.
First let me address the export RFP. On March the 5th of this
year, we received two responses to our request for proposal for export
trucking. One proposal was submitted by Waste Management,
Incorporated, and we're going to compare these on the basis of lined
cell waste cost, because that's the bulk of our waste stream. So for
comparative purposes, we'll use that figure.
WHI proposed $26.99 for lined cell waste export trucking.
Chambers Waste System, which is a subsidiary of U.S.A. Waste, Inc.,
submitted a price of $34.99 for the exporting of this waste material.
We've prepared a comparative cost matrix for you, and if I could
direct your attention to that comparative cost matrix at the rear of
your executive summary.
Looking at that cost matrix, we have a column called current, and
in that current column, that represents the existing landfill
operation called the Naples Landfill. You will note that its total
cost, which is comprised of lined cell waste rate per ton of $16.13,
administrative costs, hazardous waste center, operational cost, that
all totals $21.18, and that's the basis for comparing these future
alternative options that we're going to be discussing this morning.
The total cost for the trucking or export option, if you look at
that column, which is called WHI export, which is, of course, the
lowest and best proposal submitted, $26.99. And if we add these other
costs in, including post-closure cost, and the early buy-out option --
let me briefly explain that. In the current contract with WHI, there
are two periods for which Collier County can opt out of the current
contract. One is at a five-year period, and the cost for that's
approximately 2.7 million dollars, and one at the end of cell six,
basically, are eight years, which would total approximately $990,000.
Those are the two buy-out options. We have included the worst case
scenario, which is the 2.7 million, approximately, which would be the
five-year buy-out. And that represents 34 cents per ton, based on our
current tonnage.
Adding all of those costs together, the WHI proposal totals
$33.61 per ton. If we compare that to the current landfill operation,
that's a $12.43 difference between those two operations.
What does that mean to the rate-payer on the annual assessment?
That represents approximately a $13.67 increase to the rate-payer
annually in the current assessment.
Next, our consultant, Dufresne-Henry, was requested to prepare
the cost estimate of developing site L, which was the most preferred
site, identified in the site location for a new landfill. They have
completed that task.
And if you will direct your attention to the new county landfill
column on that same comparative cost matrix, you will note that the
cost estimates they prepared indicate a $19.90 lined cell rate per ton
for that new operation. We add in all of those same costs that we
added in for the WMI exporting option, and the total cost becomes
$26.52, compared to the 33.61 for export trucking.
Comparing that also to the current landfill operation, we have a
$5.34 increase over current operations for a new landfill operation at
site L.
Now, based on these cost comparative results, staff feels like
wewve been able to identify three alternatives. And really, theywre
two alternatives, with the second and third alternative having one
minor variation.
The first alternative we feel that you have available to consider
is to relocate the current landfill to site L; develop site L as your
new landfill site. Wewre recommending that if you choose that option,
that you do so in eight years, that we go ahead and stay at the
current landfill and opt out at the eight-year period, which will save
us about 1.7 million dollars in opt-out cost, if we made that choice.
The reason wewre recommending this to you, we feel this option or
this alternative provides Collier County with the greatest flexibility
and control over its future solid waste management.
Site L also can be purchased at no additional cost to the
rate-payer, because wewve been accruing reserves for that purpose for
years and years and years. So site L can be purchased. Itws already
been paid for, in other words, by the rate paying base.
It will cost $5.34 more than now. Thatws a negative. Itws going
to cost more money to develop site L and operate it by $5.34 per ton.
And also, the county is going to have to assume an additional $300,000
in post-closure cost with this option.
And finally, this option would certainly require you to go out
and acquire agricultural -- active agricultural land.
The second and third options are really one and the same with
only one exception. So let me just mention the first, and then the
variation will be -- wewre suggesting that some form of backup acreage
be made available. That is, of course, the implementation of the
export trucking option. If you chose that, wewre recommending, as the
proposal recommended, and the basis for the cost and the proposal is
of course the five-year period, May of 2003, which would be the
five-year early out option. This will require us to exercise that,
and we would expend, of course, the 2.7 million dollars in early out
option cost.
What it does is it eliminates this current landfill operation as
it presently is located as quickly as possible, and provides basically
no future maximum control over the county solid waste management
issue, unless you consider either acquiring site L to provide that
maximum control capability of backup acreage so that youwre in control
of your future destiny, or at least maybe consider reserving acreage
at the current landfill for that purpose.
It will cost $12.43 per ton, or 2.9 million dollars more per year
than our current disposal operation. It will cost $7.09 per ton more
than the site L new landfill operation to implement this particular
alternative.
And then, finally, one could simply implement trucking with no
backup, and that's of course the final option. But that provides you
the least control for your future destiny and control over solid waste
management issues.
A physical impact statement -- let me just summarize that briefly
-- is that the new landfill cost of $5.80 per year is a five percent
increase in the annual assessment for residential service. Your
trucking option represents 13.67, which represents a 13 percent
increase in the annual assessment rate for your residential customer
base.
Commercial rates will be increased by of course the same
percentage increase. If we use a $29.93 current disposal cost -- and
that's what our current disposal cost is -- the increase for a new
landfill represents a 20 percent increase in that cost. The export
option represents a 46 percent increase in cost.
Your staff -- after considering all the pros and cons of the
various alternatives, we're respectfully recommending your
consideration of a new landfill site at site L, and it's for the
reasons we've previously stated.
And then finally, let me simply state that whatever decision you
make, we realize we will be at the current landfill for a period of
time. And your staff is committed to ensuring that we do everything
humanly possible and physically possible to get the odor situation at
that current landfill under control. And we're going to work directly
with WHI to accomplish that.
I'm here to answer questions. Representatives of WHI are present
in the audience. We also have representatives from Dufresne-Henry who
are here prepared to address any questions you might have about the
cost for the new landfill that they have developed.
I stand ready to answer your questions, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate your closing comment on
odor and that Waste Hanagement's willing to work on it. And I don't
want to spend a lot of time on that. I want to spend some time on the
alternatives instead, but I need to address one part of not only your
comments, but of the executive summary, and that's talking about
landfill odor control.
And it talk -- you mentioned in there how Waste Management took
you to Broward County and showed off the landfill site over there.
Frankly, that's the same tour and same song and dance that was given
to residents and I think to some of our staff, but -- in 1995, or
whatever year we did the contract to operate this landfill. And we've
had -- a long part of our discussion that day when we discussed the
contract was odor control, and we were assured that the best available
technology would be used. And I believe that's the wording that's
used in the contract. But we were even told by the attorney for Waste
Management that day that it would be up and running and we'd have
little or no odor within six months.
And so two things with the odor concern me. One, we're
referencing something that we were told about three years ago that was
going to be the fix, and it hasn't been. But also, the bottom of your
paragraph there it says an assessment of current conditions is being
conducted and the resulting action plan and its associated costs will
be brought to the Board of Commissioners.
I hope those costs aren't turned over to the rate-payer, because
part of Waste Management's contract includes best available
technology. So either they are currently doing that or they are not
following the terms of their contract. And I don't know which that
is. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but I hope we can
continue -- while that landfill stays there for a few years, I hope we
can continue to work on the odor, but I'm a little disappointed by
reading this. Not in you, but in -- the -- it appears the terms of
the existing contract aren't being completely met in the area of odor
control.
You mentioned how alternatives B and C are similar, and I want to
just ask you another alternative on that. The export trucking option
is, for a number of groups, seems to be most appealing; the
environmental community and the agricultural community and some of our
civic groups. Both the City of Marco and City of Naples are more
enthusiastic about that than some of the other options. And maybe
most importantly, it allows the Board to keep its promise to East
Naples and to Golden Gate that they wouldn't continue the landfill at
the existing site long-term.
You and Mr. Russell and I had spoken briefly yesterday. Waste
Management is quoted in the newspaper as saying they would be prepared
to truck as soon as 18 to 24 months from now. And we talked about the
financial feasibility of that. I don't know what the answer is. You
were going to cook up some numbers last night and let us know. But
the -- that option -- the appealing part of that option was not only
that our waste stream would be moving sooner, but also, that we might
be able to leave some of the existing cell for that reserve space
you're talking about. I don't think anybody likes the idea of not
having any reserve space here, so if there's a hurricane or some
emergency situation, we need to be able to handle our own, but --
We talked about rather than having to prepare or open a new cell,
using the existing space that is left at the existing cell as that
reserve space, and trucking sooner. And we didn't know yesterday what
the numbers on that would be, and maybe you can help me now.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. We took the opportunity last night to
calculate those numbers, and these are approximate, but we feel
comfortable with them. And we feel like the differential between the
early out option in five years and a two-year option, we would save
cost of course in cell development and wouldn't accrue as much closure
accrual over that period of time. But it's, I want to say, virtually
a wash, but almost. It's about $100,000 difference between the two.
So it's theoretically a wash.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Between 100,000 customers over five
years, 20 cents a head.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct. That's correct. But it's
$100,000 difference more for the two-year option versus the five-year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems if -- if that is one of
the items where we boil it down to if we can do it at the same cost in
two years and not have to open a new cell and get into that, that
might be more --
MR. ILSCHNER: Approximately the same cost.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- valid.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When he's done.
I appreciate the comments about -- that today's focus is not
particularly on odor control, Commissioner Constantine, but I think
everybody understands that but for the problem continuing with the
smell out there, we probably wouldn't be having any of this
discussion. And so I want to understand what's happening at Broward
that's not happening here. Because I, like Commissioner Constantine,
absolutely remember clearly people putting their hands on their heart
and swearing that whatever could be done would be done here, that
nobody would have -- we would have state-of-the-art, nobody would have
anything better than we have. And I realize that you weren't here for
that and that's why I'm making that point, that -- you know, we were
told that we would have the best. So what are they doing at Broward
that they're not doing here?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An interesting point in his summary
too, is -- and I just -- I want to add this on all this -- one part --
one question is, they're still getting two or three or four complaints
a month, which means once every week or 10 days they're still getting
complaints, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not -- obviously not with the level of
problem that we have. So what are they doing there that we're not
doing here?
MR. ILSCHNER: Well, they're doing two things that we presently
are not doing here. Number one, they have invested about 10 million
dollars in a hydrogen sulfide treatment plant, which removes, of
course, the hydrogen sulfide gas and then vents that material through
a burning process as part of their methane burning for their
electrical production. And also, then they end up with about 20 tons
per week in sulfur that goes back into the landfill. That's one thing
they're doing.
The other thing they're doing is sort of innovative, in my
opinion, and that is they're now in the working phase with a gas
collection systems. Most gas collection systems are vertical wells,
and you can't put those in the working phase, because you'd run over
them and destroy them.
They have developed a new technique called horizontal wells, and
they're able to place these in the working phase and place a vacuum on
the working phase that draws that smell down in and then of course
carries it and collects it to the normal gas collection system.
So those are the two things that they're doing we're not doing
now. We would intend to initiate at least one of those actions. We
don't feel like with our level of waste and CND that we need to invest
ten million dollars in a H2S treatment plant. We --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we --
MR. ILSCHNER: -- do feel like we can put the horizontal well
system --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is H2S, and what kind of waste system
MR. ILSCHNER: Hydrogen sulfide.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that. But it comes from
construction debris?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. You must have researched this a little bit,
because it indeed does come from construction debris processing and
placing that construction debris in the landfill. Primarily gypsum
board. And that's how it's generated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the volumes of production of
construction debris in Broward versus the volumes here are -- they do
twice as much, three times as much?
MR. ILSCHNER: I would hesitate to try --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it is the east coast, you know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I know.
MR. ILSCHNER: It's quite a bit of volume over there, and it's a
large regional landfill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that -- that question is one that I
want to have analyzed before we walk away from whether or not Waste
Management also owes us that, because they told us we would get the
very best.
And before we agree that they don't also owe Collier County that,
I want to know what the -- how exponential the difference is in
Broward versus here. And maybe you're right.
And I'd also like to know what measurement there is available,
what testing there is available, to identify how much of our odor
problem is related to hydrogen sulfide.
MR. ILSCHNER: We -- we're in the process of identifying that
with -- Camp-Dresser-HcKee is our consultant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And at some point in your presentation,
are you going to talk about what -- I understand that since you've
been here, you have instituted a new practice for how we are going to
actually measure and quantify just what kinds of odor problems we have
with the landfill, that in fact again -- again, I mention this just
because it makes me so mad, that when I was first on the board and we
approved this Waste Management contract, their representatives told us
we're sorry, there is no way to measure gas in the air and tell you
what the level is of methane or what the level is -- we can't measure
smells, it can't be done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what they said, they can't measure
odor. They don't have a sniffer. They didn't say you couldn't
measure gas.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. But, you know, now that I'm
smarter than I was then, I know that you measure smell by measuring
gas in the atmosphere. And I understand you have some program in
place for doing that, Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: We're initiating a program with CDH,
Camp-Dresser-HcKee. We're using a two-pronged, I guess, analysis
approach. One, we're using gas sniffers, if you will, but they will
probably not be able to detect at the human nose, if you will, level.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. ILSCHNER: So we're using also the human element as well. We
have test subjects who are going out to also smell as well and report
on that. And we're going to compare those two results and see how
they correlate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's wonderful that you're doing
that. I would love to have the cost of that quantified -- MR. ILSCHNER: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and passed on to Waste Management,
because that's something that, as far as I'm concerned, is part of
their obligation to provide us the best practices possible for the
management of the smell. So, you know, you're right that, you know,
there's a lot going on related to the smell issue, and that's the good
news.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, I need to back up a couple
of steps. A lot of times when we get into the details of these
discussions, the blinders come out a little bit and the big picture
and the long-term goal doesn't seem to get discussed or sometimes I
think factored in.
We've heard discussion about we could stay at the existing
landfill for 50 years, is one of the my favorite comments that I hear.
My understanding is, without increasing the height of the existing
landfill and without permitting the additional 300 acres that is
actually closer to homes in the area than what the existing landfill
is, that the landfill that is currently permitted, that is sited
there, if we were to continue working that 'til its completion, we are
dealing with between 20 and 25 years of life on that particular site.
Is that a correct statement?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is it also correct that the State
of Florida requires us to have an inventory of 20 years of waste
disposal as a county?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was ten.
MR. ILSCHNER: It's ten years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten.
MR. ILSCHNER: Ten years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right. My concern is that --
and I'll just state this, and of course I want to hear from whomever
is registered to speak and where we're going to go with this -- but my
concern is that we have accused our predecessors in the past in the
area of growth management of not really looking out for the future in
giving this board the latitude of decisions we wish we had. We wish
we had more flexibility in areas of growth management.
I put this decision in one of those few things that government
has to do, that government is required to do. And as much as the
trucking option at first blush looks very good, it's a way for us to
-- and I'll be very frank -- politically get out of this mess. We
have gotten ourselves into a decision here where neither option looks
attractive. One option of staying where we are for 20 plus years is
not attractive; an option of siting a new landfill is not attractive;
and trucking seems to be a way to kind of get us all out of those two
scenarios and into one that most people can accept.
My concern is that by trucking, we are relinquishing control of
the extremities. Trucking may handle a normal waste stream from this
county for a set period of time. What it doesn't handle are extreme
circumstances, whether they be hurricanes, whether they be the company
that's doing the trucking going belly-up. There are a lot of factors
that come into play there.
I would ask that when we look at today's decision in trucking
versus siting a new landfill, that we consider giving our -- the
people that come after us more flexibility than a contract versus a
location. And it seems to me the best way to do that is to -- whether
we truck or not, is to pursue the acquisition and siting of a new
waste recovery site. You can call it a landfill site, you can call it
a recovery site, you can call it a resource site, whatever. We need
to have in our hand, for the safety and security of this community, a
way to dispose of the waste for more than 10 years, for more than 20
years, in my opinion, and we need to do that in as much a compatible
way as possible.
It's a harder decision than trucking, because it's going to make
somebody very unhappy. But I hope that we won't today put the
blinders on and look at trucking as a way to avoid problems and
difficulties. And I'm not saying that's solely what we're trying to
do by any means. But remember what we started to do, that at least
three members of this board said that if we could relocate the
landfill at a marginal cost to the rate-payer, that it was a good
idea? And I think that option is still viable to us, understanding
that 10 years from now, maybe we won't need it. That would be nice.
But the bottom line is, there are no magic bullets out there, and
we're going to have to make a hard decision today, and I'd rather not
defer that decision to those that follow us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock -- oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In our conversation, when you very
graciously briefed me the other day, I believe the figure was 17
million dollars that we have in reserves for expansion or acquisition
of a new landfill --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that correct?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your estimate if we went to site L?
What is your estimate for the cost of that ultimately? I know it's
going to be pretty flexible because of the --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the probability of legal entanglement,
but --
MR. ILSCHNER: The experts we've discussed that with, real estate
experts, would tell us that it's approximately 7.2 to 7.5 million
dollars to acquire the site.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So in other words, that will have no impact
on rates, because we already have the 17 million dollars in a reserve
account for that purpose?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's a correct statement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct.
Okay, my concern with all of this is sort of similar to what I
just heard voiced by Commissioner Hancock. I think the trucking
option is fine. It's -- it's a little bit more to the rate-payer, but
it allows us to end -- potentially end the problem in a fairly short
amount of time here at our current landfill.
But I don't think it would be prudent of us to do that, frankly,
unless we have some sort of a backup in case the trucking option
collapses, for whatever reason. Because we could wake up one morning
out of the clear blue sky and have nowhere to go with our solid waste
if we did it that way.
So I'm sort of persuaded by the fact that we have the money, that
we've already put that money aside to develop a new landfill, we've
committed as a board to develop a new landfill, and that would give us
the backup that was -- that we would find necessary under the
circumstance that the trucking option collapses.
Additionally, you talked to me about an idea, proposal, sort of
yours, where we could combine our yard waste and our sludge from the
waste water treatment plants into a composting operation at the new
landfill site and actually generate some income from that, and have
that small operation then be at a new landfill site.
This would also have the benefit of relieving our trash stream
going across to Broward County of the yard waste. So it would have a
double benefit.
It would probably then -- I assume that it would also lower our
cost for trucking, because we would not be trucking any yard waste.
So there's several benefits of doing that particular operation.
What you end up with, as you've described, an operation that you
set up in Texas, was that you ended up with some very valuable
composted agricultural material --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that could then be of a benefit rather
than a nuisance, and so that seems to me to be perhaps the best of all
of the options available to us.
Now, whether we -- whether we started trucking in five years or
wait 'til the end of cell six would somewhat depend on the time frame
that it takes to develop the new landfill and have it prepared to go.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And what I'm generally pointing to here is
that I don't think we would use the new landfill as a -- as the
primary solid waste disposal point until and unless our trucking
option appeared to -- or in fact did collapse on us. And I believe
that's the way I'm leaning on this whole project.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. You know, I don't oppose the
alternative site. Goodness knows, I put enough time in on it. But
just -- I know you said we could do that at a nominal cost, and we
certainly could.
And I just want to be a little more clear, I guess, on the one
question I had asked about trucking and trucking sooner in that 18 to
24-month period. Your specific concern -- and I think it's a good one
-- had been what if there's a hurricane, what if somebody goes
belly-up, what if there's a problem and we have to handle it. And that
really was my question as to if we stopped using the existing site
now, how much time and how much cost. You said cost-wise that's
roughly a wash, but how much time that leaves available there, you
know, in the case of an emergency. Obviously my preference would not
be to have that happen, but that was just my thought on that shorter
time period was to allow -- to make sure we did have adequate space,
because I'm, like you, concerned if we get to be 2005 or 2007 and do
that with no alternative here, we're kind of at the mercy of fate.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a couple of points, and then I hope
we'll get to hear a whole lot more information -- I'm sure we're going
to today -- but on the emergency backup issue, we have been told we
have 20 years' capacity as currently permitted at the current site.
If we were to continue to landfill there for 10 years, we would have
10 years of emergency capacity, so let's not lose sight of that.
As to the already collected 17 million dollar new site -- you
know, fee -- the cost for reserves that we have now in reserves, 17
million dollars, there are other options available for the use of that
money than spending it on an alternate site. One might be amortizing
it and having a concomitant reduction in the rate. I mean, that's 17
million dollars that we could use to offset the increase of rates. We
don't have to spend that on relocation.
And another option I think we should consider for that 17 million
dollars -- and I've talked about this from the beginning -- is some
kind of a host fee. For whatever period of time that we do continue
to operate the landfill at its current location, we owe that community
some kind of a host fee. That's what the practice is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Retroactive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- and frankly, if all that we gave
to Golden Gate was the interest off that -- I thought it was 12. At
12 million dollars, half -- you know, the interest is 600 grand a
year. If it's 17 million dollars -- you know, it's a tremendous
amount of money, that if we allocated half the interest on that
reserve to use toward paying a host fee for Golden Gate, I think that
would be appropriate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that reserve grows by roughly a
million and a half a year --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is that right?
MR. ILSCHNER: I believe that's correct, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, I mean, there's a tremendous amount of
money there that we need not spend just because we have with good
foresight collected it for a purpose that now may not be necessary.
And then just to get on the floor one more time a reminder about
the issue of an alternate site, as I understand it, an alternate
site's -- any alternate site is going to require four votes, either
for a fezone or a conditional use, and I'm telling you, I'm not going
to vote for any alternate site.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm telling you, be a little careful
there, because we have to make that decision based on whatever goes on
in the public hearing and we can't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- make that statement --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- broadly ahead of time on any land
use item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that.
I can tell you, though, that of all of the sites that you guys
have put forward in your years of study, I have done enough research
to know that it would be extremely unlikely that I would cast any vote
in favor of any of those.
And I think it's important to say that because we need to stop
the bleeding on the cost. I mean, we've spent a million dollars
looking at alternate sites. And if we could stop that bleeding, if we
could be realistic about it, we need to do that. I'm done.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, what -- how much trash is
generated that goes into the lined cell part of our landfill?
MR. ILSCHNER: About 240,000 tons per year of lined cell.
Isn't that correct, David, 240,000 tons of lined cell waste
annually?
240,000 tons of lined cell waste annually.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we exported that and the rest of it was
not exported, how much life would we have left at the current
landfill?
MR. ILSCHNER: I think David Russell calculated that.
David?
Let me have David Russell come up with our staff, and --
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell.
The majority of the other types of material are processed and
they don't go into the lined cell. So virtually there would be no
increased use of that capacity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so that would be material such as
whatever would be generated by a storm, possibly, those kinds of
materials, like if you had -- heaven forbid, that we have an Andrew or
a tornado tear through this part of the country?
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, I think we'd attempt to process as much as we
could those kinds of materials off-site and not bring them to the
landfill. But you could bring those kinds of what they call class III
nonputrescibles that remain in capacity could be used for that
purpose.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. On this particular information that we
have here, this is based strictly on material, the lined cell rate?
In other words, this is what would be trucked out of the county?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. We did invite prices also for
those other kinds of materials, just so we could compare and in a
negotiation the decision could be based on cost, which would be the
most effective materials to truck or not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, one last question. We have currently
-- is it cells one and two that have already been closed or -- and
they're at a lesser height and so on?
MR. RUSSELL: Cell six is divided into three phases. We're in
the process of filling the second phase. And probably within -- if
we're going to make a decision about saving phase III, we'd probably
want -- it would probably take a couple more years to get to that
point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's 2005 is when that decision
has to be made.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actu -- there -- no.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So if you had -- if you were to go out of the
current land -- if you were to go out of the current landfill and you
wanted to put a new lined cell in, how long would that take you to do
that?
MR. RUSSELL: It would probably take a year to make a decision.
And that's a pretty optimistic schedule. Probably, if you're going to
decide to build a new cell out there, it'd probably take at least a
year to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we build a new cell over the current --
any of the current cells that are out there? Can you do that? I
don't know, I'm just asking.
MR. RUSSELL: I didn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, like the --
MR. RUSSELL: -- understand the question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- reopen any of the existing --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Reopen any of the old -- old cells?
MR. RUSSELL: If we chose not to activate phase III, we could
come back at any time and use that phase III as an additional cell.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So now give me the year again. When do
you -- when would you anticipate going into cell III?
MR. RUSSELL: I think we're about two years away from that. And
there would be -- there's about six additional years of capacity in
phase III. So that would be -- if you didn't use phase III, that
would be your backup capacity, about six years of capacity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. And in the current cell that
we're in right now, what's the capacity and how many years?
MR. RUSSELL: In phase II?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Phase II of cell six.
MR. RUSSELL: About two more years in phase II. It's all one
large cell, actually, about -- a total of 80 acres in that cell six
area. It's basically divided into thirds, so in two years we would
have moved through about two-thirds of it. But of course that last
third is kind of a wedge shape that goes back against the first
two-thirds, so there's quite a bit of capacity there for that final
third footprint.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sue, could I get you to make copies for
everybody of this -- this is the map of what I think's out there that
helps me. If I don't have it in front of me, I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you waited until the year, say 2008, to go
out of the landfill, what would you have left there?
MR. RUSSELL: You'd have zero left in cell six. At that point,
you would need an additional cell adjacent to that cell six area.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you have to break into that other --
that other 300 acres --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in order to establish that?
MR. RUSSELL: Not at all. There's additional --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, the current site, you could
establish a new cell?
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, there's additional --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And at what cost?
MR. RUSSELL: Constructing a cell at something like $300,000 per
acre. But there's an additional 12 years of capacity on the existing
footprint that makes up that 20 -- that minimum 20 years total
capacity remaining there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the cost of opening that cell is Waste
Management's, not ours. I mean --
MR. RUSSELL: Under the current agreement, they -- all the new
cell construction is their responsibility, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're paying for it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My point is that if you can take the existing
land that we have and use that as much as possible, but at the same
time make plans to truck all the putrescible -- I love that word.
Never heard that word until I came here -- putrescible materials out
of the landfill, you're still going to have a lot left, but you're not
going to have, quote, the odor producers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- left at the landfill.
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So why not split it up? Leave some of it
here and truck the stinky stuff there?
MR. RUSSELL: Basically our matrix is based on that premise. It
is that lined cell waste that are the putrescibles that would be
exported. The cost matrix is based on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But if we wait until the year 2008,
then the closure of that cell is at what cost?
MR. RUSSELL: That early out is -- leaves the county with a
million --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: About a million dollars?
MR. RUSSELL: -- roughly a million dollars.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But if we leave it earlier than that, the
cost is?
MR. ILSCHNER: 2.7.
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, 2.7.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 2.7.
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It makes sense -- I don't know, it just makes
sense to me to stay there until --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- you have that length of time, and then
start making that change. And you're still going to have the backup
that we're all desiring to have. And even if something -- if there
was a trucking strike or if there was something that happened, you
still have the backup that you need. I don't know, maybe I'm missing
something here.
MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, if --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you something --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to follow up on that same line.
You said it's about $300,000 per acre to open a new cell. How many
acres will you take to open and realistically have adequate space for
your next cell?
MR. RUSSELL: You could -- I don't think they build a cell in
much less than ten acre increments, something like that. And that
next cell most likely will get built over the top of the existing
cells one and two area. That was kind of the -- the master plan under
the contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my point being, in today's
dollars, it's a minimum of three million dollars to open that. And
while Waste Management does the physical work, we're all paying for
that. And so the cost is still -- if it's 2.7 to exit early, it's
three million to prepare the next cell, so you're looking at a higher
cost in that scenario.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It depends on when the notice is given to
Waste Management of the decision.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm saying in the worst case
scenario, that's 2.7 million dollars. If we go a little longer, it
gets down to 990,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But in the worst case scenario, at
2.7, that is still cheaper than preparing the next cell. If we leave
this space, the available space, as reserve versus using -- preparing
the next cell, then you prepare the next one and it's at least three
million dollars.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, that last cell we're talking
about constructing at this point, how much life would be in that cell
as currently permitted? Or I understand we'd have to have that
particular cell permitted, but it's part of the overall plan, so how
much life would be in that cell?
MR. RUSSELL: You're talking about phase III of the existing cell
six?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. If we completed the existing cell to
2008 --
MR. RUSSELL: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the new cell that we would construct,
how much life would we have on the site from that point forward?
MR. RUSSELL: The total life would be an additional -- minimum of
an additional 12 years for the whole footprint area that would be
available to build cell. And then you --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me --
MR. RUSSELL: -- can figure the cost at, of course --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me walk down a path --
MR. RUSSELL: -- the number I gave you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- here that gives me some concern. We're
required to have 10 years, period. We understand that a trucking
contract, really all it does is buy us time on that 10 years. In
other words, if we have 15 years of life left and we start trucking
today, we'll have 15 years of life if something happens to the
trucking contract. Okay, I understand that.
The problem I'm having is that today there's no magic bullet.
There are two methods of waste disposal that are proven effective:
One is landfilling, one is incineration. To give a gauge or to
receive a gauge of what the public thought of incineration, is, I've
gone around speaking to homeowners' associations, I've asked them all
the same two questions. One, how many of you think incineration is a
good idea? And I'll get up to a third of the groups in the room --
and these are sizes from 20 to 250 that think it's a good idea.
I then say, "Those of you with your hand up, how many of you
think it's a good idea at twice to your current garbage bill?" All but
one or two hands go down. So we want the good ideas, but we may not
really be willing to pay for them.
So we have two proven options: Landfilling and incineration. If
we know incineration will more than double the trash bills of the
residents of this county, I think we take incineration off the table
from a fiscal standpoint alone. That leaves us with the only viable
long-term option as landfilling. We like to talk about the new
proposals, we like to talk about laser heating technology, we like to
talk about composting, we like to talk about shipping it out into
space, for Christ's sake, but none of it is proven effective --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we explored that option?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Actually, John, being a missile
scientist over there, is going to design it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You mean shoot it out into space?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we need to hire a consultant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, new study, new study.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: New study.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will be the new NASA trash program.
The problem is, when it comes right down to it, in the future of
this county, waste disposal lies in landfilling, here or somewhere
else. We really don't have any other viable options.
That being the case, when I walk through the time frames that
we're talking about, Barb, what you say makes a tremendous amount of
sense. There's -- you know, why would we leave a cell early and
increase our closure costs instead of at least completing that cell
and then trucking? It gives us 10 or 12 years of life in a new cell
and everything seems fine.
The problem is, I started adding up the ifs in that scenario. If
the trucking contract is available in 2008 and is not withdrawn or
adversely affected or raised. If our waste stream stays on the path
that it is.
If -- you know, as you go down the road, best case scenario is in
2008 we institute a trucking contract. When that trucking contract
either proves too costly, fails in some way, the company is affected
or whatnot, we then have a year to construct a cell at 12 years of
life in it. We are back in the landfill permitting game at that
point.
It has taken us two years to narrow down sites. Acquisition will
take anywhere from eight to 12 years, realistically, because you know
you're going to be challenged by everyone and their mother that
doesn't want it wherever it's going to go. I know we've heard shorter
time frames than that, but what is on the books in recent history --
Sarasota County was 12 years. And they did it the wrong way. They
didn't do the committee work that you did. I'm hoping that we can
narrow that. But the experience we have at hand says, say, eight
years to permit a new site.
I don't want to take the work that's been done and throw it in
the trash can. And I don't want to put a future board in a position
that with 12 years of life left in a cell they have to start this
process all over. I think we've got to key in on the fail safe and
hope we never have to use it.
But I really think regardless of what we do in the trucking
option today, regardless of what date that starts, I think if we don't
complete what we started in the siting of a new landfill, we're
leaving a future board and this community in the lurch at any point
from 15 years from now to 15 plus whatever we can contract for
trucking. And I'm just not comfortable doing that.
So we can talk about whether you do or don't want to zone
property in years. The truth is, by the time it comes time for zoning
that thing, you and I probably aren't even going to be here. So it
will be left up to somebody else, in all likelihood. But I don't
think we can logically stop at this point, put that report on the
shelf and then assume we can just pick it up later and start all over
again.
So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stop the bleeding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I want to talk about the trucking, I
want to talk about what it costs and when it's a good idea, but I
think if we see this as the solution, I think we're -- I just honestly
think we're making a mistake in going down that path.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess one of the questions I have, and, you
know, what you're saying, it makes some logical sense on a long-term
kind of basis.
I think one of the things that none of us can probably really see
is, you know, in the future, I -- landfilling is probably the cheapest
and -- we know that, it's probably the cheapest way to deal with our
waste stream. At the same time, I'm wondering, right now we're
looking at trucking probably over to the other coast, or in that -- at
least that vicinity.
Who knows within a few years that there won't be a regional
landfill closer to us? Because of the growth in Southwest Florida,
there certainly are some areas in the center part of the state that
may well be closer to us and may be -- it will still be landfilling,
but instead of each county having a landfill, it may be a regional
landfill will be the way to go, rather than each county tying up land.
This is just -- you know, it's something I think, you know, none of us
really know that.
At the same time, we've got a couple of concerns here that we do
need to do. I would like to kind of lock the trucking fee in, if that
was at all possible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You ain't kidding.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But at the same time, I still would like to
get some life out of our current landfill, because I don't think that
we can just throw that away. But I think we do have an out with our
current landfill, as far as providing a safeguard that maybe we're
looking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So I don't know. Pam?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one other question, and I guess it
would come under you, Mr. Ilschner, is with fear of booing by people
from Golden Gate, when are the scrubbers for the water treatment plant
going to be operational?
MR. ILSCHNER: I am pleased to report to you April the 15th.
Now, that's a red letter day, I guess. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. ILSCHNER: April the 15th of this year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One good thing happening on that day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it's the only thing good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, there's a lot of good things.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, considering her husband is a CPA,
that's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: April 15th, that's the first day my refund
check is late.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But April 15th is when the scrubbers will
be fully operational. And as far as the gas measurement and the smell
testing activities that you have planned, do they include testing for
the success of those scrubbers as well?
MR. ILSCHNER: It does. We anticipate a 99.5 percent removal.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I still would like to impress upon the
board the importance of having a long-term solution at hand. The
trucking option is fine, as long as it lasts, and hopefully it may
last forever. I mean, that would be great. But there -- like -- like
I've heard, there's too many ifs involved in the trucking.
I think the most prudent thing that we can do is to go ahead and
acquire site L and start the permitting process, and hopefully we'll
never use it for more than what we discussed earlier, the composting
of yard waste and wastewater sludge. And perhaps that scenario could
go on for -- in perpetuity, which would be fine.
But I just don't think that it would be the prudent decision for
us to do, to put all of our cards into 12 years left of life in the
current landfill and then have to start the permitting process eight
years from now. And under -- probably as things have gone in state
government, it would be that much more difficult to permit a landfill
eight years hence.
And I think the only way to really assure the long-term viability
of having this board control our own fate in the solid waste disposal
business is to go ahead and acquire site L.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting alternative two
then?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Something similar to alternative two. Might
make a little modification to it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a small quick response to that is
that when we do have 20 years of existing capacity, and we do have
reason -- you know, I won't make the whole case, I'll make a small
response and that is, when you're buying an insurance policy, you have
to judge the cost of the insurance policy on the odds of your using
it. And the cost of this insurance policy is so high when the odds of
our having to use it are so low, that it's -- that's the reason why I
think we have to stop the bleeding on site L.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it would be very nice if we could get
an insurance policy to assure us that we would be recompensed if we
had to use a solid waste option that we didn't have. But
unfortunately, that's not going to go, so your analogy is not going to
hold up.
But still, this board is charged with the long-term future of
solid waste in Collier County, and that's a big responsibility. And we
can't just ignore that. We need to do something that will permanently
take care of the situation.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one more time, just to be sure I was
clear on my analogy, my analogy was not that we buy an insurance
policy, Commissioner Norris, my analogy --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just want to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It wouldn't be an analogy if you said you
wanted to buy an insurance policy, Commissioner Hac'Kie, it would be a
direct statement. An analogy makes it similar, one to the other.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know what? I was an English
teacher. I could do a whole hour on that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the point is, when deciding whether or
not to spend money, you do it based on what the odds are, that you're
going to need what you're buying.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Risk, fee, reward.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Risk and reward.
And, you know, you need to be cognizant of what the level of risk
is when it's not very significant, considering 20 years -- the state
only requires you to have 10 years, we've got 20. Regional landfilling
is so likely, other alternatives for waste disposal are so likely,
that the risk is low, the cost is extremely high.
And, you know, without getting into any kind of a more personal
level of an argument, I just want to keep reiterating that point and
keep it on that level and not on a personal level.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I hope you're remembering that we already
have put this money aside to develop this cell and so it effectively
from today on costs us nothing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I never heard you say that just because we
have money we have to spend it. We could do other things with that
money.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we collect it for this purpose?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We sure did. I've got other things we can
do with it today.
Commissioner Norris, I answered your question.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be a question for our legal
department. We did collect it for this particular purpose.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I know there's a
number of people here who'd like to speak, and hopefully we can get to
them.
Just one comment, I take a little exception to the twice now used
stop the bleeding phrase, because the money spent -- has been well
spent and gotten us to the point we are today where we have all our
viable options and all the information in front of us, so by no means
is it bleeding. It is money well spent to help us make an informed
decision.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Time to stop, though.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. I think it's time to hear public
speakers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Glenn Wilt, second speaker is
Edmund Gatley.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Eight.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not bad.
MR. WILT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. WILT: Such a nice subject, a nice debate today. My name is
Glenn Wilt, I'm from Golden Gate.
Prior to me starting my comments, I did deliver to the county
administrator this morning a copy of a letter from the president of
our civic association, and I would ask if he would -- if he would pass
those out to you. Unfortunately, she was called on jury duty in
Federal Court in Fort Myers, she can't be here today.
But anyway, to start -- it's interesting that this discussion
started five years ago, and there's many, many ramifications to what
needs to be done here. I can understand the points of view from all
of that you've come up up there with, the points that you've brought
out.
But five years ago -- and I have to reemphasize this -- five
years ago this commission made a decision something was going to be
done about that landfill in Golden Gate. Now, we've had all kind of
promises, we're going to have this problem solved and that problem
solved.
Well, the problems aren't solved as of today. I mean, everybody
keeps talking about it. And it really infuriates me to have people
that are not from that area tell me that I can't tell a difference
when I'm smelling garbage at a landfill, and they say I'm smelling the
water plant. I know the difference. And -- well, that's enough said
on that. I get on my stump on that, and I'll be here for much too
long.
And I realize the physical impact we're talk -- that you're
talking about here today will impact every resident of Collier County,
so it's a big decision.
But I honestly believe that it's a time that there's no more time
for it, no more studies, no more consultations, no more consultants.
It's time to fish or cut bait. We have to go forward from this point,
and that's what you're charged with. It's a very difficult decision,
I realize that.
I have to emphasize that you paid a consulting team very
handsomely to locate a new site, site L, and they did their work well.
I also want to reemphasize the fact that very early on in that
study, the current site in Golden Gate fell out as an undesirable area
for a landfill. Realizing, of course, in 1973, 1974, that site was
actually forced into an area there that was already plotted
residential. Twenty-five years later, we need this problem corrected.
Now, there are people say it's too expensive to relocate, and the
other side that say it's too expensive to truck. What are you going
to do with it? It don't disappear.
Trucking is an option. I agree with -- with my own scenario, and
that is -- I've heard Mr. Russell over here state, I believe in
section three of cell six, we have something like two years, and when
you finish out actually cell six, you add six more years, so you've
got eight years. Then you go to the other side of the footprint over
here, and you put in a new cell, he says you've got 12 years.
My point being is, what are we waiting for? At an operational
standpoint, my years of experience, I don't want to commit all my
reserves and use them up. Yes, it's nice to use every asset you have,
but once you use that asset, you have no way to come back to it. When
you're dealing in contracts with other people, I know as far as I'm
concerned, I personally would want an ace in my hip pocket. If I
can't reach an agreeable trucking contract with you, I've got
something over here I can come back to, I don't need you.
But I also honestly believe that regional landfilling is the way
of the future. That's what it's there for. I'm not interested in
waiting 'til 2008, 2006, 2005, 2003. The money's there. The contract
figures, the trucking figures that you've heard, they're current as of
today. They won't be current in 2008. Let's use them today, put them
in force two years down the road, give us time when that one portion
of cell six is filled. We still have six; we still have 12 years
reserved at the current site. And truck it out, and let's get on to
another decision.
I honestly was brought up -- like Commissioner Hancock brought
up, what happens when one of our summer squalls hits here, commonly
known as hurricanes, if it happens to hit here. We need some space
out there. Let's don't use it all up to start off with.
I would urge you that the only way to set a target date today --
it's going to be difficult to do -- establish benchmarks and move
forward and have an annual review and let's get on schedule.
I have confidence that the board will aggressively address this
issue and find a decision. The people at Golden Gate don't need any
more studies or any more consultants. The residents who have
supported and waited patiently for the past five years need decisions,
positive decisions and positive actions.
I thank you for allowing me to speak today. Good luck with a
very difficult decision.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Edmund Gatley and then Naomi
Sherwood.
MR. GATLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. Ed Gatley is my name.
I understand Cheryl's not going to be here today. She asked me if I
would come forward, so I did, from Orlando, Walt Disney World.
I jumped on the computer about 3:00 a.m. in the morning and I
threw something together real quick. I'd like to make some comments
about the landfill, what I call the front porch yet back fence issue.
I have heard the argument about the Golden Gatians (sic) moving
to the landfill area to experience reduced land values, et cetera. I
reject that as a proper reason to give the landfill -- to keep the
landfill at its present location.
Would we have said that to the people of Coquina Sands, location,
location, or at the airport many years earlier? Why were they offered
a favorable result and yet our working class is not? I'm sure the
complaints were similar.
Let's talk about the working class for a minute. They are the
backbone of any and all society. They are the folks that make our
communities run properly. So again, the question is, why shouldn't we
work with them toward that end?
In my mind the pattern was set long ago when the landfill was
conveniently relocated from Coquina Sands to the airport and then
again to Golden Gate.
For those of you who are athletically inclined, let's take the
great American pastime, baseball, as an example. If you had bases
loaded, two outs in the ninth and on deck in your rotation a cleanup
hitter -- a little play on words -- named Golden Gate batting .322,
would you as the coach pull the backbone of your community, the team,
for a player with an unacceptable batting average of .165 that stinks?
Golden Gate is now in that same rotation. Coquina Sands and the
airport were made winners by effective coaching decisions. And I
suggest, Commissioners, you too have the opportunity to become world
class, World Series coaches by the decisions made here today. Hake
Golden Gate, approximately six miles from the Gulf, a world class
community.
The other argument I hear from real estate types is the people of
Golden Gate moved to these negatively impacted areas to realize a
favorable deal. I doubt that opinion in a court of logic would hold
any water, wastewater or otherwise. Rather, if you give fair market
value for a residence in this negatively impacted area, you certainly
aren't going to see a high rate of return on your investment. In
fact, you may even back up.
I believe it is actually a family of average income attempting to
put a roof over their loved ones' heads and work towards the American
dream.
Also, let me offer you the attached appraisal to review as case
study number one. This young lady purchased a residence on Sapphire
Lake. She loved the lake view and oversized corner lot on a
cul-de-sac that goes out into the center of the lake. At no time
during the transaction did anyone mention the sewage treatment
facility or the wastewater treatment plant.
After attempting to secure another mortgage at favorable lending
rates was it then noted on the appraisal under the comments
depreciation section that the dwelling was located within a relatively
close proximity to the Golden Gate sewage treatment facility. And an
insect problem is noted from that plant.
News to her. And it backed her up around $30,000. It is
extremely self-serving when our spinmeisters conveniently exclude
terms like sewage and waste when they're talking about our treatment
facilities, if they mention the treatment facilities at all. Their
goal is to market another property, period.
While I'm on the real estate aspect of this equation, let me
mention Par One and Two at the Fairways. This is a lovely residential
community built within an 18-hole golf course. Yet the residents
cannot enjoy the amenities of the area because of the stench.
I have two questions for the Commissioners to respond to: One, if
this community was west of 41, much like The Moorings Country Club,
would we be debating whether the odor is coming from the landfill or
wastewater treatment plant, or move both facilities, if we couldn't
put a finger on it?
And two, middle class America has long been considered the
backbone of America. They are a hardworking, caring, loving
community. Why are they being treated as the Edsel of the Naples
area?
In summary, I hope the disease of the vanishing conscience is
healed here today. Waste is a by-product of life, and is produced by
each and every one of us today. To adopt a laissez-faire attitude in
reference to this issue because it isn't in your backyard is totally
unacceptable and unfair.
Our conscience is the automatic warning system of the soul. It
tells us to do what we believe is right and restrains us from doing
wrong. It knows your inner motives and true thoughts. This is why
your conscience is, therefore, a more formidable and accurate witness
in the courtroom of your soul.
Today, as we all decide to help our neighbor and fall in line
with our conscience, it will commend us, bringing joy, serenity,
self-respect, well-being and gladness. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Naomi Sherwood, and then David
Carpenter.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, I can't -- I have to comment on
this, because we're about to make a decision today that we hope is
going to help a situation. And I'm going to just reiterate a little
story here.
You know, when a flock of geese fly, they've got one guy out in
front, and he's kind of getting through the wind for the rest of the
group. And the rest of them are back there clucking. And there's a
reason for that. They're encouraging him to do what he's doing.
Sometimes we need some positive encouragement instead of being
blasted for decisions that may have been made in the past.
And if there's going to be one thing that's going to destroy this
community, it is this continual battle between on which side of the
road you live on. And it's got to stop.
There isn't one commissioner that's sitting up here putting down
the residents in Golden Gate and elevating the citizens of Naples or
Marco Island or anybody else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this kind of nonsense has got to stop in
this community. And we've got people who stand before us not only
here, but letters to the editor and everything else, and they continue
to perpetuate this idea.
And you have really pushed a hot button with me, because this has
got to stop. I've lived here a long time. And for people to come and
continue to do this in this community, you're going to tear it apart.
And it's going to be the community that nobody wants to come and live
with, because everybody's at everybody's throat all the time. And I'm
tired of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next speaker, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just if I can. And to be fair to the
board and to the staff, I don't think anybody's treating anybody like
an Edsel. We have a staff report that says in three locations that
it's clearly not appropriate where it is; we have five commissioners
who are exploring all the alternatives to having it where it is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I think each one of us, while
we might have said something different, everything we've said has been
what's the alternative to -- this isn't acceptable where it is, what's
the acceptable alternative.
And so I've got to agree with you, I think we're struggling with
a tough problem, but nobody is treating anybody inappropriately.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, thank you for those
comments --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because one of the things we hear all
the time, when someone disagrees with a decision, is -- the first
thing they do is invoke class warfare -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- like there's a bunch of, you know, rich
people sitting up here? I mean, give me a break.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did appreciate the plug for the
parks community though, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And since Mr. Constantine lives there, I told
him the values just went down.
But that's a friendly little argument here, and that has nothing
to do -- but I'll tell you, I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have
spoken out, but I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes, you should have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- hear this so many times, and that's not
what made Naples what it is today, and why people come to this area --
area; let me reiterate that -- in addition to the fact that we've got
sunshine a good number of the days. But we didn't come down here to
sit around and fight and argue with everybody. Because the next thing
you know -- I mean, if you've got all that time to drum up all this
stuff, there's a lot of groups out there that need your help, and I
suggest you get on your bicycle or in your car or on your two little
feet and get out and start helping some of these other groups, because
obviously you've got too much time on your hands and the golf course
isn't attractive. Let's go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's so good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MS. SHERWOOD: For the record, my name's Naomi Sherwood. I'm a
resident, and I also stated before, I live a half a mile from your
site -- proposed site L.
One of the things that I heard -- or I didn't hear when the costs
were being brought in, was what will be the cost of the perpetual care
of the cap when you decide to close this landfill, including its
periodical total replacement? I didn't hear who is going to pay those
costs, and I also -- third question is, are the funds set aside as a
part of the fees for the garbage disposal paid by those costs, or are
they going to be passed on to future generations so that this
generation can have garbage disposal at cheaper than by real cost by
dry-tombing the landfill?
I have a book that I'd like to give to Barbara Berry. It has a
lot -- it's put out by the Indigenous Environmental Network. It's an
information packet on landfills. And I'd really appreciate it if you
could copy -- copy whatever you think is pertinent to everybody else.
It's educated me and also a lot of other community members. Whatever
you feel is important for everybody. Because there's a lot of
questions in here, and they answer a lot of ideas. A lot of
alternatives are in here, a lot of cost-saving alternatives are in
here.
I don't want to spend a whole lot of time stating all this. But I
really would appreciate it if you would look it over.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This book will be placed in the Board of
County Commissioners' office, and they all will have access to this
book, okay?
MS. SHERWOOD: I just wanted to say, I really appreciate the time
you guys are taking to really look at all the cost-effective
alternatives, rather than just saying, oh, well, let's just truck it
out and put it in somebody else's backyard, or let's just move it and
create another dump. But just -- I'd really like for you guys just to
really take time and care and listen.
And another thing that I haven't heard is if it's just you guys
making the decision, how come it's not put to a referendum to let the
people decide?
That's all I have to say. Thanks.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is David Carpenter.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She asked three questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think let's go ahead and get the answers
to them.
The first is about capping costs. Those are folded into the
tipping fees, as I understand it, so the long-term monitoring is paid
for in advance of it occurring; is that -- MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing is, the cost to acquire
the new site has been paid by past rate-payers. We have 17 million
dollars that has been a part of the garbage rate. So the people who
have been paying have also been paying for whatever capital costs are
required to acquire a new site or do a new technology or whatever; is
that correct?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's a correct statement, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the third item about putting things to
a referendum: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a representative form of
government here. The matter of time particularly Commissioner
Constantine and the rest of us have spent on this, I doubt there's
more than three people in this room that even come close to the hours
we have spent poring over material, just looking at everything that is
given to us in disseminating information and doing our best to make a
representative decision for this community. Unless you are willing to
change the form of government you have from representative to
something else, some decisions have to be made by representatives
elected by the people. This is one of those decisions. Not everything
should be put to a referendum on a simple basis that it's technical
background, requires people who are willing to spend the time and have
the time to try their best to make an informed decision.
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chairman, Commissioners -- Dave Carpenter
from East Naples, and I served on the site advisory committee.
There's been a lot of talk today about years; eight years, six
years, 10 years, 12 years. One figure, though, hasn't been brought
out today and that's 50 years. And that would be the capacity of the
new site at current technology. No whizbang theories, no recycling,
no nothing. Straight technology. It would be 50 years at the new
site.
I agree with John Norris, with Commissioner Hancock and with the
rest of you. Hopefully it would never be used. I don't view it as an
insurance policy, I view it as an asset. An insurance policy, when
the time period of the policy is over, you've got nothing. You've
paid your premium, you're left with zip. An asset you still have on
your books, you still have the value of that land, whether it had to
be used or it stays quasi agricultural, part agricultural, part barren
land, as it is today.
This is the last chance, in all probability, that this Commission
will have, or any commission, to acquire this type of site. The two
years that it took to come up with these sites, we learned a lot. We
learned that in the future, none of these sites will be available to
the -- a commission of this county. What the county would be forced
to do, if ever put in the position of acquiring land for a landfill
site, would be to go to a site that is far less acceptable than
anything that we have the opportunity to look at today. Unacceptable
for environmental reasons, and unacceptable for the real reason that
caused this whole furor, and that was -- the key for looking for a new
site was to find one that was as far away from -- as possible from
residents of this county, and from planned growth in this county, and
still be environmentally feasible. This is your last shot at it.
If you look at these sites, something else is going to happen to
them over the years. The ability to acquire these sites is very, very
limited. You have a window to do it. You have a window to make a
commitment to the future generations of this county, to say hey, we
acted responsibly, we looked 50 years in the future, and we bought
more than just an insurance policy, we bought that we said we're
responsible enough for Collier County to take care and assure the
future citizens of this county will not be strapped with a bizarre
waste problem.
I hope we don't have to use it. I think the concept of trucking
is great. But there are other concepts going to come down the line,
too, in the way of recycling. There are a few technologies that none
of us know at the moment. But I don't think we want to say we're
going to do these at Golden Gate.
This same organization, this same commission, made a commitment
to the people to get the landfill out of there. The logical thing is
to go ahead with the procurement of site L and use it as a backup
facility, if necessary, to start the composting up there; if we can
get recycling to come on line, then come on line with it, use it as an
emergency basis, not worry too much about it, and hopefully we won't
have to cut down any fruit trees there. This is a small footprint on a
large site. Hopefully it will never be used more than that. But this
is your shot at acquiring it, and I think you ought to go ahead and do
it. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is A1 Perkins, and then Janet Vasey.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle
Head groups.
I've heard some positive stuff this morning: Recycling. In
particular, a waste recovery facility. I've been advocating a waste
recovery facility on a willing seller's farm, site U-1. Been doing it
for two years.
If we pass this problem on to the next generation and the next
generation and the next generation, we haven't accomplished anything
except making another problem. But, of course, problems are very
profitable. Waste management took ten million dollars out of this
community last year.
There's a point of law that I need to ask Dave. If the trucks
are going across Alligator Alley to get to the Pompano landfill,
what's our liability to the individual towns and to Broward County if
anything happens to the trucks on the way, pertaining to any kind of
chemicals, anything that could be detrimental to the health of the
people over there? How does the county stand on that?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond to the chair, if they direct -- wish to
direct me to respond.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine.
There is a possibility or a potential for liability or a claim of
liability against Collier County, should there be an accident, an
incident, involving the transfer of this material across the roadways.
I would suggest, however, that the county professionally, legally,
looking out for itself and the taxpayers, would have entered into an
agreement providing for rather significant and complete
indemnification and insurance concerning any issue of potential
liability or claim made against the county. This is done -- has been
done in other contractual situations.
And I might analogize, if I may, that where the county is a
funding source but has no -- in a contractual relation, but has no
operational aspect of the delivery of the service or any issues of
failure of the service, that that liability can be minimized.
MR. PERKINS: What about the trucks crossing the Hiccosukee
Indian land reservation? That also has another problem to it, because
the Hiccosukees gave the State of Florida and the federal government
permission to put 1-75 through, and also Alligator Alley. This opens
another can of worms with the Indian nation.
The price is right for county's property as the only willing
seller. But I want to get to another thing in Pompano. I own a home
in Pompano, within sight of the dump. Have for a long time. In the
paper here, it tells me that a $121 annual fee will be charged me in
Collier County for my waste for a yearws period. At the present time,
Iwm paying $297 in Broward County for the same service that I can see
the dump thatls 255 feet high from my home. Now --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thatls because they canlt negotiate a deal
in Broward, apparently.
MR. PERKINS: Apparently they didnlt. Apparently they didnlt.
Point being, does Broward know that they intend to take and haul
our garbage over there?
With that, I donlt think Iive -- oh, odor control at the existing
landfill. This needs to be put in place, regardless of what happens
or what doesnlt, because welre going to be stuck with that for 30
years. How come we havenlt moved with that, and how come we havenlt
installed a generating system where we can utilize the gas? Welre
losing $100,000 a month out there. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Janet Vasey, and then the last
speaker is Kathleen Passidomo.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me just a moment, Janet.
Do you need a break? Would you like a break?
All right, if we can hold off, Janet, please. Weill take about a
seven to ten-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Iid like to reconvene the meeting, please, so
we can have everyone try to find a seat. And there are plenty
available, I believe.
Janet, please.
MS. VASEY: Thank you.
Iim Janet Vasey. Iim representing Greater Naples Civic
Association. And welre handing out to you right now another
alternative. In your read ahead package, you had three alternatives
for consideration, and weld like you to have one more.
And this alternative is set out pretty much in the same format as
the other three youlye seen. And it says to remain at the existing
landfill site. Welre saying that implement the additional odor
control measures that everyonels proposing, do not acquire landfill
site L, and do not enter into an export agreement at this time.
The pros are the odor is apparently being contained very well at
the Broward landfill. Your read ahead package says that this WMI
central landfill thatls located in Broward County is surrounded by
50,000 residents living in upscale residential communities, and so
thatls a comparable situation to what we have here. And they have --
as welve talked about -- as youlye talked about earlier, we want to
have those kinds of controls put in place here, odor controls.
But I think thatls the first thing. This whole movement of the
landfill started as the result of an odor problem. So letls try to
address that. Welre working with the scrubbers on the water treatment
facility. Youlye got -- measurements now are being collected, both
some kind of technical measurements and nose measurements. So letls
see what that kind of information brings in before you make a
decision.
We also would recommend that you consider other options as far as
how you count the time remaining left on your landfill. Youlye got 20
to 25 years, as stated earlier, and youlye kind of ratcheted that down
to maybe 12 years of life before you meet your 10-year growth
management plan.
But I would submit that you've got a little more time than that.
You do have that 300-acre property north of the current landfill. Not
that you would even intend necessarily to use it, but you have it. It
buys you time, if you need time.
So you actually have 25 years to deal with trying to figure out
what the odor problems are, fixing those problems; if that solves the
problem, then you don't have to go any further. If it doesn't solve
the problem, then look to the issues of transporting or doing another
site. But look at those first.
The 300 acres right now is declared surplus. But if you take
that off the surplus list, you could count that under your growth
management plan. So I would suggest that maybe if -- you take that
look.
Let's see. I guess basically that's all I've got is just kind of
another -- outside the box, you've got the three options. Here's
another option, couple of other comments.
And don't rush. Wait to see what you've got. The old adage is
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't rush.
MS. VASEY: -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, if it is
broke, fix it, don't throw it away. So I would like you just to
consider that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you, Ms. Vasey, if
you don't mind. What I am hopeful that we're going to do today is
something similar to alternate four but with this change, and I just
wondered what your thoughts were on this, is certainly that we not
acquire the alternate landfill site, we stop that; that we do,
however, enter into an export agreement, if we can; have flexibility
on the start date for when we begin exportation, based on the
resolution of the smell problems; but if we have flexibility on the
start date but definiteness on the cost. In other words, if we can
fix the price today on an exportation contract with a CPI, then it
seems to me that that is a good middle of the road way to go. I just
wondered if you had thoughts on that.
MS. VASEY: If they would enter into a contract like that, I
don't see why not. Although Commissioner Berry mentioned that, you
know, some road -- sometime down the road there might be something --
some other regional landfill in a more central location that would be
cheaper to transport to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if we have -- if we could create some
options about exportation with some fixed prices and some flexibility
on notice about when we would begin the exportation process, based on
whether or not we're able to solve the smell problem, that's something
that makes sense to you?
MS. VASEY: It does. And we are 100 percent behind trying to
solve the smell problem. We don't -- if it can't be solved, then
okay, let's look at another alternative. But before jumping to
another alternative, let's be sure it really can't be solved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I take some exception to the
suggestion that A, we're rushing, or B, that we're going to solve
this. How many swings are we going to take at solving the smell?
While I certainly appreciate the fact that Greater Naples Civic now
acknowledges there is a smell odor, which when I sat down with you in
my office two months ago wasn't the case, there are several problems
with your proposal.
First of all, don't rush? We've been working on this for five
years. Nobody is rushing into anything. We've spent a great deal of
time and effort looking at all the alternatives. Delaying yet another
time is not an effective way to do it.
Commissioner Hancock talked about good government and how to do
things. At some point this board needs to have enough backbone to
make a decision. And delaying and delaying and delaying and saying
well, maybe this will happen and maybe that will happen isn't good
government, it's not good business.
The second problem, and a very serious one, with your alternative
is it doesn't keep the promise that this board made to the community.
And third, Broward was the example that Waste Management took
folks from Golden Gate and East Naples and the county to in 1995 and
showed off as the shining example, and that's what they were going to
do here. And so they've had the opportunity to do that. And either
they have and it doesn't work, or we were misled somewhere along the
line. But none of the scenarios are acceptable.
And finally, Broward County -- if we want to be controlled
similar to Broward landfill, if you read the executive summary,
they're getting a complaint every week or ten days, and that's not
acceptable. That is still a problem, as bad or unacceptable in our
community, in the East Naples/Golden Gate community, where you have
49,000 people living near that.
So I appreciate you offering an alternative, but I think it is a
terribly flawed one.
MS. VASEY: Well, just one comment on the rushing. I do
recognize, and so does Greater Naples and everybody else, that this
has been a long drawn-out process. The rushing part that I'm
referring to is the fact that right now a lot of things are happening.
The scrubbers are going into the water treatment facility, the
measurements are being taken. We have other options to consider and
costs to kind of evaluate. Don't make a decision today. Wait and get
a -- what's another month or two until you determine whether any of
these things will have an impact? And that was the only thing I was
rushing (sic). I recognize the process has been a long one, but it's
just -- right now a lot of things are happening, and I would just
suggest, wait 'til those are completed and then make your --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, you've used the Broward County
example, and Broward County has complaints every seven to ten days,
and that's not something that I think -- certainly I, and I hope not
the board thinks is an acceptable situation. It's not just about all
those -- the other items you mentioned.
MS. VASEY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Kathleen Passidomo.
MS. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kathleen
Passidomo and I represent Friends of Farmers, a group of the farming
community interests.
I don't have any prepared remarks, and I'm mindful of what
you-all spoke about earlier and the tortuous process that you have
gone through and the public meetings that you-all have taken. I think
I'm probably one of them. But -- and I want to personally and on
behalf of my clients commend you-all for the time and effort that you
have put in in the citizens' committee.
You know, I've only spent two years on this process; I know that
you-all have lived with this for five or six. And, you know, I think
when it's all said and done, you can't be faulted for not spending the
time.
I think also what Commissioner Berry said also rings true in that
you really have to make a decision what is in the best interest for
all of Collier County. And so you weigh the factors and the pros and
the cons and the issues that have been before you for the past five
years.
I'd like to just mention a few from the perspective of Friends of
Farmers, what is in the best interest of Collier County at the current
time.
There are some issues that have come up, such as environmental
issues with resiting -- or siting a new landfill. The City of Naples
is very concerned about Naples well fields adjacent to site L.
My clients own the 1,100 acres in question and are actively
farming it and want to continue to actively farm it, and are very
concerned about the use of this property as farmland in the future. So
the reality is, for the people that I'm speaking, site L is not a good
option, it's not in the best interest of Collier County.
We've heard recently some -- the trucking proposal, and yes, it
is a bit more expensive, but it's not that much more expensive. And
what was brought forth this morning I think makes some sense, and my
clients agree, that perhaps if you do close the existing site, maybe
finish up the second phase of cell six and then retain the third
phase, or mine the first and the second cell and then create that
surplus for the future, then you have that surplus that Commissioner
Hancock was speaking.
And 10 years, 12 years is a long time in that -- in -- just think
about in the past five years what we have learned and what has
changed. You know, the trucking costs have come way down. So I think
there are options.
Continue the odor abatement problem at the existing facility. If
there's -- if it continues to smell, put in some more wells.
The composting issue can be also addressed separately in this
community. I mean, you can get additional years out of the reserves
that you would retain if you take the trucking option.
And I think the trucking -- and I'm not one to quote the Naples
Daily News, but I read yesterday, and I thought that was fascinating,
that the trend in this country is to close landfills. And if that's
correct, it doesn't make sense to open a new one. 1,100 acres of
garbage is -- it's almost -- it hurts. It really hurts, when you
think about it, to take a piece of ground that's got some fruit trees
and is feeding our community, and then put garbage on it, when the
option is communities that want to take our garbage because they get
income from it.
So I'm getting back to what the Commissioners said, what is in
the best interest of Collier County. And I think my clients and a lot
of the people I've spoken to agree, that perhaps take the trucking
option, retain future reserves here, but not by purchasing 1,100
acres.
And just in the 56 seconds I have left, my clients are committed
to protect their property. And I've said this before, and it's just a
matter of fact, if you want to pursue site L, my clients are going to
have to respond. And it would be extremely expensive.
And then the last point is in terms of the value of the farmland,
you-all used in your analysis $8,000 an acre. But that doesn't take
into consideration the economic impact. And we have a study from the
University of Florida -- and I think you-all have a copy -- that show
40 to 60,000 an acre.
So there's a lot of issues on costs there that haven't really
been addressed. And maybe they don't need to be, because the reality
is the best interest of Collier County right now is to take our
garbage to a place that wants it and preserve our land that we have in
Collier County for farmland. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers? All right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I think we've had a very
spirited and enlightening discussion today.
I think that the trucking option really sort of puts our control
out in the hands of someone else. And as I've said before, I think to
be prudent, this board needs to assure that it has control of our
future in the solid waste area. Because of that, I'm going to make a
motion that we -- that we adopt alternative two as proposed in our
executive summary, with the addition that we renegotiate the early
closure fees with the current operator. Because I think that we -- by
doing this alternate, that we've changed the economic mix, and
therefore, we should renegotiate this particular price.
But beyond that, I think -- personally, I think I would rather
see us go farther into cell six -- into the life of cell six, I should
say -- before we start trucking. But I'm willing to accept this May
1st, 2003 as an alternative compromise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is
there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask if we can just explore an --
on 2003, one of the things we talked about, and I asked the earlier
question was, what the cost impact of trucking earlier, which would
preserve some of the existing space and save the three million dollar
setup, whether it's at an existing site or at site L, save you the
initial setup cost of your next cell if we begin trucking in 18 to 24
months?
It appears, from what our staff said, that is roughly a wash from
waiting 'til 2003. And I just wondered if you'd considered that. We
didn't really talk about that as a board, to explore that as part of
our contract negotiation with Waste Management. And if it's
economically viable, great, and if it's not --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you respond, Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, we responded earlier to a question about a
two-year option, and we indicated that we felt that was approximately
a wash, if we considered the five-year cost of opting out versus two
years, because of the savings in cell development cost.
The thing we -- and, of course, that was a preliminary estimate
done last night without the benefit of talking to the contractor
today.
And based on that analysis, we had about $100,000 additional
costs, but roughly about the same cost. We would certainly need to
talk to WMI to see if there are any profit issues that we may affect
through that which we may not be aware of, but that's how --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's if it came back wildly
outrageous, you know, we could react accordingly. But I wondered if
we couldn't make that part of the motion to at least see if that's a
viable option.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Commissioner, actually, I would
prefer to stay 'til the termination of cell six, which would be 2008.
As I mentioned, I'm willing to come back to 2003 as a compromise. If
you're willing to accept that, then I'd ask you to support the motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question, Commissioner Berry?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the motion which I seconded is going
to proceed -- or would proceed with the acquisition of site L -- first
of all, I prefer site U, and we had that discussion and I didn't win
on that, so my second choice is site L.
The comments made by Ms. Passidomo regarding the Naples well
fields -- and she used the word adjacent to. My understanding is the
distance is some five miles; is that correct, Mr. -- MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So five miles is not adjacent to in
my book.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One concern we have heard about is
contamination of the Naples well fields. Approximately how far is the
county's well field from site L?
MR. ILSCHNER: About the same distance. We're a little bit
closer in toward Naples itself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not only are we concerned about the city's
water supply, but I would guess that we're fairly concerned about the
county water supply also.
The information that has been made available to me regarding
protection and travel times, Mr. Ilschner, if you could kind of
surmise that? We discussed it yesterday in my office.
Let's assume that the multi-layering and design of the facility
happened to be flawed one on top of the other through each layer in
such a perfect fashion that things could actually get through the cell
and into a monitoring well. Okay. It hasn't happened at the existing
landfill, which has a technology lesser than what we're proposing at a
new site, but let's assume all of the things that could go wrong did
go wrong and we see contamination at the edge of the landfill. What
kind of travel time are we looking at from that point to the very edge
of the nearest well field?
MR. ILSCHNER: Approximately 80 to 100 years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eighty to 100 years. And that's without
doing anything?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's without taking any remedial action?
MR. ILSCHNER: Just ignoring it and let it -- let it take its
course.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is 100 years from now, we're
probably going to have desal plants doing desalination; probably not
even going to be using well fields. But even if we were -- I mean, as
I keep going worst case scenario, that's it. That's the worst case
scenario. Everything that went wrong, possibly could go wrong and
did, there's a -- from the time of leaching, there's a 100-year travel
time to the edge of the well field, not exac -- not even to the cone
of influence where the water's drawn from.
So I think we have to, one, explain that that's not a concern we
have taken lightly and one that we have just cast aside and said it's
not important, but one that we consider as important, or if not the
key importance, in siting a landfill as was evidenced by your
committee's work and priority ranking in that area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, other than proximity to humans,
that was the absolutely highest priority. MR. ILSCHNER: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just in preparation for today's meeting,
it never occurred to me that three of you were going to choose the two
most expensive options; that you're not only going to choose to
increase the costs by trucking, but also to pursue the acquisition of
an incredibly expensive additional site.
I'm -- it never occurred to me that you would -- you would impose
both of those burdens. Surely you would choose one of those burdens.
Even -- forgive me, even Commissioner Constantine in the newspaper had
said that trucking was a reasonable alternative. And I assumed he
meant a reasonable alternative to acquiring another site. I think
that it would be a real show of statesmanship, Commissioner
Constantine, if you wanted to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly, I appreciate the advice.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm certainly going to try to
persuade you.
If you wanted to do what you -- to stick with what you said in
the newspaper, and that is that we don't have to continue -- and I'm
trying to avoid saying the bleeding phrase because that offended you
before, but that we don't have to continue to spend money pursuing
site L, in addition to spending money pursuing -- going with the
export option.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would your alternative be,
Commissioner Hac'Kie? Because what I heard you say just about -- I
don't know if it was just before the break or just after the break --
but -- was that you were comfortable trying to control the odor and
stay there as long as you could -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and to me, that is completely
unacceptable.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me tell you, because if that's what I
said, then that's not what I intended. Let me tell you what my
proposal would be.
My proposal would be that we stay at the current site only until
the time limit in the contract now -- you know, we have to get notice
from Waste Management when there's a million tons' capacity at the
existing site; they tell me that that will be in about 2005 -- that in
2005, we begin trucking if the smell problem is not solved.
And that if we exercised that option in 2005, we would still have
-- we would never have started the new cell, so we would still have
that backup capacity that you're worried about that I appreciate, but
we -- the only difference would be that we would not have continued to
pursue taking this piece of land from an unwilling seller. We would
have the excess capacity, we would have a locked in price on trucking
that we could opt in or out of at the appropriate time when -- if the
smell problem continues. And I expect that it will. I expect that
it's going to continue. I don't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just sounds very open-ended to
me, if the smell continues --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no, no. And let me tell you here,
what I have in mind is exactly what Glenn Wilt said, and that was that
we -- listen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He said truck tomorrow. I'm not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One portion of exactly what he said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wrote it down. Establish benchmarks,
have an annual review, and go to it. And that's what we need to do.
We need to establish -- beginning today, annually we review. If there
is still a continuing problem there after the installation of the
scrubbers, after we put pressure on Waste Management to do whatever
the heck they're doing in Broward -- if it's this horizontal system
that needs to be in place.
It's not open-ended. Here's what you would have, and let me be
real clear. You would have your existing landfill site; you would
have until 2005 every year, once a year, you would evaluate whether or
not the problem is still worth spending a lot of money on to go with
export.
If you find that on each annual review between now and 2005 the
problem still exists, then we exercise an already fixed price in an
option contract for export with Waste Management. So that's not
open-ended.
We have a fixed price option contract that, upon "X" amount of
notice to Waste Management, we can choose to export our waste. And if
we give them that notice any time between now and 2005, we can do that
in such a time that they haven't yet started the new cell, so they
don't have those up-front costs, so that we don't have the
reimbursement issues. It's a no net cost, other than the increase of
the exportation.
What it does is it gives you exactly what you wanted, which is a
time certain to get out of Golden Gate, while leaving excess capacity
on that landfill with a firm contract for exportation, so that the
cost is fixed, and with annual monitoring of the smell problem.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I guess I don't -- I hear two
different things when you say it gives you a firm commitment to get
out of the existing facility, and yet I heard you say at least a half
dozen times, if there's still an odor, if there's still a problem, if
there's still an odor. And, you know, according to Mr. Bigelow, who
works there, there isn't any odor now. That was a quote in one of the
newspapers. And I always laugh and say when I worked in the grocery
store, the guy in the fish department didn't think it smelled at all
either, because he was there every day.
Greater Naples Civic has questioned whether or not it smells.
And it smells, you know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It does smell.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've been there 11 years, I have a
fairly good feel for it. It smells. And it's insulting for someone
to suggest that a landfill doesn't smell.
Your suggestion is to take into account the Broward situation
where they're having complaints every seven to 10 days. And so if
that's our goal, that's unacceptable to me. And with the if repeated
several times, that doesn't sound like a firm commitment for us to
keep our word.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me suggest a different, then. Instead
of annually reviewing it and deciding if we would move, what if we
made the commitment everything I just described except the commitment
is that we hereby notify you in Golden Gate we're moving in 2005,
we're going to use exportation beginning in 2008, or whatever the --
if it's 2007. That we give notice in 2005 that we're going to be out
in 2007, but that we at least stop pursuing site L.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I have a question
on your motion. The request for proposal and bid that we put out had
a 20-year window in it and it had some add -- alternate things in
there. And I wondered, if we pursue this, if you'd be open to looking
for a 30-year contract and in the 20th year -- in 20 years the process
begins to look at either renewal or rebidding or reproposing. That
way the county is assured, as long as the contract has continued, CPI
increase only for 30 years -- which is what we have now, except we've
only got it for eight more years. We've got a 30-year lock on that.
But then it will give us a 10-year window at the end of that term. If
for some reason we're unhappy or want to make some changes, the board
can start looking at whatever options are available with 10 years
left.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're referring to the exportation
contract?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no problem with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll incorporate that into my motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second the amend.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, the solution you
propose, correct me if I'm wrong, what that leaves us in our hip
pocket as a safety net is 12 years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twelve years at current -- at current
technology.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, without going out to the 300 acres
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm not proposing that we should.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right.
I guess my concern is that -- it's going to sound funny. I'm not
comfortable with 12 years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: State just wants 10.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know, but the state wants to do a lot of
things that aren't right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, but usually they want to force us to
do things that cause us to spend money. And in this case, the state's
not even asking us to spend this money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I go back and I look at decisions that we
live with today that could have been done slightly differently when it
was a little -- maybe not easier for the individuals at the time, but
as we look back on it, it seems like it would have been easier. And
everything from a second Gordon River bridge that should have been
built in the Eighties to -- you know, to roads that can't exist now
because of development decisions.
And I come back to something that Lyle Sumack, who we're going to
see next week, said two years ago. And being in government sometimes
and making some of the hard decisions we have to make can be likened
to when someone hands you a puppy and it's the type of dog that has to
have its tail clipped; do you take it to the vet and have it clipped
one inch at a time, or do you just whack it off once? And what we've
been doing with this is we've been going an inch --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I love that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at a time.
We keep bringing this thing back and cutting that tail off
another inch or another half inch. And there comes a time when the
information before you is constant, when the information before you is
something you can put in your hand and hold, you can see it, you can
see what the cost is, you can see where it's going to take you, and
you have to be ready, I think, to make that decision, as uncomfortable
as it is.
This is an imperfect -- no matter which of these options we take,
they're all imperfect. None of them are great. You know, I want
Oberlin College. I would have loved to have gone to their site.
They're a willing seller. I think we could do it. But the problem is
the parameters set up by the committee more or less excluded that site
to do it. We'd enter in a legal battle for which we have no support.
So, you know, all the things that I wanted to do haven't worked
out. So in this imperfect solution, we're going to differ as to what
that solution should be. But I honestly -- in all the things that we
have to do as County Commissioners -- and that list should be a lot
shorter than it is -- we should continually reduce the intrusion of
the things we have to do where they affect people's lives.
This is one that's left to us. And I'm not willing to roll the
dice on the litany of ifs that are involved in what you've proposed.
And I'm not saying they're uneducated, I'm not saying they're
inappropriate, there's just too many ifs there for me to be
comfortable.
So I would rather have the solution in hand. We have the funds
to do the acquisition, we can go ahead and do it. We've done all the
homework to get it done. And then no matter what, we know that we can
take care of the waste stream in this county for the residents for 50
plus years. And that's important to me; important enough to maybe
make a decision that some people aren't going to like.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I have a proposal, too.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm listening.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. We have a motion and a second on the
floor right now, so we need to deal with them -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, come on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we need to deal with them one at a time.
So let's -- let's go ahead.
I'll call for the question.
Would you want to restate your motion, Mr. Norris, again, please
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- just for the record?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's alternative two, as described in our
executive summary, with the direction to staff to try -- to
renegotiate the price of the buy-out option, and Commissioner
Constantine's friendly amendment to give ten years' lead time to
renegotiate the exportation contract.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty-year term and a --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirty-year term with a ten-year lead time
for renegotiation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then that's to also acquire site L?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's part of alternative two, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's part of alternative two.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. You've heard the motion. All
those in favor?
Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries, three-two.
So they will -- you will be working toward acquiring site L.
There will be a new site -- landfill site acquired.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully that never has to be used
because we'll be trucking for 30 years.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, I couldn't even swing you with a
Lyle Sumack comment? I thought we'd get you with that one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I didn't change. I told you right from
the get-go where I stood on the issue, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are consistent, aren't we?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Try to be.
We'll take just a couple of minutes here until we let everyone
out of the room quietly, please.
Item #SD1
COMPARATIVE COST INFORMATION TO BE PRESENTED TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESUCE DISTRICT AND THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT AND COHMISSIONERS TO BE ADVISED OF FUTURE MEETINGS IN ORDER TO
ATTEND
Okay, then, moving on to item 8(D)(1), approval to present the
comparative cost information to the residents of the Isles of Capri
Fire and Rescue District and the Ochopee Fire District.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners, Diane --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Chief Flagg.
MS. FLAGG: -- Diane Flagg, emergency services chief, for the
record.
Just a brief summary of what you find in your executive summary
and the backup data in terms of budget is that the current situation
as a dependent district, the appropriation for Isle is the 163-2, for
Ochopee is 848-3. The net impact on the low, very conservative cost
estimate is a $40,950 annual increase for the Isles of Ochopee up to
conservatively $70,750 annually for going from a dependent district to
an independent district.
The primary cost differentials for Isle include -- the low cost
estimate is a $2,500 a year cost for fire commissioners. High cost
estimate is the $30,000 a year for fire commissioners.
The state statute identifies a maximum of $500 a month for five
fire commissioners, which equates to the $30,000. And then we took a
low estimate of $500 a year versus $500 a month.
There's also an increase to operating costs to 9,400, and then
the additional increase that creates that increase to an independent
district is providing coverage from the present 12 hours a day to 24
hours a day.
In terms of the Ochopee comparison, the cost increase there, the
low cost estimate to go to an independent district is an increase of
$54,400 annually, to the higher cost estimate of $84,300 annually.
The primary reasons for those increases again is the variance
between the fire commissioners of either low cost estimate of 2,500
annually or high cost estimate of 30,000 annually, an increase of
operating cost, and also, from a revenue standpoint, the elimination
of the general fund subsidy of the 357,800 through the PILT funds.
And commissioners, as you know, what PILT funds are, they are funds --
they're called payment in lieu of taxes. The federal government, when
they take over properties, they allocate funds to the Board of County
Commissioners, who make the ultimate decision on how those funds could
be allocated. These cost estimates and the subsequent millage
increases work from the point that the board would choose to eliminate
those PILT funds. Certainly there are other options. The board could
continue the current subsidy to the Ochopee Fire District, or they
could reduce the subsidy using the state guidelines such as you do for
the Department of Forestry, which is three cents an acre.
Then the final aspect of that is how the board would like to
present this information and ultimate decision by the voters.
To move to an independent district it requires a referendum of
the people, so you can have an option of doing a straw vote or a
survey. The total cost is 5,000 to do that. It's not required.
Again, that aspect is optional.
The local delegation hearing, the earliest that it could be heard
in this active legislation would be January of '99.
The cost to do the concurrent election ballot would be March of
2000. In talking to the supervisor of elections, that's the earliest
ballot that she could put it on for concurrent election. Or you could
do a separate mail ballot, and the supervisor of elections has
estimated that to be 12,000.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would those districts pick up that cost for
the $12,0007
MS. FLAGG: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If the question was affirmative, if --
kind of like the City of Marco Island -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they didn't have to pay for it until
they approved city-hood.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see, yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Then they had --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to pay for the cost of the elections --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- once they became a city. I think the
districts will be much the same way. If they vote to become an
independent district, they would pick up the cost of the election. If
they didn't, it just stays on the books until such time as they do.
That's my only experience with it is Marco, and I assume it would be
similar.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's important to note that in this
presentation the millage rates would change -- in the case of Ochopee
pretty dramatically -- and that's because in pursuance of the board's
direction, that we only show the true cost of the fire-related
activities and not the other contribution that is made by the general
fund.
I asked the staff to remove the payment in lieu of taxes that we
receive for the Ochopee district. I understand traditionally it's
been the tradition that those monies would go exclusively for that.
We've determined that that is a general fund revenue. You could use
that to fund general fund activities. So the millage rate reflects
taking that out. And as you see, it raises the millage rate in
Ochopee dramatically.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I'm interested in getting this
information out to the communities, but not at this point in
scheduling any kind of election. I'd like for them to know what their
choices are and for the communities to come back to us and let us
know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Yeah, I think that's a good point.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I -- I have to confess that I was
operating under some misinformation previously, that the Isle of Capri
district was set up by referendum. Turns out that that was set up by
ordinance. And right now I think part of this discussion has been
spurred on by the fact that there's some level of subsidation from the
county general fund to this district.
What would be the figure today dollar-wise of that subsidy? Do
you have that with you? MS. FLAGG: In --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you analyze that?
MS. FLAGG: In terms of Isle of Capri, their revenue stream -- on
that attachment that you have for the Isle of Capri for FY '98 budget,
this determines what their revenue stream is. It's the ad valorem
taxes, the transfer from the Collier County Fire Control District, and
then carryforwards and interest.
The discussion earlier -- several weeks ago in terms of was using
a paramedic to provide both EHS and fire service in the Isle of Capri
district a subsidy? What we have subsequently done as a result of
that meeting is remove that restriction. So in terms of actual
dollars, these -- this is the revenue that the Isle of Capri receives.
It's the ad valorem taxes, which is generated by the district
residents, and then the transfer from the Collier County fire control
district for the services that they're providing to that area.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's 33,800?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If we were going to make no changes
except to ask the district to pay its own expenses, what would that do
to the millage rate? Have you analyzed that?
MS. FLAGG: The -- the millage would remain the same, at the
0.79. If it was the community's or the board's desire to increase the
coverage by a firefighter to 24 hours, it would be less than one mill.
And their millage cap is one mill.
Because as you can see, by increasing the coverage to 24 hours by
a firefighter, it brings the millage rate to 1.0200 mills. But that
includes the increased operational cost due to loss of economies, a
scale, and also the fire commissioners' salaries are stipends. So if
-- if you were to provide 24-hour coverage by a firefighter, you could
do it for less than one mill under a dependent district. Under an
independent district, it would be 1.02 mills, which would require
referendum, because it would go above their millage cap.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it would require a referendum to make
it independent in the first place.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioners, I thought I knew the
question you were asking, and I -- and correct me if I'm wrong, when
we were talking about administrative costs that are in essence created
by the existing dependent districts that are not necessarily a part of
their budget, it wasn't just the paramedic, it was the fact that -- we
even budget a certain amount in each district for that.
And by budgeting that, am I reading this correctly to say that
for fiscal year '98 for the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District,
they were assessed $800 for all of the administrative support, human
resources, purchasing, budget and whatnot? In other words, their
total administrative cost was $800 in fiscal year '98? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd be interested to see how that's
compiled, because that seems low, particularly when on Ochopee it's
32,700.
Now, one, could you explain the disparity between the two; and
two, I'd like to just see a justification of that and a check to see
if that -- if that's actually what was spent, because 800 for
administration seems awfully low. I hope that you are indeed that
efficient, it would be welcome news, but I'm wondering if there's
something that isn't missing there. But could you first explain the
disparity between 800 and 32,000 for administrative costs?
MS. FLAGG: When the -- it's actually -- it's not our department
that determines indirect service cost reimbursements. The budget
office has a specific formula that they use to determine what that is.
My understanding is it varies based upon the number of FTE's. Ochopee
has 11, Isle has 2.25. It varies on the amount of the budget.
they use different variables to determine what the indirect service
cost would be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just -- as we come into budget
this year, particularly, I would really like to see justification for
those numbers. Because my concern was that the folks in Isle of Capri
felt like they were paying their way 100 percent, and in fact there
may have been some subsidizing of that dependent district from the
general tax base. I just want to make sure that's not the case, so
that when they do look at these numbers, they know what the actual
cost of what they have is and we can trace that, versus -- it may be
here in front of us. I just want to be able to verify that through
the budget process.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments, questions?
Do we have any speakers on the subject?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Kevin Walsh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And does everybody know about the East
Naples proposal being pulled?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Being pulled.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not going to spend any
time talking about that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many speakers do we have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Three.
MR. WALSH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Walsh.
I'm a resident of the Isles of Capri, and I've been a property owner
there for the past five years.
For the past two years, with some regularity, I've attended the
meetings of the fire commissioners on the Isles of Capri, and the
meetings that I have attended, the focus has been not on the economics
but on the level of service provided to the residents of the Isle of
Capri.
And my concern, as I see the twisting and turning that this issue
has taken, is that it becomes an accounting issue, when in fact I
think the residents that I'm familiar with on the Isles of Capri,
following the lead of the fire commissioners, are much more concerned
about the service level. And I hope we're not walking into a
situation where we're going to let the bean counters determine how the
fire services are provided on the Isles of Capri.
I also am a member of the Capri Civic Association. That brings
me to the question I came here to address. When the commissioners
entered into -- or approved the entering into of the contract with
East Naples, it was subject to the approval of this body. I was not
present when this body considered that. All I know is what I read in
the paper.
But the comment that was recounted in the paper was that the
citizens of the Isle of Capri will have to determine their fate.
We're delighted to have that option. What we don't know is how to go
about that.
Now, I've heard for the first time this morning some conversation
about referendum. That may be the appropriate outcome here, because I
would hope it would not involve every resident from the Isles coming
up and taking three minutes of this body's time to express their
viewpoint.
It's a very complex issue, let me hasten to add. When you try
and weigh something like the level of service, which is difficult to
quantify, against costs, which are easier to quantify, it becomes a
very complex issue. So I'm not sure how in the final analysis the
options that may end up being available to the citizens are going to
be communicated to them in a fashion where they can vote up or down.
But it seems to me by -- by refusing to approve the contractual
arrangement with the East Naples Fire Department -- which seemed to a
number of us to be a reasonable alternative -- you have created a
dilemma that I hope you will help us sort through in the final
analysis. Because if the residents of the Isles of Capri have to
determine it, it's got to be done on the basis of good information and
then an honest process for determining what the residents want.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Walsh, this is what this is all about.
And the reason we didn't go forward with East Naples was because this
information was -- we knew was going to be coming from our staff in
regard to this.
This is the information that they will be coming forward with now
and making a public presentation to the residents of the Isle of Capri
Fire District. And they'll also be doing the same thing for the
Ochopee Fire District with information that's pertinent to that
particular district. And then at that point in time they'll also be
able to answer questions, and then you will have some information in
which to base your decision as to what you want to do.
But that's exactly why -- what this whole thing is all about.
This is the information -- what they're bringing back to us today is
the information so we can take a look at it, and then they're going
to be making arrangements to present this information publicly to you.
MR. WALSH: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
MR. WALSH: Well, in that connection, as a member of the Capri
Civic Association, we'd be happy to provide the forum. We have a
larger space --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, you will.
MR. WALSH: -- and I think a more neutral ground --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. WALSH: -- for discussing this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. That's exactly -- that's the whole
effort. We did not think it was fair to go ahead and approve the East
Naples agreement until all the residents had this opportunity to hear
this information.
MR. WALSH: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
MR. WALSH: You'll be --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it's not that we're eliminating that. I
mean, you may decide ultimately that's what you want to do or you want
to pursue something like that. That will certainly be an option, I'm
sure, for you. But at the meantime, everybody needs to get on the
same page before any of those decisions are made.
MR. WALSH: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one down side of that is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that with the city -- with the East
Naples proposal being pulled is what kind of initiated this. Unless
East Naples is also willing to attend that meeting and say this is our
proposal and what its cost is, all of that information isn't going to
be there. We can only control what we can present to you. MR. WALSH: No, I understand that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, this was heading along a pretty
smooth path initially.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We were just going to get the information
out there and let people look at it and come to us, but as you -- the
__
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- twists and turns are appropriate. I
mean, it got about as convoluted and clouded as it could have been.
So right now we're going to present the information we know, and
if East Naples wishes to do that, and the people of the Isles of Capri
want to get together and make a decision, then, you know, we're all
ears.
MR. WALSH: Okay. We need your help in terms of how that
decision gets made, what the process is, once the information is out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It will be taken care of.
MR. WALSH: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Lloyd Woolsey.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you go ahead and call the next one,
so --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next one is David Carpenter.
MR. WOOLSEY: For the record, my name is Lloyd Woolsey, better
known as Skip. My mother is the last one to ever call me Lloyd.
I don't have a great deal to add to what -- the remarks that were
just made. As you probably know, I was partially responsible for the
architecture negotiations with East Naples.
I keep hearing Isles of Capri. And I live on the Isles of Capri,
and it's only with some difficulty that I recognize that we are soon
going to be in a minority in this district. In fact, we may already
have been outstripped by their number of residents on Mainsail, and
when Fiddler's Creek gets along a little farther, in perhaps a year or
two, they may outstrip the two of us with multi high-rises and the
condos and that sort of thing.
But an awful lot of my fellow islanders don't recognize the
importance of the other parts of our district which are also paying
their taxes and are very much a part of the district. And we very
much have (sic) in mind those sections when we made this.
As you probably are aware -- I'm sure you are -- that there's
going to be a considerable upheaval on 951 in -- for the next two,
perhaps three years, hopefully only that long, and that the far
reaches of our district are going to be difficult, if not impassable,
for any service from our station.
Now, in speaking with East Naples, their plan was to operate the
station on Capri and the one up near Eagle Creek as two campuses of
the same unit, which works to the advantage of both areas and is part
of the reason that they were willing to talk and work with us on this.
Beyond that, I -- if there's any questions, I'll answer them, but
I conclude my remarks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any question of Mr. Woolsey? I think not.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. David Carpenter.
MR. CARPENTER: Good morning again. Dave Carpenter, speaking as
an East Naples resident and as a conservative and as a Republican.
You know, county government does a lot of things very well. And
in the past it did a good job of operating a couple of dependent
districts. Today, though, they have become an anachronism. After the
20 some odd years of their existence, there's no longer the need for
them. But instead what we see is the unionization of county employees
of Ochopee. And if you think that's where the unionization of county
employees is going to stop, I think you've got a surprise coming.
We see a bitter and often personal dispute going on at the Isle
of Capri. Simple solution: Get Collier County out of running fire
districts.
There is a third alternative that needs to be offered to these --
to the state districts, and that is, if they do not choose to become
independents, it should be the county's option to simply go out and
contract for fire service at whatever level their millage rate will
support for the two districts.
Whatever happens, though, Collier County should get out of trying
to run small independent or localized fire districts as dependent
districts. It smacks of paternalism. The county is forced in a
position of trying to come up with budgets within a millage rate that
the people set, that the people don't actually run the district. It's
somewhat a contrived situation, and it should be the policy of this
board to move away from operating these fire departments in any
capacity as a county commission. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No further speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No further speakers? Okay, I think we have
the information before us. If there's anything that you think should
be added or any comments, I think this is the appropriate time to
direct those comments to Ms. Flagg in preparation for presenting this
material.
If you think there's something that needs to be added to this,
and maybe even, you know, all alternatives that may be available to
them in terms of contractual, or maybe that's where we'd come into
play. So --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think Mr. Carpenter raises a good
point, and that is that one of the options that should be presented to
both of the citizens -- the citizens of both of these districts is
that the county has the option unilaterally to contract for service
within these districts, rather than trying to operate it as a county
agency. So I think that needs to be added to the information.
And I'll make a motion that we go ahead and approve the
presentation of this information to the respective districts. And I
would like to also request that staff keep the respective
commissioners within those districts advised of the meeting times so
that we could attend as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor of that addition of information?
Opposed?
(No response.)
Okay.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, just one question. Did you want to
take a position on PILT funds, or did you want us to just present both
options, the high and the low?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't '-
MS. FLAGG: Because that's ultimately the board's decision on how
they wish to allocate those funds. Right now they're being used to
subsidize Ochopee's budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't -- I don't think that's a decision
we're going to make here today.
MS. FLAGG: Okay. So just present both.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Chief Flagg, if I could ask that you keep
all of us informed about when the meetings are.
MS. FLAGG: I'd be happy to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. FLAGG: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
Item #BE1
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO MOVE FORWARD AND COME BACK TO THE BCC WITH
FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S AGENCY ORGANIZATION
Hoving on then to item 8(E)(1), presentation of the county
administrator's agency organization.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to present
this reorganization plan as a product of the management staff. We got
together and discussed the various issues regarding county
organization and came up with this recommendation. It calls for the
creation of a fifth division of public safety, which would include the
departments of emergency management, emergency medical services,
helicopter operations, Isles of Capri fire, and Ochopee fire.
In addition, it provides for the reorganization of the office of
capital projects management. The thought here is that the current
structure is not always the best way to approach certain projects,
specifically those in parks and recreation and those that relate to
building projects, so the proposal is to redistribute the staff of the
current OCPH office, providing the coverage for parks projects to be
within the parks department -- the parks and recreation department,
and also those that deal with buildings, vertical construction, to be
moved to the facilities management department.
It also provides for the combination of utility regulation and
franchise administration, with the only distinction being that the
Channel 54 operation be separated from cable franchise and be combined
with public information officer, and the public information office to
be placed under what's currently support services. The recommendation
is to rename that division to administrative services to more
appropriately reflect the actual function there.
The next recommendation is to move towards development, counsel
staff support, to community development. This, it seems, is a better
match with economic development and the other things going on in this
department -- in this division.
We're also recommending that Pelican Bay services division, the
-- essentially the relationship between our office and Pelican Bay not
change, but that the improvement of coordination and communication can
be effected by having there be a link between that operation and
public works division. So we're placing that there. The -- let me see, I think that's everything.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, on that one, is that
consistent with the ordinance adopted establishing the HSTUBU?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. It doesn't change that, it just establishes
communication linkages. It doesn't provide that anyone answer to
anyone any differently than now.
I think the way we have it now, the organizational chart calls
for that linkage to come directly to me, and it's the hope that this
will improve the coordination and communication back and forth with
the -- that district and the rest of the county operation. So it
really doesn't change anything.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. I just wanted to make sure we
checked the ordinance to make sure we weren't --
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll make sure that we do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The reorganization plan calls for the -- the
reinstatement, really, of one position. I call it a reinstatement
because at the time that the budget was adopted this year, we
transferred essentially one position from the county administrator's
office; the position formerly held by the executive assistant to the
county manager. That was Mr. Day. This would essentially call for
the recreation of that position in a division director capacity. That
would be the division director of public safety.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just makes -- well, first off, let me say
the positive. I like everything about this. I like almost everything
about this. I particularly like the tourist development tax idea.
It's needed some leadership structure terribly.
I like almost everything about it. I have just the question
about what is the -- what's broken that we're going to fix by adding a
person? I even can see breaking public safety out as a separate
division. I wonder, however, why we have to hire a new person to be
the division administrator instead of just moving what currently
exists into a separate division.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What we're attempting to do with that is to
establish a clear separation between emergency medical services and
the operation of the fire districts. I've heard from the board that
there's a strong interest there to operate them as separate entities.
And that's essentially what this does.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, the responsibility of the
division administrator will -- well, how does that -- how does it
accomplish that goal? How does that work? I don't understand that --
how having another person over --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Currently the same person that manages the
department of emergency medical services also manages the fire
districts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The fire districts' chiefs answer to that
department head. This essentially creates the fire districts as
departments, as county departments, as a part of the public safety
division.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which -- which I agree, as long as they're
in place, that's -- that's a good way for them to go. But I hesitate.
We're going to hire another whole human being while we're in the
middle of discussing whether or not we're going to stay in the fire
business.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That is one of the drawbacks. And I apologize I
didn't get a chance to brief you on this one. But the thought here is
that if in fact the Board of County Commissioners elects not to stay
in the fire business, we would definitely have to rethink this
division.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to be in the fire business for
at least two years, it looks like, in any case. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention, there's one thing that I
thought about after our meeting yesterday on this, and that is that in
the event of a large-scale emergency, there's a single point of
coordination of all county emergency applications. In the past that's
been Ken Pineau. Ken has other duties, and he kind of was really
splitting himself --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- between the specific EMO coordination
responsibilities to the state and being a coordinator.
So this is a clearly defined coordinator other than Mr.
Fernandez. And I think that's important in disaster type situations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I look at the final page where you
break down into boxes the -- what was four and now is proposed to be
five different divisions, it seems to me we've kind of spread out the
-- what items are under public safety to make it look like there's
more than there is.
Helicopter operations, what do they do, other than the EMS stuff?
What percentage of their time is spent doing something other than
emergency services?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I would ask Mr. Ochs, do you have an answer for
that, Leo?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark. I mean, I've got to imagine
the vast majority of their time is spent transporting people in health
related situations.
MR. OCHS: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I would consider that to be under
EMS. And the Isle of Capri and fire -- and Ochopee Fire have always
just been referred to as fire. We used to always say fire and EMS
services we did. So I look at that box as having two things:
Emergency management and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fire and EMS.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- fire and EMS. And with just those
two items there, I start wondering if that requires its own division.
I'm a little concerned about the manner -- and I appreciate your
comments on creating that whole new position, because it just seems a
little bogus to me to be taking a position completely unrelated to
that -- that I appreciate you didn't fill before, and I'm glad and I
hope we don't -- but -- and then just retitling that and using it for
something completely different. I mean, that -- it isn't even close
to the position of the county manager.
So if you're creating a new position, let's call it a new
position, let's not say we're moving something from one area to
another.
I think the utility regulation franchise stuff, that's great.
Channel 54 stuff is great, TDC stuff is great. But the -- creating
that whole new division I have a concern with. Hiring a new person
for that, which will be a high-end expensive position, I have a
problem with.
And frankly, I also really have a concern with the OCPH thing.
My question is, why destroy what has been -- best I can tell, the
single most successful change.
Neil changed a couple times the format in which we did our
management setup while I was on the board, and that was perhaps the
single most successful change in the last five years. And I really
fear more confusion, more miscommunication between the departments,
more consultants getting hired, more expense long-term with that when
we start breaking that up and putting it back in different
departments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a tag-on to that, I'd let you know
that OCPM is one of the productivity committee's highest priorities
for this year to evaluate, just for what it's worth.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, may I respond?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In the discussion we had among the division
administrators, it became clear that the approach that has been taken,
it really hasn't developed for OCPM, works best with public works
types projects --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and doesn't really work as well for parks,
projects or even buildings.
And it's for that reason that we felt that it would improve the
efficiency of the organization and maybe even save some costs if we
were able to make this change and have the controls for these types of
projects change a little bit.
We would still have the OCPM and the public works department, and
they would still do all the things they do now for the public works
division projects.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess your comment there that "and
maybe it will save some costs" worries me. The word maybe gets my
attention and reminds me -- I'm glad you said it, because it reminds
me of the final paragraph here under fiscal impact in the executive
summary.
It says, "A few further classification adjustments may be in
order." I don't know what that means. I don't know if that's more
money, if that's some people are going to get different jobs and
higher paying jobs. I have no idea what that means.
And then it says, "It is recommended that the board approve the
organization in concept with a full report on the exact cost to be
provided to the board members following a human resources review."
It just seems to me if you're asking for us to approve a change,
we ought to know what the fiscal impact is when we do that, rather
than yeah, it sounds good, but let's see how much. I mean, it's
Commissioner Norris' old analogy of do you want some free ice cream.
Sure. And after the fact, oh, by the way, today's flavor is tuna fish
and it's $22 a cone, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's gone up.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was only 15, I guess, when he did
it, but --
MR. FERNANDEZ: The intent here is to ask the commission if we
approved of this concept, and if so, then we would go back and
determine what specific costs there would be associated with bringing
that back to the board. If that's not acceptable, then we don't go
forward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me -- that's my whole
point is it seems out of order. It seems like you would have a pretty
good idea what the jobs would be, what jobs would require shifting,
what administrative changes there would be, before you ask us to
approve it. I can't approve something when I have no idea what it'll
cost and no idea what other jobs will be impacted. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to ditto that, but I
would very much like to know what the -- if what you're looking for
today, Mr. Fernandez, is are we interested enough in this concept to
ask you to please run the numbers, I am -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- interested enough in this concept to
ask you to do that. I'll tell you that I have a lot of questions
about the new public safety division, whether or not it's necessary to
add another human being there, or if we couldn't just move over what
we have, if it needs to be broken out, if it requires another hire.
So that's my -- I don't know if you want a consensus or a motion,
or how you're going to handle that, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think at this point in time that -- I'm
sorry, Commissioner Hancock, you had a question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Over the last year, from Ochopee and Isle
of Capri Fire Departments, we have all been deluged with comments,
complaints, issues that we have had to go through the county
administrator and ask please find a solution to this, what's the
answer to question "X". And there are reasons for that. And I can
only speculate as to what they are.
EHS is a full-time job all by itself. Diane Flagg I think has
her hands full running the EHS department. In the past Diane has run
EHS and overseen the two fire departments, and reported to Leo Ochs,
who then reported to Mr. Fernandez.
The structures remain the same, but we are adding a body. And to
me, that body is someone who needs to have experience in emergency
services; not just EHS, but maybe some fire also. Rather than -- I
guess I expected, when we hired Mr. Fernandez, for him to come in, to
take a careful review and a careful look at things and to determine
where he felt there were weaknesses in our structure or weaknesses in
our placement of individuals, and there would eventually be some type
of restructuring.
What I was pleased with is that his restructuring, as he
proposed, added one body. That's not the bureaucratic tendency. The
bureaucratic tendency is to add a bunch of bodies, get more help. And
I was quite pleased to see that what he did only resulted in one
potential addition.
I think at this point I am cautious somewhat, as are at least two
other board members, and I'm sure everyone. But I think we need to
give the county administrator the latitude to develop the cost, to
come back to us and the opportunity to implement it before we pass
judgment on whether it's a good or bad structure. And that's what I'd
like to see us do today, and I'll go ahead and put in a motion to that
effect.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So in effect you're saying continue it
until we have financial data developed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Discussion or question, or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just a question on the motion. The
motion to continue the item without --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No, I'm sorry, someone said continue
and that's improper context.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You mean to go forward.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, to -- under this structure to bring
the cost back to us, but, you know, I also included in the motion, you
know, let's remember, we hired a professional county administrator --
not to say that we can't disagree with him, and we should, if that's
how you feel -- but I want to see a little bit more on the structure.
And Commissioner Constantine always asks, okay, I'm person "X".
I come in at 8:00 and leave at 5:00. What do I do all day? That may
be what we need to see to understand more of the public safety
appointment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to be difficult, but
what -- can you just clarify for me what it is we're saying go ahead
with today? You're just saying go ahead with --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take this structure forward --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- flushing it out, or actually make
this structure now?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, he's saying bring the numbers back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just as Mr. Fernandez indicated he wanted
to do, which is to ask for approval in concept of this, come back with
the numbers, and then we determine whether or not at that time we
agree with him moving ahead or want to make revisions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- problem is I can't approve in concept
today --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- until I get -- what I'd like to do is
give direction to Mr. Fernandez to come back with the numbers so that
then we can decide if we approve of his concept or not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I think we're dealing in semantics.
I think --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're all saying go do the same thing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, that's the intent of my
motion, period. How's that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll support it, but I want to
clarify, the intent of my supporting vote is not approval in concept,
it is to go ahead and give us that further information. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that's important. I agree with
Commissioner Hancock that we do hire an administrator, and if this is
a suggestion that he has made, we all have an opportunity at a point
in time when we will be evaluating the county administrator on the job
that he has done. He has made this recommendation, and obviously he's
got to stand behind the recommendation that he has made.
And I think it's important for us, unless you want to be the
micromanagers of this county, that you allow him to go ahead and make
these recommendations to the board. And if at some point in time --
now, granted, if the fee comes back and the price looks totally out of
sight, there's no reason why we can't say no. But at the same time,
this is in his professional judgment, he's made this judgment, and I
think we need to allow it to work. And if we don't see that this has
improved or -- I would say improved the services to the county, then
we will have -- certainly have an opportunity to evaluate that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well spoken.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Call the question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I'll call the question. All in
favor of the motion?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
I'm going to make a lot of people unhappy right now. We're going
to take about four -- we've got four items under Board of County
Commissioners, which are very quick items. There's nothing that's
going to be, in my opinion, a lot of discussion. And then we're going
to take a lunch break. And I'm going to tell you this now, because I
know that all of you aren't going to fit in the elevator to get
downstairs, if you choose to go out and get something to eat, so I'm
going to give you an opportunity, for those of you who would like to
leave the chamber, at least get a head start, perhaps, unless you want
to hear us talk about the next few items.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long is our lunch break?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to probably only -- since we've
had lunch brought up to us, rather than going out, we're only going to
take about a 30 to 40-minute lunch break and we'll be back in here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reconvene at about 1:00, you think?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At about 1:00. Or as quickly as we get done
here. It will be about 35 to 40 minutes from that time forward.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-80 APPOINTING JOANNE HARRO QUINN TO THE
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED
Okay, let's move on then to item -- if you're leaving, please
do so quietly.
Item 10(A), appointment --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, one opening --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and one applicant, I make a motion
we appoint that person, Joann Marro Quinn.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Premature second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of the responses that come to mind.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of Joann Marro Quinn to the historical and
archaeological preservation board. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-81 APPOINTING W. HERMAN SPOONER TO THE IHMOKALEE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, to move things along, one
applicant, one employment, I would recommend -- make a motion for Mr.
Spooner for the --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the Immokalee Enterprise Zone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought I'd be very careful not to be
premature and second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
Could we have it quiet, please? We're still conducting a meeting
in this chamber. One can walk quietly out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She's a former schoolteacher, don't mess
with her.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Only when I was teaching, I had a whistle
around my neck, too.
All right, we have a motion and a second to approve Mr. Spooner
to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-82 APPOINTING THOMAS PLAMER AND REAPPOINTING JOHN CONROY
TO THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
The next appointment has to do with the Collier County Housing
and Finance.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I'd like --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to see --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to nominate Bill Regan --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Mr. Conroy -- go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and Mr. Conroy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think Bill Regan is one of the
__
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Mr. Palmet and Mr.
Conroy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to ask if you'd reconsider
that. I'm going to -- Mr. Conroy's been great and has done a
wonderful job. I hope we can get him to continue. Mr. Lindnet has a
pretty impressive resume, pretty impressive background. I wondered if
you might consider him instead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I'd like to leave my motion as it
stands. I think Mr. Conroy is the institutional memory of the -- of
the authority, and it would just be a shame to lose his expertise. I
have no opinion about the other person's qualifications to serve, but
he's just done -- he is the housing finance authority, as far as I'm
concerned.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I feel --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment, please.
For all of you that are trying to come in and get a seat, if you
did not hear my announcement, as soon as we finish these two items,
we're going to be taking about a 40-minute lunch break. The reason
the people left the chamber is because they're trying to get a head
start downstairs. So there's nothing going to happen here. In about
the next two or three minutes we're going to be on about a 40-minute
break.
Okay. We have, I believe, a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I don't know if there's a second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will second that motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just -- and it may not make any
difference, and I may be the lone voice, but I'm going to oppose the
motion, just because I feel strong enough -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I oppose Mr. Conroy on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I respect that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want it to be clear, it doesn't
have anything to do with Mr. Conroy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, motion and a second. All in favor of
the motion of the appointment of Mr. Conroy and Mr. Palmet to the
Housing Finance Authority of Collier County, say aye. Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
Item #10D
RESOLTUION 98-83 APPOINTING MIKE TAYLOR AND BOB ROTH TO THE ADG -
ADOPTED
Next item, 10(D), the ADG appointments. I placed that on the
agenda.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the two additional
members suggested by Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. And the reason they
were requested is, in my meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers, Mr.
Barton, they saw that they had no representation from AG or from --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Property management.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- property management. So basically,
large property owners in that area, they asked for names that they
might use for their appointments to the committee. I felt
Commissioner Berry would be the most appropriate to offer those names,
and thank you for doing so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I had is in your
note it says representatives from the eastern part of the county, and
I notice Mr. Taylor is on Third Avenue North. I assume that's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's where he lives.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- active in the AG -- when you say
he's required --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's his business?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't live there, but he works there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Spends more time there than home.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And most of the time there -- and the reason
we did this -- I happen to know him, but I had asked him if he could
serve as the appointment. And his time schedule was such that he
didn't think he could do that, but he certainly would be able, in case
the other gentleman was not able, that they could, between the two of
them, get the job done. And they felt very confident in that.
that's the reason we went the way we did.
Okay, did you make a motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Commissioner?
Okay. And do I have a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I seconded that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- did I get a second? I'm sorry.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10E
DISCUSSION REGARDING SHERIFF'S VEHICLES PARKING IN PUBLIC SPACES -
STAFF TO DETERMINE IF PARK RNAGERS CAN ISSUE CITATIONS ON THE COUNTY
COMPLEX PROPERTY
And the last item, 10(E), the parking issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure with a room full of people this
will resonate very well, but as you come in this side of the building
where we have the public only parking out there, I came in this
morning and counted at least 20 yellow sheriffs' license plates in the
public only parking area. It's the closest way for them to get to the
administration on this side, and they use it regularly.
You know, maybe during a weekday when there's -- it's not that
busy, that's one thing, but on a day like today, on a public hearing
day, I think if I'm a taxpayer and I see a sheriff's car, you know,
unmarked car parked in a public only space, I'm not real pleased about
it.
And as a county commissioner, we have asked the sheriffs' office
on at least two occasions in my -- that I know of to assist us in
informing the officers that please, allow those spaces for the public,
if at no other time on Tuesdays when there's public hearings, but
really out of respect at all times.
And so I guess what I'd like to ask is, we have authorized park
rangers in the past to issue parking citations within -- on county
property. What I'm asking is, since -- (Applause. )
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- since we have not had a response, I
would like to find out if in fact, if it is posted, if rangers -- park
rangers could issue parking citations on the county complex property,
not to begin it immediately, but to let the sheriff know that that may
have to be a practice we use if we cannot get compliance. And it's
not by -- it's not just the sheriff's office, I've seen county
employees parking over there. And when I do, I let their supervisor
know or let Mr. Fernandez know, because that is equally inappropriate.
So I would like to find out if we have the authority to do that.
If we do, I'd like to communicate with the sheriff that if we can't
get compliance, we're going to have to resort to it. I'm just asking
if the board -- if that's a reasonable approach to resolving this
matter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris agrees with you.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, any thoughts?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I guess I would think maybe a
letter from the chairman to the effect that we're going to monitor it
for a month and if we have the problem -- if the problem doesn't stop,
doesn't solve itself in a month, then we're going to ask if we have
the authority.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- I think we definitely need to notice
them that there seems to be a bit of a parking problem and remind them
again, give them adequate notice, and then --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in the meantime, we need to check and see
what our abilities are to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, we've done that and it
doesn't '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- seem to be effective. So all I'm
asking is that the county administrator determine, with Mr. Weigel,
whether or not we could issue the citations. If we can, we then
notify them that if this problem recurs -- whether you want to pick a
month or two months -- if it recurs, that we will have to resort to
that. I'm just asking now that we direct the county administrator to
find out what our options are in issuing those types of citations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could make it a tow-away zone if you're
-- you know, have a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if we tow the sheriff's car, the
taxpayers get to bail it out. So --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not a good idea. It's not a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not just talking the sheriff's
deputies or the officers either. I'm talking county employees,
period. Because I see them parking there, and it's just -- it's just
not right. That's public -- those marks -- spaces are marked for the
public.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chairman, if I may, for the record, Leo
Ochs, support services administrator. And just to follow up to
Commissioner Hancock's suggestion: County staff, through our
facilities management department, which manages our small security
staff here on the county government complex, has been exploring that
very question with the county attorney's office. And we would
suggest, perhaps in lieu of park rangers, that if you want to
authorize some county staff, it might be more efficient to have our
in-house security staff authorized as parking enforcement specialists
and authorized to write those types of citations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever may be appropriate, but we just
need to know what our options are, so if this last time we can't get
the proper attention paid to the matter, that we know what our options
are available -- or what options are available to us. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's eat.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? Is that -- I think you all understand
that. I'm not -- do you -- I don't think we need a motion on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, and I'm not saying send a nastygram '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. No, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying let's find out what our
options are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. With that, we're going to take about a
40-minute lunch break.
(A lunch recess was taken.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-21 RE PETITION PUD-87-14(2), ALAN D. REYNOLDS, AICP, OF
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, & PEEK, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE 92-33, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE
AUTHORIZED GROSS FLOOR AREA FROM 65,000 SQUARE FEED TO 72,000 SQUARE
FEET IN THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene
the Collier County Board of Commissioners' meeting.
I've just spoken to the attorney for Foxfire, and he indicates to
us that your traffic engineer is not here yet. And since they
probably -- or you would probably be pleased to have that person
present when we hear this item, we're going to go ahead with our
regular agenda until that gentleman arrives, and then at the time that
he arrives, we'll go ahead and hear this issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The good news is that you're paying him by
the hour; you're saving some money.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to make sure they're quiet back
there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, I know you're uncomfortable having
to stand, but we have proceedings that we have to deal with, and you
must be quiet in this room.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody know where that county
administrator -- we've got nobody over here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're kind of picky today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Picky. I'd like a lawyer, I'd like
somebody who's running the -- sit down, Ken. Come on back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Still feels like home.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you check, Sue, see if you --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here he is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And soon we'll have a lawyer. Do we have
any of our lawyers?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Madam Chair, are we going to hear item
12(B)(1)?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to go ahead with item 12(B)(1),
which is the -- an amendment to ordinance 92-23, purpose of increasing
the authorized gross floor area of a building.
Mr. Nino. That's the first thing, if we could have all people
who are going to speak to this issue be sworn in, please.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One further -- other further matter. I have
received information and had conversation with an individual on this
particular situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've spoken with both the petitioner and
someone in opposition.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had outside contact, but will base my
decision on what's said in this hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As will I.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For purpose of disclosure, I have had a
discussion with a member of the petitioner's team.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Mr. Nino, please proceed.
MR. NINO: Yes, my name is Ron Nino, for the record, planning
services department.
The petition that's before you is -- asks this board to amend the
Wilson Professional Center PUD, which is located at the southwest
corner of Bailey Lane and Airport Road. Currently houses the offices
of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek in a 60,000 square foot building.
The PUD provides for a maximum building area of 65,000 square
feet, and this petition asks you to increase by amendment that
allowable floor area to 72,000 square feet.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition on February the
19th, and they unanimously recommended the amendment to this body.
No written objections were -- or otherwise presentations at the
Planning Commission were made in opposition to this petition.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there -- did you have any indications
of support from neighbors in the area? Any positions -- any responses
to the notice at all?
MR. NINO: No, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nine, this doesn't entail any variances
or setback encreachments or anything of that nature?
MR. NINO: That's correct. There are no use changes resulting
from this or required variances.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, just being more familiar with
the PUD than I am, the original building was built in such a way that
preservation of native vegetation -- indigenous vegetation was done
very well.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the out-parcel fall under similar
constraints in the PUD, or are those simply up to the developer?
MR. NINO: It will fall under the current requirements of the
Land Development Code to retain existing viably functioning native
vegetation on the site -- on the site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: And the building is proposed -- any future building is
proposed to be located on the southwest corner, and that will be
subject to site plan review and architectural review. And for those
sections of the Land Development Code that are applicable, including
the native vegetation section.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did the PUD require architectural
integration from that parcel to the main building?
MR. NINO: You've got me now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Maybe the petitioner can help --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Reynolds says --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- help with those two questions.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He nods yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we have the petitioner speak, please?
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Allen Reynolds,
Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek.
Yes, the PUD does require architectural integration of this
parcel, and we intend to pursue that.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And since I mentioned that I spoke to
someone in opposition, I thought I'd tell you guys that what the
opposition was based on was some long-ago history of what the maximum
size of the building should be. And I -- I reviewed that and gave
some real careful consideration to that. But I will tell you that
based on the fact that there is no opposition from the neighbors
presently, and frankly, the economic benefits, when we talk about
economic diversification in trying to bring high wage jobs to our
community, we have someone here who provides those, and I'd like -- I
think that, coupled with the fact that they're neighbors, I think good
neighbors, offset my concern about whatever the history had been.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, there was a complaint about air
conditioning noise, and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they've already authorized the
construction of additional fence and material, even though it had
nothing to do with this expansion, which I do appreciate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep, just more good neighbors. And
Poinciana Village thanks you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any more speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Reynolds was the only registered speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. Mr. Reynolds, I asked about the
preservation of vegetation. Obviously extreme care was taken when the
original building was placed. And you have to look through the pine
trees to see the building.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there anything that gives a relative
degree of comfort that that same application will be a -- will be
taken into consideration on that out-parcel?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. We are going to follow the same design
plan and the same, you know, use of the native vegetation in the new
facility that we have in the existing facility. We want the whole
thing to integrate as a single campus, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Do we
have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
amendment to ordinance 92-23.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you.
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 98-22 RE PETITION PUD-89-41(1), BRUCE TYPSON, AICP,
REPRESENTING SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA, INC., REQEUSTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA PUD TO REMOVE FRATERNAL AND SOCIAL CLUBS,
SELF-SERVICE LAUNDRIES, NIGHTCLUBS, AND PRIVATE CLUBS AS PERMITTED USES
AND TO AMEND CARE WASHES TO BE PERMITTED AS ENCLOSED ONLY; TO PRHOIBIT
REPAIR SERVICES AS PART OF THE PERMITTED USE OF SERVICE STATIONS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT ATHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAVIS BLVD. AND SANTA
BARBARA BLVD. - ADOPTED
The next item is petition PUD-89-41(1). Mr. Tyson
representing the Shoppes at Santa Barbara, Inc.
All those wishing to speak to the issue, would you please be
sworn in by our court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As far as disclosure, I've had correspondence
regarding this issue, but I will make my decision based according to
law.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No disclosure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As will I.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No disclosure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing to disclose.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Please proceed, Ms. Murray.
MS. HURRAY: Susan Murray with planning services department. The
Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD is located within an activity center at
the northeast corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard.
And it was originally approved in 1989.
In Hay of 1997, pursuant to the PUD sunset provision of the LDC,
the subject PUD was brought before the board for review and possible
extension.
At that meeting it was the board's opinion that specific
permitted uses originally approved in the PUD may presently be
incompatible with the type of residential development which has
occurred in the area since the PUD's original adoption.
At that meeting, the board approved a motion giving staff
direction to work with the petitioner to amend the PUD to remove the
following uses deemed incompatible: Fraternal and social clubs,
self-service laundries, night clubs and private clubs. Also to allow
car washes as enclosed only, and to prohibit auto repair services.
That's what's before you today. There are no other proposed changes,
amendments, additions or subtractions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
MS. HURRAY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I am surprised, but -- I don't
know if I even object, but the fact is that you're leaving these in as
described commercial uses instead of referring to SIC codes? Just
striking out the ones --
MS. HURRAY: Just striking out as they were originally adopted in
the PUD document.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that -- have we done that before? Is
this -- I mean, it just seems a little odd that as we modernize these
PUD's, we don't go to the SIC codes and, you know, do a little more
modernization of the PUD in addition to the exact strike that the
board asks for.
MR. HULHERE: Yes, Commissioner, Bob Hulhere, planning director.
A couple of issues came into play. Number one, with the minor
amendment we do not always go through and revise the entire PUD.
Second, the standard industrial code is -- has been -- is
reviewed every 10 years by the federal government. And there is a new
standard industrial code coming out. Actually, it's going to be
entitled the North American industrial code, where we include Mexico
and Canada. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we want to be zoned like Mexico, if
at all possible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: We have that information and we're reviewing it
right now. It has not been published yet. It is available on the
Internet and we have got copies of those new codes, but rather than
put them in and have to revise it again, we thought we should evaluate
that criteria and in fact, based on some comments from the board, look
at the entire use of the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. MULHERE: -- standard industrial code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything else down there, Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, Commissioner Norris, any comments?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions?
Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. A stellar job by our staff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close -- do we have any speakers,
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers.
I will close the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
item, PUD-89-41.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 98-23 RE PETITION R-97-12, SHANE AND CINDY MCINTOSH
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "RSF-4" TO "C-i" FOR PROPERTY ON THE WEST 30
FEET OF LOTS 16 AND 21, ALL OF LOTS 17 AND 20, AND THE EST 20 FEET OF
LOTS 18 AND 19, GORDON RIVER HOMES - ADOPTED
I don't think your engineer's here yet.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is he here? No?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, he's not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is he here?
MR. CUYLER: We understand the next item's fairly quick. If you
want to go ahead and take one more, he is here. We could go right
after that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can make it go on for a period of time.
MR. CUYLER: We will be ready. There will come a point where --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You want to identify yourself, since you
spoke on the record.
MR. CUYLER: Ken Cuyler. C-U-Y-L-E-R. Attorney for Foxfire.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. We'll go on then to
petition R-97-12, requesting a fezone from RSF-4 to C-1 for property
on the west 30 feet of lots 16 and 21, Gordon River Homes section.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Swear in? You are going to swear them?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yes, we do.
Could we have all those who are speaking to the issue be sworn in
by our court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And disclosure on this, I have had
contact by the petitioner on this particular issue, but I will base my
decision according to law.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As have I.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have had discussion with the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Mr. Hclntosh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is
Shane Hclntosh. My wife Cindy and I have purchased the land on Gillit
Road between the post office and the chiropractor. It's currently
zoned RSF-4. We're requesting a change to C-i, commercial office
landfill.
The Planning Commission voted 8 to O in favor of that. It is
part of the future land use plan that is in front of the -- whoever it
is -- which had this commission's unanimous approval also.
The board has acted on a couple of parcels in between time that
would make this type of a parcel commercial landfill, and so I'm
requesting that it be done at this time.
We propose to put a old Florida style building on there, similar
to Boritz Chiropractic. Maximum square footage --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hclntosh?
MR. HclNTOSH: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This looks like darn near a no-brainer.
MR. HclNTOSH: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to ask, your
suggestion then is that a property located on a six-lane road between
a post office and a place of business is not appropriate for
single-family homes and better used for commercial?
MR. McINTOSH: It's a real difficult place to get good tenants,
sir.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And especially considering, having met
with this petitioner, what a beautiful project that they do have
planned, I think it's an absolute no-brainer -- MR. HclNTOSH: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and a credit to the community.
MR. HclNTOSH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does our staff have anything to add on
that?
MR. HULHERE: I just would ask that the board -- in light of the
current future land use element restrictions, the board make a finding
that it is appropriate that this property, which is abutted by -- on
two sides by a local street, is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, which is consistent with the opposed EAR amendments, although
those have not been approved by DCA yet, but we expect that shortly.
So we would need that finding from the board.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Close?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I will -- do we have any speakers
on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item consistent with our
staff's comments and recognize the unique nature of this property.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. If there's no
further question, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. HclNTOSH: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
At this --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't make her get her whistle. You don't
want to see her with her whistle.
Item #12C2
PETITION AV-97-028 RENOUNCING AND DISCLAIMING ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS
OF THE COUNTY AND PUBLIC TO ACCESS AND TRAVEL UPON CERTAIN ROADWAYS
WITHIN FOXFIRE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (COMPANION ITEM
TO COUNTY-WIDE STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT) - DENIED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, we will move to item
12(C)(1), and we're going to be dealing, I believe, with these two
items at the same time; is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: I believe that's correct. Although your second item
dealing with the actual Foxfire petition will need to precede any vote
on your second item dealing with the county's proposed ordinance for
the lighting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So we need to deal with the second one first?
MR. CUYLER: You -- yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Swear them in, Barb?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Yes, all individuals -- I'm afraid to
ask this question. All individuals wishing to speak to this
particular item, raise your hand, please, to be sworn in by our court
reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, I didn't see your hand up, but
I assume you were being sworn in?
MR. CUYLER: Oh, I do, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're so used to sitting when you hear
that part.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure, like most of the commissioners, I
have certainly received a lot of correspondence from the Foxfire
individuals regarding this particular -- and all sides, actually.
I am disclosing that information and will base my decision according
to law.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A tremendous amount of discussion on this
item I have received from both sides. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Extensive discussion, correspondence
and so on; however, I will certainly comply with all the statutes in
the State of Florida in rendering a decision.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I took a nap during the second
half of that.
I've met with Mr. Cuyler and representatives, and have had --
also, I think we need to enter into the record, we -- the proposed and
in favor of phone log that our staff has gathered. I'll go ahead and
enter my copy for the record. But I'll base my decision on the
information presented today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, before we get started,
I also -- I don't know if everybody has a copy of this, but I will
enter into the record, I have a petition here with several hundred
signatures on it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In addition to the one that we had received?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the original, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And just again, for the record, that's a
petition with the residents of Foxfire, but has not been specifically
verified.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past we've had that question. Well,
remember when an association came forward with -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- signatures from Canada?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Found in Miami. They were still
alive, at least.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And not serving time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have commissioners that can absolutely
destroy the decorum of the moment.
Okay, Mr. Mullet. Good afternoon.
MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Russ Mullet. I'm an engineer with your transportation
department.
Item 12(C)(2) is a public hearing to consider petition AV-97-028
for the vacation of the public's right to use the roadways within the
Foxfire development.
The site location is between Radio Road and Davis Boulevard,
about halfway between Airport Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
The reason for the request is the petitioner has traffic volume
and security concerns. Petitioner is requesting that the board waive
the proof of ownership and pay tax receipt requirements.
Letters of no objection have been received from all pertinent
user agencies and governmental agencies, with the exception of MPO.
And there's a letter in your packet on page 23 from MPO that objects
to the vacation.
The public benefit would be reduced roadway and street lighting
maintenance costs, approximately $20,750 annually.
A resolution has been prepared and approved by the county
attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes 33609 and 33610.
Based on the letter of objection from MPO, and additional cost
and the inconvenience to the traveling public, staff recommends denial
of petition AV-97-028.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner, just a quick question
for Mr. Mullet.
Did the MPO, the body --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ever hear this item?
MR. MULLER: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's MPO staff. I --
MR. MULLER: Staff, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- think that is an important
clarification. It's not we and two city council members are the MPO,
it's the --
MR. MULLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- lest people think it's been prejudged.
That was the HPO staff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Ken
Cuyler with Roetzel and Andtess. We represent Foxfire Community
Association.
And the fact that you did not see a lot of hands raised in the
audience was no accident. We understand that having a lot of people
here is somewhat inconvenient, but what we've done is classified and
designated a couple of people to speak on behalf of all these people
so we don't take up your day and night and tomorrow.
Foxfire community is here today because this issue can only be
decided by the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm not talking
just procedurally. In this case there are things that need to be
addressed by the Board of County Commissioners that can't be addressed
by the transportation department. There are factors that are part of
this equation that can only be decided by the governing body.
We want to compliment the transportation staff. They've helped
Foxfire a great deal in the past. They've assisted in trying to
control the volume, in trying to control the speed on the road. In
our opinion, it is clearly unmanageable at this point. It clearly will
continue to get worse and worse. But the transportation department
has done what they can do.
And they have also assisted with regard to this particular
petition, and they've been very cooperative in this petition. Even
though, as you heard, Mr. Mullet felt that they had to recommend
denial.
And we also have been very cooperative with the county. As a
matter of fact, to make sure that there would be no disagreement on
the numbers and figures that we talked to you about, and that Mr.
Trebilcock talks to you about, we have used the county model and the
county figures so that our analysis was based on all the county
numbers so there is no disagreement with regard to the numbers.
But the fact of the matter is that it's simply not the function
of the transportation department or any single department to take into
account the kind of things that we're going to talk to you about
today. And we're not saying that numbers are not part of it, but
certainly there are more than numbers that are part of the equation.
This is a neighborhood issue. This is an unreasonable intrusion
issue. And I thought that a good omen had occurred when I flipped on
the TV this morning and was monitoring the board meeting and
Commissioner Hancock, who I don't want to put on the spot, but
Commissioner Han --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're going to anyway, right?
MR. CUYLER: -- Commissioner Hancock was saying decisions like
this -- and I'm not even sure what the discussion was at this point,
and if it was I'm not going to bring it up anyway -- decisions are
hard and that you have hard decisions to make, but whenever you can
and wherever you can, you need to side on the neighborhood and not
intruding into the neighborhood. And I was kind of hoping that he
would say that at the end of this petition as well, because that is
clearly what we are here because of. And we're not saying that the
answers to this are particularly easy either, but it is a neighborhood
intrusion, a neighborhood safety issue.
But in saying that, I want to make it clear that we also feel the
numbers, when taken into account with the other things and other
factors and in your full analysis, that the numbers are not something
that harm our petition. They're something that is reasonable, taking
into account these other factors. And what are the other factors?
What is Foxfire's side of the equation?
First of all, and very importantly, Foxfire has received letters
of support from Kings Lake, Falling Waters, Moon Lake, Glades,
Briarwood, Countryside and Embassy Woods, which is now Glen Eagle.
And we have a visual that we would like to show you to show you
the extent of the neighborhoods around Kings Way, which is the road
that travels through Foxfire between Davis and Radio, to show how many
of those neighborhoods are in favor of this petition.
The significance of this point I'm sure is clear to you, and that
is there's one of two things happening: Either these are not the
neighborhoods that are using Kings Way and causing the unmanageable
traffic problem, and in that event, it's just cut-through traffic in
general from the county; or they are the ones that are using the
roadway, and they are willing to stand behind this petition and tell
you that they support this petition. And in either case, I think that
is a very significant factor.
The neighboring communities also do not need to use Kings Way.
There may have been a point in the past where it was necessary to go
from Radio to Davis. There may have been shopping issues, there may
have been other facility issues. But that doesn't exist any more.
Years and years have gone by. There are enough community facilities
to service the residents without using Kings Way.
Kings Way is clearly not designed to serve as a collector for the
volume of traffic that it uses. Our traffic engineer is going to
discuss that in more detail.
There are 139 residential driveways that back out into Kings Way.
This is not just an issue of frustration, of not being able to get out
of your own driveway in your own car onto the road in front of your
house. This is a legitimate safety issue, and that is borne out by
the fact that you could not approve this road today.
Under your current codes, you could not approve a road with
driveways backing out into the roadway and -- in spite of how much
traffic, and certainly this amount of traffic, you clearly would not
be able to approve it under today's codes.
Foxfire has fully cooperated, including financially, to try
traffic calming measures to discourage cut-through traffic, but the
traffic remains unmanageable.
Two points that are going to be discussed by our traffic
engineer, but I want to touch on: In the year 2000, there are no
level of service changes as a result of Kings Way being closed as a
through road. The MPO -- and you received a memo to this effect from
the MPO staff, as you pointed out, not the MPO -- the MPO average
daily traffic figures show that approximately 2,000 vehicles per day,
if Kings Way is closed, will go to Airport, approximately 2,000
vehicles per day will go to Santa Barbara. Under that scenario, there
is a total of only 4,000 vehicles per day that are affected.
Four thousand extra vehicles are far too much for Kings Way, but
Airport and Santa Barbara can certainly absorb, being arterials, 2,000
vehicles per day each.
In the year 2024, with minimal traffic improvements such as
synchronized traffic signals -- which certainly are going to occur,
they are being discussed right now, and there are many other traffic
flow improvements, but with something as simple as synchronized
traffic lights -- there is still no reduction in level of service
standards.
Even with no additional traffic flow improvements, Airport Road
is, at peak season, only 100 cars over level of service D capacity,
100 cars being equivalent to the generation of ten single family
houses. Again, I'm sure that the board is not going to let that
happen, simply because you are going to be planning traffic flow
improvements in the future. These and other traffic issues will be
discussed by our traffic engineer, Mr. Trebilcock.
But I also want to make one thing clear, and that -- I want to
make you well aware of what this petition is not. And this petition
is not a let's keep the public out because we want a gated community
and we don't want anybody inside our community.
And the reason that I say that is the vehicles are the problem.
The only way to halt the vehicle intrusion is to close it off to
general public traffic. But the public -- the sidewalks are still
going to be there. They're still going to be maintained by the
community. Moon Lake still has access to Foxfire.
In addition to the financial aspects of the county not having to
pay for their own maintenance and Foxfire paying for that, and your
companion item, which is Foxfire paying for the street lighting and
the county not paying, if a resident wants to walk in, if a resident
wants to jog in, if a resident wants to bike in, they can do that.
And that's simply a function of the fact that Foxfire doesn't care
about the people, it's the cars that's causing the problem and the
cars on a roadway with 139 driveways backing onto it.
At this point, because numbers are part of the equation -- they,
as I mentioned, are not the entire equation -- I think there's things
you have to think long and hard about that are beyond the numbers.
But because the numbers are important, Norm Trebilcock, who is with
Wilson Miller, a traffic engineer, is going to discuss those with you.
Then we're going to have only one representative of Foxfire, rather
than 200, and that will be Ted Beisler, who is the general manager of
Foxfire. And if I have a few moments at the end, I'll make a few
closing comments.
Thank you very much.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you, Ken.
Good afternoon. Again, I'd like to just reiterate my thanks also
to transportation services, because I think they've done --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, excuse me. For the record, my name is
Norman Trebilcock. I'm a professional engineer with Wilson, Miller,
Barton and Peek, and serve as a transportation engineer. Thank you.
I also just want to reiterate thanks to transportation services
and the traffic calming efforts and the other efforts that they've
helped in looking at this overall issue. And we'll just agree to
disagree.
But moving on, the first point is that this is not a network
roadway. When you look at the financially feasible plan for Collier
County or the needs plan, you do not see Kings Way showing up on the
network. It is not on the network plan. And I do have that exhibit
for you; not to overwhelm you with paperwork, but that is the first
fact.
Another issue is to think about the different roads and what
roads serve -- because you have an arterial, major collectors, minor
collectors and local streets. And when Foxfire was originally
developed, it was intended that the spine road, Kings Way, would serve
as essentially a minor collector for the development. And in as such,
when we look at the Land Development Code right now, and the matches
for the different levels on different roadways, Foxfire falls right in
that category right now. And what we're talking about is in terms of
the volume of traffic, the speed of traffic, and the residential
driveways.
And I have a table that I'd like to just quickly run through with
you to see the factors that I'm talking about.
What this table shows -- and these are -- these are the
definitions directly from the Land Development Code. And I also
looked in the Florida Statutes and the -- a residential street design
book that has very consistent definitions.
And what it shows you is first in the scenario under which Kings
Way is closed, it matches with a minor collector. Kings Way, the
data, its volume -- and this is from the HPO, because then the traffic
gets split going to Davis and Radio -- is 3,100 vehicles per day,
which falls right in a minor collector.
The speed, the posted speed, is 25. It falls right in the minor
collector. Residential driveways, yes, we can allow those in a minor
collector.
When we moved to keeping Kings Way open and the impacts of
Livingston Road and the additional traffic that Livingston Road will
create, what we see is a suddenly mismatch.
In the year 2024 and even closer, in the year 2000 -- but the
year 2024 it shows 10,300 vehicles per day. What it does in terms of
-- it's a major collector arterial type roadway in terms of traffic
volumes, yet its posted speed and the fact that we have residential
driveways on it do not match that scenario.
So I think that's probably a real key issue here is looking at
that -- is the roadway facility matching the community. And it
clearly doesn't, if we keep Kings Way open.
And, you know, on the map, it's very clear that Livingston Road
is about 1,600 feet away from Kings Way. And this additional traffic
is going to come down, and right now we're at about 6,000 trips per
day on Kings Way, which is really an overload of the traffic volumes.
And it's going to get worse. In the year 2000 we're looking at about
9,000; in 2024, we're looking at over 10,000 trips per day. That is
an overload for this roadway.
Another element is -- I believe you received an advance packet of
information about some favorable scoring aspects, and Ken has
mentioned that, about some of the issues relative to what the
community is going to do. And it really boils down to the only
negative that had come up is really the network issue. And that again
is something that I feel can be mitigated for in the future through
the synchronized signal system, looking at improvements on Airport
Road, that I think are very feasible, such as additional turn lane
improvements.
So based on this information, I feel it's very justified in
privatizing this roadway to allow the prevention of intrusion of
additional traffic that puts this roadway in balance. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- Mr. Cuyler said 4,000 additional
trips per day. And then you talked about in 2024 10,000 trips per
day. What's the 4,000 versus -- what -- is that a date?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Well, one thing is there's -- there's
average daily volumes versus peak season. I was using peak season so
we'd look at that critical element.
Also, in terms of what happens with the traffic, some of the
traffic -- and Gavin knows this well -- is it all -- the volume of
traffic will find other paths also. That's why there's not a complete
match when you add up the roads with it open versus closed, but the
key was the peak season versus average daily.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other question that I'd have is --
well, in keeping with that, making unpopular decisions that you think
are the right ones, I'll go ahead and tell you that I'm leaning very
heavily against closing this road primarily for the reason that
Cuyler talked about that it's just cut-through traffic because -- you
know, the neighboring communities don't object, but just cut-through
traffic is what we're in the business of building streets for. I
mean, that's what we have to provide for. Private roads, you know,
take care of themselves. We have to provide for the just cut-through
traffic.
And you're saying that you think that there are measures that
could be taken to mitigate the impacts that up to 10,000 trips per day
-- you know, I mean, the cars don't go away, they just get moved.
There -- these 10,000 cars are just going to go somewhere else. It's
going to become somebody else's problem instead of their problem.
And, you know, what kind of mitigation do you have in mind? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, that's a good point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The synchronized lights, I understand --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and I hope that's something we're going
to do, but that's not going to offset 10,000 cars a day.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it's -- well, it's actually the offset
that really is up to the level of service impact on Airport Road
itself. Because that's the critical link that has that problem. And
it goes over by 100 vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I realize that you guys are the
traffic engineers and in some ways that's the bean counters of cars,
you know, what -- and so you have to measure it against what's the
level of service and when do we cross that level of service.
But from a regular human being's standpoint, 10,000 more cars on
Airport Road is a travesty.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the true numbers aren't that high. It's --
no, I don't --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, half of your 10,000 number, which is
what Mr. Cuyler said, that the two -- that whatever the amount is
would be split between Santa Barbara and Airport. He used the
average, because that helped in that argument of 4,000. You used the
peak --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, can I help you
here, because it's not -- it's a volume of 10,000 cars a day would be
the volume on Kings Way. That's not the number that would be put out.
According to our own MPO, by closing this off, the number of cars that
would be split between -- and that's what you're saying, the average,
Airport and Santa Barbara -- is a total of 4,000, or 2,000 to each
place --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In what year --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not 10,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question is, the 4,000 is -- and
this is the question I asked you at the beginning was, is the 4,000
peak, and is it in 2024?
MR. CUYLER: Let me just clarify one thing. The reason I used
that figure was your staff had used --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: -- that figure. I didn't use it to try to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And is the -- is 4,000 peak, and is it in
2024?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. What I'm using is I'm using the peak.
That doesn't help --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is 4,000 peak? I know you are using peak.
Mr. Cuyler said 4,000. Is that a peak or an average daily?
MR. TREBILCOCK: The 4,000 is a peak that branches off. It's
4,000 and change is what it is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And is the number 4,000 a 2000 --
year 2000 number or a year 2024 number? MR. TREBILCOCK: 2024.
What happens is between -- no, no, okay, let me clarify -- let me
clarify this point, okay?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, let's just get this one straight.
Forget what's been said before.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Let's get down to the brass tacks of the
numbers. The peak season weekday traffic projected on Kings Way, if
it were to remain open, is 9,100 trips per day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's in what year?
MR. TREBILCOCK: In the year 2000.
The peak season weekday traffic on Kings Way in the year 2024 is
10,300. So they're showing about 1,200 additional trips per day.
The existing traffic on Kings Way right now is about 6,000 trips
per day. The original design value on that development was about
3,000 trips per day being split in either direction. The whole
development would generate about 6,000 trips per day, but it goes in
either direction. Our numbers match what the HPO is developing there.
So what happens is those -- that additional trips -- if this road
is now closed, though, the peak season weekday traffic on Kings Way
would be 3,100 trips per day in the year 2000, and in the year 2024,
it would also be 31 -- it would be 3,300 trips per day, which makes
sense. The development is essentially built out and it's going to
continue to generate that traffic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in 2024 we have 7,000 trips to be split
or mitigated somehow.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, they're not -- what happens -- no, it's --
that's where it gets a little confusing. And I don't -- what happens
is, the -- and Gavin can speak to this -- is the trips get split up,
not only between these roads but other roads. But these are the two
key links that absorb that traffic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. And I'm not talking
about what roads.
But Gavin, maybe you need to come answer this question for me.
And if I'm -- and you know that I want you to correct me if I'm
misunderstanding this, but my question is this: How many trips are
gonna -- if we close Kings Way, how many car trips are going to be on
other roads? Whether it's these two roads or it's dispersed elsewhere
in the system, what -- how many cars are they shifting from their
street to the rest of the county streets? And if they're telling me
that in the year 2000 with Kings Way open there's 9,100 trips per day,
and in the year 2000 with Kings Way closed there's 3,100 trips per
day, that sounds to me like there's 6,000 cars somewhere else on other
county streets. Likewise, Kings Way open in 2024 has 10,300, closed
in 2024 has 3,300. So there's 7,000 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The confusion is is that it's not a
one-for-one match.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but -- but isn't it -- is it true that
there are 6,000 cars that would otherwise be on Kings Way that will
now be somewhere else? MR. JONES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Gavin Jones from the HPO, for the record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the key being --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They've got to go somewhere, guys, they're
not going to just disappear.
MR. JONES: Yeah, the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We all understand that. My point is that
it doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be on Santa Barbara or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Airport.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may continue on Davis, so they -- but
the two other roads examined were Airport and Santa Barbara as
relievers, because those were the north-south ones. There may be some
that turn onto Davis and just go and never use the north/south road
within a mile --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I think that's when -- why the
numbers don't add up is because some of those trips are not ending up
on Santa Barbara or Airport; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. JONES: That's correct, yeah.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point is --
MR. JONES: Some of them are -- that analysis --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a meeting.
This is our meeting to make this decision. You are here. You will
have an opportunity to have your representative speak. And in the
meantime, we are -- that's not the way we conduct business.
Mr. Jones.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I understand there were several
issues. The one question I was asking, Gavin answered, and that was
will there be more cars on other streets, not just these two. And
that's what I was asking.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I interrupt?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You'll get to speak.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You get to be cleanup.
Mr. Trebilcock --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- help me with this one.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You say there's approximately 6,000 cars in
this peak season of today?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right out there today.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In the year 2000, you're estimating 9,000.
And then in the year 2024, 24 years later, you're estimating 10,200.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: What happens between now and the year --
and two years from now that makes a 50 percent increase on that road?
MR. TREBILCOCK: The -- and that's an excellent point. The key
factor is Livingston Road, and the element that Livingston Road does.
Livingston Road is going to be about 1,600 feet away from this
entrance, and it's going to funnel this traffic into this roadway as a
cut-through, and that's -- that's the numbers that are developed. I
didn't create these numbers, that's the numbers that were developed by
the HPO.
And that's a believable value. It could even be higher. But the
key thing is that Livingston Road is an important factor to understand
of the intrusion that that network roadway can create on this
neighborhood.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. That was my question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I was a little
concerned when I hear you say a few thousand cars being on Airport
Road would be a travesty, because frankly, 10,000 cars going by 139
driveways is a travesty, not going on a six-lane commercial roadway
that's designed for tens of thousands of vehicles.
One of the things you said on the Wilson-Miller item was you
talked about you originally had some concerns with the history -- it's
that darn newspaper again.
One of the concerns you had expressed with the Wilson-Miller item
was you knew the history and some of the intent of the original PUD
and all, and what got you past that was that there was virtually no
objection from the neighbors. And that was -- I jotted it down as you
said it. And interestingly enough here, when we look at the history,
I think the history supports the request, because when Foxfire was
built and when Kings Way was built, Santa Barbara didn't even exist
the way it is now. And that was a lot less than 24 years ago. So the
network is going to change dramatically in the next 24 years as well.
But the intent certainly wasn't for Kings Way to serve as some
bridgeway for all of Collier County. I don't think anybody envisioned
in 1980 what we'd have in 1998.
But more importantly, going back to your comment, it's (sic)
virtually no objection from the neighbors. And as we look at the map
-- the objection years ago when this item came up, and you were
working with the folks from Foxfire, was from a number of the
neighboring communities. At the time they had to go to Kings Lake to
shop, had to do other things.
And if you go up and down, there are a couple on here that I have
spoken with, they're homeowners groups, and they're not on this list,
including some of the trailer parks that don't have any objection
either.
And I'm wondering if virtually all the surrounding communities
don't object and if virtually all the agencies, with the exception of
the one question from HPO, have no objection, then who is it we're
protecting here? If the people who live on either side don't feel a
need to use this as their transportation route back and forth, then
someone in Golden Gate or someone in North Naples or someone down off
the East Trail really doesn't have a necessity to go through here. So
I'm unclear on who it is we're trying to protect, who it is we're
trying to save there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you -- my answer to that is it's the
general public. And it's those people that Mr. Cuyler referred to as
the just pass-through traffic. That's what our obligation is, to look
at not just -- this is not a commercial intrusion into a residential
neighborhood issue, like the Wilson-Miller building was. This is a
discussion about what the traveling public is going to encounter in
this county.
And my -- because of that -- that's in answer to your question.
Because of that, the positions of the surrounding neighbors are not
the be all and end all. They are certainly a factor. And none of us
would even think about this if the neighbors were objecting to it.
But we can consider it, since the neighbors don't object.
But the general traffic flow of the county is -- you know, we're
not the only ones watching the overall traffic flow of the county, not
just the particular neighbors.
That, coupled with the fact that this board has directed the
staff, our development services staff, to -- well, every time we talk
about what's wrong with the system that we have, what's wrong with our
Land Development Code, what we talk about is that you have to get out
on a major road to go to get a loaf of bread. And we have been trying
to come up with ways to encourage developments to interconnect, and
now we have one that did and we're going to close it, and that is
contradictory to me to just about everything that we seek to have
happen in this community.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I don't see it as -- I don't
see it as --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I know you don't like that,
but that's what I think.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see the county policy as
encouraging traffic to cut through from arterials through
neighborhoods. That is in my opinion very clearly not county policy.
When we talk about interconnection, we don't mean from a
four-lane or six-lane road to another four-lane or six-lane road.
That's not what interconnection is.
General traffic flow is certainly a concern, but our number one
priority that we have repeatedly stated for years is protecting the
integrity of existing neighborhoods. And we've done that on any wide
variety of issues, whether it's landfills or sewer plants or traffic
issues or anything else.
And I think when we talk about Livingston Road with a daily
traffic of 17,000 cars a day, or down the road getting as high as
30,000 cars a day, that very clearly does have an impact on this long
existing neighborhood. And I think we look no further than Pine Ridge
to look at a place where we did take it into consideration. Where
Orange Blossom runs into Pine Ridge, we blocked that one entrance off,
because --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't vote for that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. But the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wouldn't have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rationale was because there are
other ways to get around there, rather than drive straight down a
street where they are homes 30 feet off the road.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was a bad choice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I just think -- and, you know,
maybe you think that's a bad choice. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's certainly your prerogative. If
you think thousands of cars strailing (sic) by a home 30 feet away is
a good idea, then we just differ.
But I just think 139 driveways, 10,000 cars a day, don't mix.
And it's poor planning for us to say it's a travesty to put it on a
six-lane road but it's okay to put it on a neighborhood street.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- this decision today unfortunately
tears at two things that are important to me. And in this particular
decision, I find them conflicting.
The first thing is that we all recognize that if this board takes
action that causes more than 1,000 cars a day to be on a residential
street, we are taking action that is inconsistent with protecting the
neighborhoods in this community. Particularly when we look at areas
like Pine Ridge which was never planned to connect to anything. They
were -- they dead-ended at a railroad -- set of railroad tracks. Yet
when the county built the road and all of a sudden they connected to a
roadway, this board opened roads that were never supposed to connect
to anything and closed some others.
In my opinion, we failed the people in Pine Ridge, particularly
on Hickory, by allowing several thousand cars a day through a
residential neighborhood for a roadway that was never supposed to
connect to an arterial road.
What I find different here that is difficult to overcome is that
we're sitting here today because U.S. Homes used a terrible design.
When you connect two arterial roadways, you don't front homes on it.
You make it a binary road, and homes either back up to it or access
off of it by secondary streets. This was the way to get the units
they needed in the acreage they needed, and it has resulted in the
people sitting here today dealing with a problem that they probably
didn't envision, they probably didn't anticipate, but are now stuck
with.
We have made this mistake in the county time and time again when
private gated communities are built, if we can't get a road through
them, we haven't required a road around them. We just let them be
built. And it forces every ounce of traffic onto arterial and
collector roads. And then the same people that move into the gated
communities complain about sitting through two cycles at an
intersection, because everyone's on the same road they are.
There are places that we can improve that and make it better, and
there are places we can't. And on this decision, that's simply where
it comes down, to me.
And Mr. Trebilcock, I'm going to need some help. The reason is
that as I look at your numbers on traffic impacts, just as we
discussed on Countryside and on Embassy Woods, I think it was -- that
was the other private section, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Royal Wood.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Royal Wood, thank you. I'm sorry.
Those roadways were not carrying a significant volume of traffic,
their privatization had no real impact on the network. So basically
they were operating as private roads at the time just by the low
volume.
That's not the case in Foxfire. And as we look at the off-site
impacts of road closure here, the one that causes me any real concern
is when we look out at year 2024, we see the level of service for
Airport-Pulling Road going from D, which is the current worst
acceptable level of service that this board has authorized, to E,
which means the roadway, Airport Road, is exceeding its capacity. I
have to be concerned with that.
You mentioned in your -- the last part of your statement about
there are three ways that we can mitigate for that. One is to build
parallel corridors. That's not a possibility here. They're in 60 to
100 feet right-of-way north and south between Santa Barbara and
Airport-Pulling Road that doesn't already have a building in its way.
So realistically, we have to scratch that one off the sheet; would you
agree? I'd have to condemn somebody's house to build that road.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just looking at the area.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- respectfully actually disagree. There is an
opportunity that needs to be investigated very closely. I don't think
it's the primary alternative, but there's a Florida Power and Light
easement that's 120 feet wide. I think we need to put the onus on
ourselves as (sic) Collier County to investigate these things and not
put it on the community. And so I think that is a viable option that
needs to be investigated.
And the other alternatives that you've said to -- let's truly
look at what's available to us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Therein lies my point. And you and I both
know, getting land from FP&L, you've got a better chance of getting a
Christmas present from the Grinch.
MR. TREBILCOCK: But -- I don't disagree with you, but, you know,
WBCI was able to build a golf course on one, and I think it's the
proper approach --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the FPL guys play golf when they're
not fixing wires.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. But -- it's a relationship.
But I don't disagree with you. And that's not necessarily --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Typical.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- the solution, but again, I think it's a tool
of the trade. And if we don't do this and we just say we're fine and
dandy, and they're going to absorb all this traffic, there will be no
causation to make that happen and to improve conditions on the
arterial system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's the other side. The road
pattern creates what I would call a deficient level of service, not
necessarily E, but D level of service. And a neighborhood is also
unacceptable. So there's a tear here. We've got two conditions,
neither of which is -- is -- is what we want. So what I'm trying to do
is explore the other options.
MR. TREBILCOCK: One thing I wanted to point out to you on that
last table I gave you. That table I use -- because Collier County --
we do not have a table for a local street. What I did is I took the
closest two-lane roadway -- and let me describe this: It's a two-lane
undivided, but it's a 45 mile per hour roadway, not 25. And what that
table shows is because of this additional traffic, it goes from B to
D. It does two grade drops. And that's real significant. And not
only is it going down to D, but realistically, this road will
completely fail, because again, I'm being conservative. I'm giving a
great benefit of the doubt. Because when we lower the speed, the
capacity goes down --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- tremendously on a road. And -- but we don't
have tables for this condition.
So -- but what I was trying to show you is we got two grade jumps
going down because of this versus Airport Road. Yes, it's a grade
jump, and that's a real negative. But look at the volume it jumps.
It's 100 vehicles per day, ten single-family homes. The section --
and I agree with you, I don't think we should just lower our grades,
because I think that's an East Coast solution. But Airport Road,
north of the Parkway, L-O-S-E is its minimum level of service
standard, okay? So I just throw that out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't go there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's --
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't disagree with you --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
MR. TREBILCOCK: But I think the techniques, as Mr. Cuyler
pointed out, I think are real viable to get at least this hundred
vehicles per day. This community alone, when they built their golf
course, they got rid of between 180 units and 240. That's something
they did on their own.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they had a darn good planner on that
project.
MR. TREBILCOCK: They sure did. And he'll support this job today
now because -- no. But they did --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock, continue down on --
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the line that you were on, because --
because if there's a solution to this problem, I'm wanting to hear it.
But I agree, FP&L, that's not it.
What's the next one down the list?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The next one that I saw was increased or
improved turn lane movements on Airport Road and other roads that
would help increase the overall capacity of the roadway to avoid that
drop in level of service.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my point: That sounds, on the
surface, doable. There's some obvious research and work that needs to
be done there. Mr. Mullet may have already done that work, maybe not.
My point is, before we make a decision to privatize a roadway, we
should know whether that is a viable option or not. Because what I
have a great difficulty doing is taking action that directly results
in a roadway segment becoming deficient.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And crossing our fingers that we can solve
the problem after the fact.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I want to help the situation in
Foxfire -- and by the way, those of you who wrote me about speeding, I
drove through. Unless you're collecting transmissions on the roadway,
that's a tough neighborhood to speed through since the speed humps
have been in.
MR. TREBILCOCK: One -- one -- can I address one thing?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So to me the issue is not one -- speed can
be controlled. We can put six more humps in that sucker and you'll
just be -- you'll feel that you're on a Georgia mountain road. But
the volume is what I'm dealing with. So how that volume switches to
other roads is what I'm looking at for solutions. I have to have
solutions, because for me to take an action that benefits the Foxfire
community but causes a failure in a roadway elsewhere in the county is
irresponsible.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I've got to have a solution in hand to
be able to make that first decision.
MR. TREBILCOCK: All right. One thing I can tell you, and I know
for a fact, right now -- you know, the airport authority and Collier
County are working in a partnering effort to provide turn lanes
improvements on Airport Road, and it's in this section. So right
there we're going to go, and there's some other opportunities, real
viable ones, I think --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like?
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- to make this happen.
Well, such as -- what I could see is, again, putting these turn
lanes in and potentially looking at some turn lanes in some of that
property to the south as fezones come in, to ensure that they provide
the turn lanes. And that provides the additional capacity on the
roadway.
Collier County does an excellent job versus other road systems.
They don't require those right turn lanes. But we do here in Collier
County. And that provides a real benefit.
If we get a commitment to -- in the partnering effort with the
airport authority to go even further, to even -- we could potentially
push that deflection of Airport Road a little further to get some
northbound rights along where the production park is, I think that's a
realistic solution, and we have that in hand right now, because that
project is going forward. So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those turn lanes would more than make
up the 100 cars that push it into the next level of service. MR. TREBILCOCK: In my opinion, yes, they would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many turn lanes does it take to make
up 100 cars?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, there's not -- that's just it, there's not
a -- what happens is you get into doing specific level of service
studies for roadway sections to see what it can handle, and that -- it
gets a little more confusion than that. You can't -- you know, not
just three turn lanes makes it happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But on this particular road, couldn't you
measure how many turn lanes makes it happen?
MR. TREBILCOCK: You could -- yes, you could do a specific
analysis to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell us the answer to that
question?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
What I would caution you is not to get caught up in level of
service as being a universal. Level of service along the main line or
along the segment, along the three-lane, four-lane, six-lane section,
is typically measured by the average speed of the traffic.
Level of service at the intersections, however, is typically
measured -- is viewed as a measure of delay at the intersection.
Sometimes merely adding the turn lanes can in fact increase the
movement of traffic and therefore decrease the delay and subsequently
increase the level of service.
I don't think that -- and with all respect to Mr. Trebilcock, I
don't think any of us in this room can give you an answer to that
question without doing some study. I can tell you that we have been
looking, for example, at the intersection of Airport and Golden Gate
Parkway to try to put a dedicated northbound right turn lane in, to
try to extend the northbound -- the dual northbound left turn lanes.
And even by doing that, we don't anticipate a significant
increase in the level of service. What we do anticipate is if we can
bring these improvements to you for your approval, and if we can
construct them, that we will get a smoother traffic flow. But then we
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you can't promise a letter off the
level of service --
MR. KANT: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- even for those.
MR. KANT: I submit to you that anybody that would stand here and
do that would be taking a big chance.
MR. TREBILCOCK: We also agree, though, that the -- this 100
vehicles per day is a number too that is just too close to count,
really.
MR. KANT: Yeah. Norm -- Mr. --
MR. TREBILCOCK: I think he'd agree.
MR. KANT: -- Trebilcock and I had this discussion yesterday
afternoon. One of the things -- you know, we talked about this 100
vehicles. You're talking about 40,000 vehicles, 50,000 vehicles on
Airport, 100 vehicles a day is like a couple of paper clips. I mean,
it doesn't -- you can't really get your hands around it.
The numbers that we use are numbers that are generated by the
models. They're mathematical generations. We can go out and actually
count vehicles, and we can say if the model says we should have no
more than "X" number of vehicles to meet a certain level of service,
and we have 23,482 as against measure -- maybe 41,000, we can say
that's about halfway there. But we can't tell you that that 41,000 is
an exact number. That's a generated number. The only thing we can
tell you exactly is what's actually out there on the street today.
So I would submit to you that all of these issues are very
important, but I would also caution you not to hang your hat on any
one measures, whether it's a turn lane, whether it's a -- maybe taking
two driveways and making one out of them. And hanging your hat on
that is increasing the level of service.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Without --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As a related question, if we extended
Livingston Road from Radio down to Davis, how many actual homes would
we have to condemn to do that?
MR. KANT: Today?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Today.
MR. KANT: I don't have a direct answer. I can look on the map,
sir, and tell you that there is no right-of-way there. If we look at
what has gone on, there is a piece of the golf course, there is a
small development called Hidden Hatbout, I believe, or Hidden Terrace.
There was a development which the FDOT has taken over as a drainage
pond. That could be a very problematic issue in trying to relocate
that. And then of course depending on where that roadway were to
come, it might still intrude into the Foxfire development. Because
again, looking at the aerial, I'm surmising from the location of those
yellow lines that some of the buildings are very close to the property
lines. So I've obfuscated because I can't give you a direct answer,
but it would be a significant number, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ed, is it -- without saying
specifically how, you've just said it's hard to tell with 100 -- a
number as small as 100. But is it realistic, is it feasible, that
there may be a way, if we take the time to do it, if you go and study
it or if Norm goes and studies it, or both, to make up such a tiny
number out of 40,000 or 50,000 cars a day -- MR. KANT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in a 25-year period?
MR. KANT: Whether it's in a tomorrow or 25 years from now, one
of the things again that we have to be cognizant of is when we count
these numbers, if we're dealing with 40 or 50,000 cars a day, we're
probably going to give you the answer to the closest 500. I'm not
going to hang my hat on two or three or five or even 100 cars.
It goes back to orders of magnitude, what's reasonable. If I go
out and count cars today and I come up with 41,382 and I go back and I
count them tomorrow, I could be several hundred difference. Ideally
-- that's why we take counts more than once a year. And ideally we
should have some permanent count stations, which we are working
toward.
But the answer is yeah, we could look at those numbers. I -- as I
said, 100 cars, in my professional opinion, is -- on a road like this,
or for that matter, on a road like Kings Way, is not significant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My hope is, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that
-- I know you've been struggling with the issue of trying to find --
trying to find what's acceptable and is there a way to do this, and
what I hear Ed saying is yeah, there is -- there may be a way to do
it.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if I could just --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: -- point out as well to Commissioner Mac'Kie; if I
could talk to that other ear. The -- and I'd like to echo what
Commissioner Constantine said. I mean, on the one side -- and I said
at the beginning, this was not going to be an easy decision, and you
do have to weigh certain things.
And -- but Commissioner Constantine, as he points out, you're
talking about 100 car deficiency in 2024. I mean, one thing you do
know now is that all of these people are in this room because the
traffic today is unmanageable, and you know in the year 2000, it's
going to go from 6,000 to 9,000. That's -- and the traffic engineers
will tell you it's a lot harder -- a lot easier to predict two years
from now than all of the improvements and accomplishments that you can
make between now and 2024.
So that's why they're here, is that this situation is going to be
-- go from intolerable to total failure, according to our traffic
engineer. And that's -- you know, when you weigh those things, and
the people issue and the neighborhood issue, and put everything
together, it seems to me that the weight goes to Kings Way and you do
the best, as you will always do, to find things between now and 2024
to make sure you stay at level of service D.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If this were a measured roadway, can you
tell me what its level of service would be today? I mean, we would
probably measure it as a minor collector; is that what you said?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, that one table with the three items on it
there, that bottom was -- I was being real conservative. Again, that's
a 45 mile per hour design speed roadway. It was the closest thing I
could get to this roadway.
Realistically -- and this is standard practice; and that's why
the LDC is set up a minor collector between two and 4,000. Four
thousand is really the upper peak for a minor collector of this such
(sic), and the literature supports that, too.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the number that we're at right now is
6,000, so this -- the level of service for Kings Way, if it were
classified as a minor collector, would be?
MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be F.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be failure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty percent over what -- its
capacity.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And so if it were a minor collector today,
Mr. Kant, I understand we wouldn't issue any building permits for
construction on that road, because it didn't -- wouldn't be an
adequate public facility, but what else would we do? MR. KANT: That's an excellent question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What traffic improvements would we propose
to solve that problem?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd be sitting now at Naples Airport
looking at the turn lanes on Airport Road, in all likelihood.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's what I want to hear. What
would we be doing to solve --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's really a good question.
MR. KANT: There's an easy, quick answer, but I'm not here to
give you easy, quick answers. And that would be simply -- that would
simply be to acquire more right-of-way and build a four-lane road
instead of a two-lane road. That would probably go over real big.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you think a few more people would show
up for that hearing?
MR. KANT: One or two more.
The -- I think realistically -- I think that realistically, if --
if we found that we had either a minor collector or a major local
street, you know, whatever semantics you want to apply to it, that was
over capacity, that was over taxed, that was creating a problem, we
would be, I think as -- we would be doing our job to find other
solutions.
I think that -- that part of those other solutions -- as
Commissioner Norris asked, well, what would happen if we were to be
able to get a parallel roadway in, there are going to be consequences
there, too. I wish I had easy answers for you, and unfortunately I
don't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, hard answers, then, because do they
involve things like negotiating additional turn lanes, buying more
lanes on Airport? What -- hard answers I'm --
MR. KANT: As Mr. Trebilcock pointed out, since -- since we
fewrote the work within the right-of-way ordinance in 1993, we have
required right turn lanes; that is, right turn lanes on all multi lane
divided roadways. We've required left turn lanes when there's a
certain amount of traffic. And frankly, what we've done as a matter
of practice is simply require left turn lanes. A lot of the
developers don't like it, but it works.
And if you look -- as you look at that section of Airport Road
from Golden Gate Parkway south to Davis Boulevard, roughly, that is
the most congested section of Airport Road, as anybody who travels on
a daily basis can tell you.
And if you look at places like the new Saturn dealership, they
were among the first that had to put the turn lane in. Where the --
anybody here remember the old mosquito control building on --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do.
MR. KANT: -- corner of -- okay. When they tore that down,
there's going to be a bank and a carpet store and a warehouse and a
bunch of other stuff in there. And we did a little arm twisting,
we're going to get a turn lane in there.
As the area redevelops, we will get those turn lanes, but I would
submit to you that the turn lanes by themselves are not the solution,
they are part of the solution.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems like --
MR. KANT: There are other solutions.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Synchronizations is a good one.
MR. KANT: The -- the county-wide traffic signal system that
we're getting into. But that's -- presently, if we go to the
two-phase construction we're talking about, we're going to be -- have
that available to us around the year 2003. That's still five years
out.
We have other solutions that we can look at as professionals, and
those include grade separations, which I know is not a popular answer,
but it's an answer that I continue to keep in my vocabulary because
it's one of the tools I have to work with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it scares people, so it's really
effective.
MR. KANT: No, sir, I'm not -- I'm not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just teasing, Ed.
MR. KANT: I'm not saying that to scare anybody. I'm saying
that's one of the tools we have to work with. And I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just kidding, Ed.
MR. KANT: I understand. And I think that there are possibly
solutions that will incorporate grade separations. There are others
that don't need grade separation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Kant, we've heard today that the
peak traffic counts right now are approximately 6,000 cars; is that
correct?
MR. KANT: As far as I know, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The -- this same petition was before
the board in 1989, I believe it was. What was the traffic count at
that point?
MR. KANT: I don't have 1989, but I do have about three years,
'96, '97 and '98 roughly in the same time period. And they vary from
6,200, 4,600, 5,800. There was one in November -- I'm sorry, October
of '97 at about 4,600.
We did a little rough calculation based on the single-family
multi-family mix, and it would not be unreasonable to expect somewhere
in the neighborhood of four to 6,000 vehicles from the development
itself, without any cut-through traffic. And that would depend on,
you know, those numbers that we always talk about that come out of a
trip generation report. Where do you take it, from the middle, from
one end or the other?
And trying to take a realistic number based on other similar
developments in Collier County, I came up with about 48, 4,900 trips.
So these numbers are in the right balipark, I believe.
MR. CUYLER: Just to address that point, you know, I want to make
it clear that Foxfire has had traffic concerns and considerations for
years and years and years, and it's gotten to the point where they
finally have had to come in again and say will you please help us do
something about this. And it's in light of the fact that they know
another 3,000 vehicles per day are just around the corner. So they've
had issues and they've had problems, and they've done their best to
address them. But it's gotten to the point where they can't address
them anymore and they certainly can't address what's coming up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you really raised an
interesting point. If someone lives on a street that's a public
street that is actually exceeding its design capacity, if that were
Airport Road, we'd be out finding new roadways -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and new alignments and new whatevers.
But because it's not a part of our overall transportation needs plan,
it's like there's a big hole, and it just falls into it.
So, in other words, if there are 15,000 trips a day on this
street, it's still in that hole. There's still nothing that requires
this board to take action to relieve the fact that that roadway is
exceeding its design capacity. And that gives me great concern.
Because it seems as if what we're saying is we want you to have public
streets so everyone can get around town, but we're going to treat you
differently because it's a neighborhood.
And yes, U.S. Homes created the problem in the first place, and
we need to recognize that. And I even chastised one of their
representatives in a meeting two weeks ago, and he assured me he'd
never do it again. I told him I assured him that I would never let
him do it again.
But it kind of puts this road into a hole where we're saying
because you're a community with a public roadway through it, we're
going to treat you differently than we do roads we build. And that --
that's an inconsistency that -- that I'm not real comfortable with.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we owe them some measure of solution
to the problem. And I start with that as --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- as a position. The question is, where
do we offer the solution? Is it through closing the road -- and that
is the most obvious to the community -- or do we owe them -- do we pay
our debt another way? Do we treat them like we would if they were a
minor collector, which is how they're functioning, whether they're
classified that way or not?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm going to throw one more little thing in
the mix here.
I look at this as -- since I've been on the board, we've had
either the opportunity or we've been asked to close two roads, one
being Countryside and one being Royal Wood. Royal Wood didn't bother
me that much because it didn't connect between two roadways.
Countryside was the very first one that we did, and it was a little
bit different story in relationship to its proximity of Santa Barbara.
But what I see on the heels of this one, I think there's going to
be a couple more coming before us. I think this is just the tip of
the iceberg, and I think other roadways are going to be -- and the
problems -- and what's going to be stated is going to be the very same
thing that you are standing here before us today saying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And again, it's going between roadways. And
what can we do, you know, as a county commission to address this
problem?
And as unpopular as this is, Commissioner Norris made a good
point that, you know, one of the things to do is to come right
straight south from Livingston Road and bite the bullet and acquire
some land and condemnation or whatever and take it on down. That will
take the problem out of your streets. Some of you may have to find
some different houses, but, you know, that's going to eliminate the
problem.
Probably not going to happen, so don't get excited. But if -- in
the big picture, should that kind of thing happened? Yeah, it probably
should have happened.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly what should have happened.
And unfortunately it would cut off -- I don't know how many holes are
in that little piece of the golf course out there, but it probably
would have eliminated some of those. But that's hindsight, and -- but
it should have been done. It should have been done a long time ago.
But this is exactly what our problem is. This is the thing
Commissioner Hancock has talked about at the MPO meetings. We've all
sat there, we've all talked about this same thing.
And I'll tell you, I -- as sympathetic as I am with this
situation here, I'm very reluctant to close off these roadways for a
number of reasons. And it goes in to -- I know what you're saying,
you can bike into them, you can walk into them, you can do all those
things, but again, you know -- and what do you get down to with
emergency vehicles? I don't know if this presents a problem or not.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, they support --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. TREBILCOCK: They support --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think they have said no. I think they said
that they would go ahead and it would not be a problem.
MR. CUYLER: Absolutely not. All the county vehicles and
emergency vehicles still --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. CUYLER: -- would have access.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And they would still have access to
that roadway.
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One of the things that I don't understand --
and I'm just going on a time frame here -- the communities that they
have said would support this, the closing, were not there when it was
-- first wanted to be closed off. Am I correct, for the most part,
other than maybe Kings Lake?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some of them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moon Lake wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Crown Pointe --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Crown Pointe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- was not built.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Glades, Kings Lake, Embassy was not,
Countryside was not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Crown Pointe was not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Briarwood was not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. My point is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Most of them weren't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- where is this traffic coming from?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's regular people traffic that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Mr. Cuyler called just pass through
traffic. And that's who we're obliged to provide roads for.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I would take your time -- on your
things there, though, I mean, both those -- if my recollection is
correct, both of the communities that were there then opposed it.
Kings Lake and the Glades and over in the trailer parks, they were all
concerned and opposed it, and none of them oppose it now.
The other thing is that along with your point -- I mean, if you
can visualize on this map, none of that was there when this -- when
Foxfire was built. You had -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- virtually nothing east of that.
And so again, when we talk about the history -- and we can beat up on
U.S. Homes, but even U.S. Homes probably did not envision the kind of
growth that took place in the Eighties, you know, that filled in --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not my intent, obviously --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's just a design issue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I agree with you. But the point
just being, I don't know that anybody visualized everything that was
going to be out here to the east, and not knowing that all that was
going to be there, and the traffic demands that would be on Radio and
Davis. I think that entered into some of your design issues.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's our problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ah, zoning in the Eighties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- you know, it goes back a ways, and
now we have to pay for it.
But what are we going to do? The bottom line is what are we
going to do here to try and alleviate the problem that the residents
have and yet address the traffic? And I'm not sure I'm really looking
at the solution in front of us. That's my point. I'm not sure that
the solution or -- the solution -- to close is the solution. But
there's got to be another solution to eliminate or help alleviate --
not eliminate but alleviate the problem. What might it be?
MR. MULLER: One of those that we've been looking at and probably
have to look at a little closer, should the board deny this petition,
is traffic calming. We've got some good numbers from the techniques
that we've already put in there, have reduced both the speed and the
volume, and additional measures may be necessary. A number of people
have said -- that have drove that road said that looks like the
neighborhood doesn't want us in here, they're putting in these humps
to slow us down, we'll go some -- they sought an alternate route.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet, what are your numbers? You
said --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the good news, guys.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you have numbers before traffic calming
and numbers after traffic calming?
MR. MULLER: Yes, sir. In '96.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What month?
MR. MULLER: February.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MULLER: February 2nd, 1996, the speed was 27.19 miles per
hour. That's 50 percentile speed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the volume of cars?
MR. MULLER: The volume was 6,234.
Two years later, February 2nd, 1998, the speed was 22.81 in the
same location, and the volume was 5,107. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a step in the right direction.
MR. HULLER: -- we had a reduction of 1,100 cars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What additional -- when you talk about
additional traffic calming, we already have one thing in there, which
is fairly aggressive. Speed humps are fairly aggressive when it comes
to traffic calming.
This side of a mine field, what -- I mean, what could be done in
concert with speed humps that would achieve the desired result? What
comes to mind?
MR. HULLER: One of the things that the traffic team originally
looked at was mid-block medians. And one thing that mid-block medians
might do is relieve the number of cut-through truck traffic. By
narrowing down --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's a mid-block median? What do you
mean? What does it look like?
MR. HULHERE: It's a 24-foot roadway. And if we put a median in
the middle of the road that we could put some plants in, you would
narrow it down to ten foot lanes, and the trucks would have a harder
time negotiating that and making turns within there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that they allow golf courses on the
roadway --
MR. HULLER: Golf carts --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and with a 12-foot lane, you know, it's
marginally safe. With a 10-foot lane, that's a little unique, that
golf courses on the PUD in 1972, the golf carts were allowed on the
roadway, which we don't do anymore.
But because that was vested by zoning, if we narrow it to a
10-foot lane, and you have somebody with a golf cart on there, it's a
different safety concern than an average neighborhood.
MR. HULLER: We looked at a solution for that too as maybe
increasing or doubling the size of the sidewalk, the existing sidewalk
in there, and allowing for a mixed use --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an idea.
MR. MULLER: -- with the golf carts and pedestrians.
The pedestrians -- we had a pedestrian count, a two-hour
pedestrian count, on Kings Way in the morning, which we figured was
peak, at 132 pedestrians walking up and down Kings Way. And 61
pedestrians crossed at the clubhouse there. And that's why we put a
raised crosswalk, the justification for that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Can I address the traffic calming for a minute?
The traffic calming, no one disagrees that it does help slow the
traffic down, but the reality is is the volume's going to increase.
That's -- that's -- if we're trying to use traffic calming devices to
keep the volume out, then what are we trying to do?
The reality is, from the MPO, is they're showing -- and it's very
clear -- the impending thing that's going to happen in the community
is Livingston Road is going to open up and we're going to get 3,000
additional trips per day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Norm.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In two years you lost 1,100 cars from just
the humps. February 2nd, 1996 to February 2nd, 1998, 5,107, 60 --
MR. BEISLER: And February 3rd it was 5,800, so depending upon
what day --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Name for the record.
MR. BEISLER: -- you take 'em --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name?
MR. BEISLER: I'm sorry, Ted Beisler, I'm the general manager of
Foxfire.
So Norm, go -- I mean Russ, go ahead and give them that figure,
too.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I -- I think what -- what the reality is, again
is these roadways -- the traffic calming is an excellent device to
slow the speeds down, and no one will disagree with that. It's going
to have some residual impact on the volumes coming through.
But the reality is, we're already at capacity as a minor
collector per the Land Development Code. And what we're going to do
is we're going to create a mismatch. And that, I think, is really the
key issue to look at is no one's disagreeing that we're going to go to
10,000 trips or even to 9,000 trips per day in the peak season.
And what that does is it takes the road out of kilter to the Land
Development Code dedications. It's very clear in that. And driveway
connections in all the professional information shows this too,
including the state statutes, when they define different roadways.
And I think that's really the key issue for you is these residential
connections make this road so much different, and the impending action
of Livingston Road, what it's going to mean. And no one's disagreeing
that there's going to be an increase. And we're already at the max
threshold.
So I submit to you, the solution is to allow the privatization
under the caveats. Because the -- the reality too is that when this
was a public road, that was when all roads were turned over to the
county. That no longer is the case. If this road were built today,
it wouldn't have been turned over to the county. Whether or not it
had driveways connected on it, that's a moot point. It wouldn't have
been turned over.
It's just the same thing as I've got a little two-inch water main
in front of my house that has -- is in the county utility easement. I
don't think the whole county wants that water from that little water
maintenance (sic). It's really to serve my individual home, just as
this county right-of-way was to serve this as a minor collector.
It's right there in the original TIS information. And they're
exactly right, it was about 6,000 trips per day. But that's split in
two directions. So that's why you're getting 3,000 trips per day,
because 3,000 are going to Radio, 3,000 are going to Davis. And that
actually helps. And those are trips that are being relieved off of
the main network.
As weird as the design of all these roads look, you think about
it, that's what they really do, they all connect and they go this way
and this way, and they're staying off of the arterial.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Russ, were there numbers? Mr. Beisler
got up and pointed out -- MR. HULLER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there might have been other counts.
Were there counts that were higher than 5,100 that you failed to
share with us?
MR. HULLER: The very next day the -- there were -- there were
5,805. These are on page 12 of your agenda packet.
So they can vary within the neighborhood, depending on the
function at the clubhouse. And I believe that's what it was. It was
a cool overcast day on February 2nd. February 3rd was a nicer day and
there was a clubhouse --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So 366 days from when we measured it
before, or two years and a day from when we measured it before, it was
pretty consistent.
MR. HULLER: It still dropped 400 cars.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three hundred cars, I think, but --
you're not suggesting, though, that the -- when Livingston Road opens
that it's going to drop more?
MR. HULLER: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll acknowledge when Livingston
Road opens, it will probably increase dramatically?
MR. HULLER: I'll turn to the planners for that. I think they've
done their model, you know, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me rephrase. Is an increase --
MR. HULLER: -- more cars --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me rephrase. In your opinion, is
an increase of 3,000 more cars a day a dramatic increase on a
neighborhood street?
MR. HULLER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something, and I just asked Commissioner
Constantine if he is aware of this, and I need to ask that publicly.
When Foxfire was zoned in the Seventies, how many developments
around it were zoned or built? Do you know, offhand? My gut check is
none. That was kind of one of the first to occur in that area. John, you were living here then, weren't you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Coconut Circle -- this was in
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were only about 55 then, weren't you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This was approved in '72, and I think
Coconut Circle may have been there, but none of the other --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, some in Coconut Circle were built in
the late Sixties, I think.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't think anything else was.
MR. KANT: Perhaps I can help you with that, Commissioner. Kings
Lake was one of the -- you probably remember -- was one of the first
planned unit developments that was zoned in the late Seventies, early
-- actually, I believe it was finally zoned in 1980. Then the -- to
the west, of course, you had Glades and Lakewood. Lakewood was --
came actually about a year or two years before that. But Lakewood was
originally a subdivision area, then a planned unit development.
Then as the Radio -- excuse me, the Davis Boulevard corridor
started to build out, things went to the east. Foxfire was one of the
early developments after Kings Lake. It was not the first one,
though. There was a small development -- I can't think of the name of
it -- further to the east, and then Foxfire began the infill -- the
parade to the east. And that all happened pretty much in the period
from 1979 to about 1983.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is that the pattern of
development -- you know, we just talked earlier when we were talking
about the landfill, about how we learned the fact that previous boards
made decisions that have resulted in unintended problems or unintended
consequences for us. And if everyone in town did what U.S. Homes
originally did -- although putting the homes on the street was a bad
idea. But if they had connected from one arterial to another, the
entire county would be in a far better position than we are now
roadway-wise.
The problem is that Foxfire did it. And then right next to it we
got segmented development between Moon Lake and the mobile home park
to the north, and there was no real interconnection there through the
roadways. And to the other side we have Coconut and we have the
developments to the north. And it started to segment around it.
In a way, what other communities didn't do became the burden that
has resulted on Kings Way and Foxfire. And, you know, again, it's
tearing at two things: It's tearing at what is the right thing to do.
Should we be privatizing all of the roadways that are not collector
and arterial in Collier County? No, we shouldn't. But how much
burden can one community bear reasonably because of poor growth
pattern decisions in the past? And, you know, we can't go back and
fix any of those things. All we can try and do is remedy as much of
the situation as possible.
And I'll be honest, I came in this public hearing with absolutely
no intention whatsoever of supporting privatizing this road. I'm
philosophically opposed to it because of the traffic it carries. But
the bottom line is, we need to do something, because what is going to
happen when Livingston Road gets built is that Foxfire community is
going to be under siege, and it's just not fair to them, because that
roadway wasn't there when they bought, and I just think we've got to
find a solution. And if privatization is all that's offered, then I
think we need to consider it.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Beisler, Ted Beisler, and Don Steffens are
the only two speakers.
MR. BEISLER: For the record, Ted Beisler, I'm the general
manager.
And basically what I have to say has been said. And I don't want
to take all of your time. I was asked by the community to speak on
their behalf so that we wouldn't parade a lot of people up here. And
I just want you-all to understand the emotions that are in this
community because of what's coming in the future.
Today -- if we could say today is as bad as it gets or is the way
it's going to be, it would be fine. But when I went into the
community and we talked with Kings Lake and the Glades and those
concerned citizens, and they said let me write the letter right now, I
mean, the Glades, in a heartbeat, because they knew that the traffic
would come through Foxfire and would eventually end up in their
neighborhood, and they did not want that.
And as we've said here today, we would not permit a road to be
built like this today. Aren't we really saying that there is
something wrong with this roadway if we're saying that? So please,
think about it and help the citizens of Foxfire. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Don Steffens.
MR. STEFFENS: I decline.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that Mr. Steffens has
declined.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. Then at this time I'll
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, considering a number
of criteria, homes 30 feet away from the road, 139 driveways going
onto the road, and the volume of cars increased since last time the
issue came up by -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Mac'Kie, did I say
something wrong? I see you shaking your head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, I was sort of making eyes with Mr.
Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: She saw me praying.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want to rephrase that, because --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, he's a married man, it's okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't tell Steve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or Barb.
Not those kinds of eyes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The volume of cars on Kings Way right
now is 50 percent over what would be acceptable level of service. We
did that measurement on minor collectors or neighborhood roads.
Considering it's expected to be 50 percent even greater in the
next three years, staff has acknowledged that is a dramatic increase.
We have a letter of no objection from the various agencies, no
objection from surrounding neighbors. We have not spent a lot of time
on it but have very legitimate safety and security issues.
Frankly, the number of cars added to Airport and Santa Barbara,
acknowledged by our own staff, is absolute minimal. And that's an
item that we can address. We're looking at a 25-year window. Our
staff has said we can certainly address it much sooner than that. But
we're looking at a long-term window in which to deal with that;
whereas, we're looking at -- a here and now and two years from now
when Livingston Road opens, we're looking at an immediate need in this
existing neighborhood.
And just frankly, that we have repeatedly said our number one job
is to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
I'm going to make a motion that we approve the petition, but that
we also go a step further and direct our staff to work with the
airport and with private property owners to put in more turn lanes, as
they're appropriate, and to look at other traffic correction measures,
such as our signal synchronization and others, to make sure that we
don't get by the year 2024 to the point where it's taking us 100 cars
over, that we can avoid that. And quite frankly, we've heard our
staff say we can address that issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the past looked at these
privatizations and tried to look at each one in such a sufficiently
narrow way so that they do not apply wholesale to the community next
to them.
Countryside was the fact that Santa Barbara was right next to it.
At Embassy, there were roads to nowhere. I mean, no insult to people
that live at Embassy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Royal Wood.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Royal Wood, excuse me. Royal Wood, they
went in and came out; there was no through road there.
And consistent with the impact, I felt, for the residents in Pine
Ridge when Goodlette-Frank was constructed, thus connecting roadways
that were never intended to be connected.
If Livingston Road were not planned and funded to connect to
Radio Road, I would have no reason to even consider supporting this
petition, because the roadway is operating, albeit cumbersome, at
what's an acceptable traffic level today.
But the fact that the county is building Livingston Road, that it
is connecting to Radio within very close proximity to Kings Way and
Foxfire, and the fact that that roadway doesn't trigger this same
instance in other communities adjacent to it, I'm comfortable
seconding the motion.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seems to me like those comments are based
on speculation. We have projections that with the completion of
Livingston it may go to 9,000 cars, but we don't know that. If it
does, we would certainly have a situation that we could revisit. But I
don't believe that -- well, even Mr. Beisler says that the current
traffic level is acceptable and everything's fine, but --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're listening to the engineer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No comments from the peanut gallery,
please. It's not allowed.
Public hearing is closed. Sit down. Sit down.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, may I ask a
question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you honestly think that Livingston
Road will cause no increase in the amount of traffic on Kings Way?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't say that, I said I'd like to see
the results.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know, I didn't say you said
anything. I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not making that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would say if a private
engineer and our staff -- and those are our staff numbers that show
those increases -- say that, that we have -- I'm sorry, we don't -- we
don't anticipate any increase?
MR. JONES: Can I speak to that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. JONES: Gavin Jones from the HPO.
Those numbers that are produced by the model don't quantify
traffic calming. I think -- I think --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't my question. My question
was, do our models show an increase in traffic when Livingston Road
opens?
MR. JONES: They show -- they show a number --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a yes or no question.
MR. JONES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a matter of fact, I think it was --
the grand opening was 7,800 cars to start, your memo, and that will
increase over time, which is roughly 2,000 cars. That's our own staff
telling us that's 2,000 cars more than what we measured on February
3rd is going through there right now. So Norm says 9,100, our staff
says 7,800. Either one of those are thousands more than what's going
through there right now.
So I'm -- we put some faith in our traffic engineers. I'm just
wondering -- and, you know, I understand, if you just simply aren't
sure and don't believe it, but it seems to me usually we give some
credence to our own staff's reports on these items.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not a point of believing or not
believing, it's a point of looking at the facts. And the facts are
that there are approximately five to 6,000 cars a day at peak right
now, and we don't know for sure if it will be increased by the future
expansion of Livingston Road. If it does happen, it certainly doesn't
take much time to have another hearing just like this one and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And close it off.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- do this issue at that point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And hopefully at that point, and hopefully
before that, we'll have our staff investigating -- I mean, I would
like to treat this issue as if this were a minor collector road that
has reached failure status. What are we doing about it?
Whether it's classified as a minor collector or not, I hope after
this vote, whatever it is, we're going to instruct our staff to go out
and develop solutions to this problem, especially in anticipation of
Livingston.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: More or equally important to that is that
the development pattern in this area between Airport and Santa Barbara
and U.S. 41 to the south, and as much as Golden Gate to the north.
That development pattern is set in stone. What's been done in
there is not going to be altered; it's predominantly developed. The
balance of the properties to be developed are going to be single point
access properties. It's not like we are going to have much
opportunity to fix this anywhere else. And that's discouraging.
And this decision goes somewhat against the grain of my desire to
open communities up more with binary roads, but can you try -- can you
force that into an area where it just simply can't physically happen
and as a result one community is burdened while others are not? Is
the weight that I'm considering -- I don't expect to really convince
anyone with that, that you should change your position, but I think it
is -- we do need to look at the fact that the development pattern here
has been set long before any of us were ever on this board, and what
we're left with is the problems it created and how to deal with those.
So should this not succeed today, I would hope that we could at
least give our staff direction to try and take those actions necessary
to reduce any traffic on Kings Way as much as is possible --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but my second still stands on the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess I personally feel that -- again, like
I stated before, that this is going to be the first of at least a
couple more that I can think of offhand, based on conversations that
I've had, to try and alleviate the same or similar situation. It's
very -- in very close proximity to the Foxfire area, which in my mind
is going to continue to complicate the problems that we're going to
see in that particular area in regard to traffic.
This has certainly been a concern I think of all the
commissioners and discussions at the HPO and so forth, so it's -- I
have some big concerns. And I certainly am sympathetic with the
Foxfire homeowners in this particular situation.
You can save your comments when you exit the room. You feel free
to call us anything you want to call us if we don't vote the way you
want to, but while you're in here, I'd hope that you'd kind of refrain
from that.
Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: I just want to briefly echo that. Hopefully this
motion's going to pass. In the unlikely event that it doesn't, we're
going to be back, so let's everybody just be courteous.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you said if that
volume boosted up to eight or 9,000 cars a day, you would see the
concern and they could certainly return at that time.
Would you consider having a volume trigger mechanism, rather than
revisiting, so that if we open Livingston and all of a sudden county's
measurements -- not someone else's, but the county's own measurements
-- in season show that it is 8,500 cars, or whatever that number
happens to be, that we go ahead and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I believe that was the point of my
comment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying make that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you want to formalize it, I'd -- you'll
find that I didn't say eight or 9,000, I said nine. But if you want
to formalize it, you know, that's fine. I don't want to -- I don't
want to predicate it on the -- the single day counting of one number.
But as an average, I think -- you know, you were quick to point out
that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Mullet had used one number and the
next day it was substantially higher. Well, those instantaneous
numbers are really not helpful. What we need is an average, a trend.
And if the trends goes significantly higher, then that -- that was the
point of my comment.
I mean, right now, we had the gentleman representing the
homeowners say that it's not particularly a problem, but when it gets
worse -- that's what he said. MR. BEISLER: Today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today, yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what he said when he stood up there.
He said today it is not particularly a problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's going to get worse, he said.
MR. BEISLER: I said if we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the point. The concern
was they don't like it now, it's livable now, they realize the
number's going to get higher, we realize the number will get higher.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And when it does -- when it does, I say
that's fine, it's time to revisit it. But today is not the day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My specific question is: Would you
consider having a trigger mechanism, rather than just revisiting it
when it gets to that number? Approving some action today that
triggers when -- and I'd be willing to work with you on a formula so
it isn't a one day random measure, but that an average peak rate
exceeds 9,000 cars, that goes ahead and triggers their opportunity to
do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what I had envisioned is a trigger
mechanism to bring the whole discussion back for another hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm just asking you if you'd alter
that to trigger it to privatization when they reach that volume.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would that be legal? I mean, can we do
that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know that that would even be legal.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to advise you that you cannot make an
automatic happening go beyond the up or down vote that you have today
with the matter before you today. Now, you can on the record make a
pledge to revisit, to bring it back, it can be brought back as your
own petition. It doesn't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, we can't make a up vote
subject to certain criteria?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you have to make a vote based upon the
conditions that are with you today. I think that you run a legal
defensibility issue if you create a criterion that's beyond the
hearing date today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we never done that before?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not -- I know we don't in fezones, and I -- and
I -- I have not -- I've got no recollection of this being done this
way, quite frankly.
MR. HULLER: Mr. Weigel, doesn't chapter 336 of the Florida
Statutes say that the -- that it has to be advertised of the adoption
within 30 days of this public -- advertised public hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're -- he's correct in the sense then under
the state statute it talks about the approval of a board to vacate
must -- the resolution is directed to go to the clerk to be advertised
to become of record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The problem that the statute probably, you
know, intends to protect against is that if in 1998 we make a decision
to privatize a road, then the people who would like to speak to that
issue in 2003, or whatever the magic number is, don't have the
opportunity to have a public hearing. You know, that's -- that's
what's wrong with doing it that way.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Just a final comment then, and
you can go ahead and call the question, and that is I would just ask
if we take a realistic look when a major road is connected from
northern parts of the county to Radio Road and carries 17,000 cars
over the years, increasing to 30,000 cars a day, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist or, frankly, a traffic engineer to figure out that
that's going to cause an increase on this road just 1,600 feet away.
So while I understand the various concerns that have been
expressed, and I certainly understand the concern if other
neighborhoods are considering it, I would say we need to consider each
one of the neighborhoods individually on their merits rather than
penalize one because others might come forward.
And let's acknowledge that there is going to be a dramatic
increase within a couple of years, but let's acknowledge we do have a
problem here. Let's acknowledge that 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 trips a day
by 139 driveways are inappropriate. Let's acknowledge our staff has
said we can correct the issue with respect to Airport and let's go
ahead and support the item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, are there any further questions?
I'll call for the question. All in favor?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
Motion fails, three to two.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, you may want to take a recess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, let's do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll take a five-minute recess to clear the
room, please.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 72-1, AS AMENDED, WHICH
CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT BY REMOVING FOXFIRE UNITS
1 & 3 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT (COMPANION ITEM TO
PETITION AV-97-028, VACATION OF PLATTED RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN FOXFIRE UNITS
ONE, TWO AND THREE) - DENIED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go on to item C-i, the ordinance
amending the Collier County ordinance number 72-1 concerning the
lighting district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, that item is no longer valid
because the privatization --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- issue, so do we need to deny it as a
matter of rule?
MR. HULLER: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None for that one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You going to close the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close -- oh, yeah, did we need to
be sworn in on that one?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was no testimony.
How many votes are required, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: What, to pass this?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To deny it.
MR. WEIGEL: A majority of the quorum.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Two, either way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the public hearing closed, I'll move
that we deny the amendment to ordinance 72-21 (sic).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a second for that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I have a motion and a second.
No further questions? All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three-zero.
(Commissioner Norris entered the boardroom.)
Item #1285
PETITION PUD-87-31(3), TIMOTHY W. FERGUSON AND DOMINIC GADALETA
REPRESENTING SJG LAND TRUST REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" FOR
THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS GADALETAAMENDING THE GADALETA
PUD LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH/OLD U.S. 41
NORTH AND IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS TO THE LEE COUNTY LINE - TABLED FOR
TWO WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on to item C(3) --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we go back to 12(B)(5)? I think we
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we should.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- skipped over that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will put us back on order.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yep, yep, yep, yep. Other part of the book.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I have the next one as 12(B)(5).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You are right, 12(B)(5), continued from the
meeting of March 10th. Petition PUD-87-31(3) concerning the SJG Land
Trust, requesting a fezone.
Would all those people wishing to speak to this issue please rise
and be sworn in by our court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Disclosure on this particular
item, I have, I think, received some correspondence, but I'll base my
decision according to the law.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What did you just vote on?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The companion item to the privatization.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We voted on the lighting district. And now
we are back to item 12(B)(5).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, for purpose of disclosure,
I've had no contact on this item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12(B)(5).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 12(B)(5).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What happened to 12(B)(4)?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 12(B)(4) --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Continued.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- was continued.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I have no disclosure on 12(B)(5).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosures.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes, my name is Ron Nino, planning services
department.
The petition that is before you comes to you as a result of the
sunsetting provisions of the Land Development Code which, as you know,
say that if you haven't constructed any portion of your approved
development, we need to revisit the PUD in five years.
This PUD comes to you by a very difficult route. If you've read
-- I mean, as I attempted to describe in the executive summary, this
petition was due technically last September; however, it took us until
November for the applicant to present a PUD before us. And that PUD
met with considerable concern on our part that it failed to address
the issues that staff had raised to the point where -- where it wasn't
-- the Planning Commission itself continued the petition for an
additional month to give the petitioner an opportunity to present a
PUD that was responsive to the -- to the stipulations that were raised
by staff and the environmental advisory board.
That requirement wasn't met at the Planning Commission scheduled
meeting. And we're of the opinion that the Planning Commission
recommended that this petition be rezoned back to agricultural because
of that failure of the petitioner to respond to staff concerns, review
concerns and legal review.
Immediately following the Planning Commission meeting, however,
the petitioner said that they would expeditiously do what was being
asked of them in terms of putting a PUD together that was responsive
to the stipulations that the staff had recommended for inclusion in
the PUD.
That document is now before you, presents a problem, and it
wasn't until quite frankly the last couple of days that we finally
completed the form and sufficiency requirements.
So we have, and the attorney has, a PUD that we find acceptable
in terms of form and sufficiency as to legal content and the
stipulations, but we remain at an impasse in terms of the amount of
development that ought to be approved in this revisiting process.
And we have attempted to describe in our executive summary what
this PUD would qualify for under the -- if we accepted the historical
zoning on the property, which was RMF-6, an agricultural, and a C-2
tract.
Based on that zoning, they currently have an approval for 88
dwelling units and two acres of commercial, which you -- you took care
of a couple of months ago because of an administrative error, and in
fact taking that two acres away -- and a temporary driving range.
Temporary in the sense that as soon as county sewer and water were
available, they would extend it to their property and get on with
their residential development and their commercial development.
This petitioner is asking for 120 dwelling units, and without
specifically saying so, having the opportunity to convert the C-2 to
commercial -- to residential at 16 units per acre, which is the
maximum allowed by the future land use element, and having a -- the
option of having a permanent driving range as well.
So we -- and if we look at the purpose of the sunsetting
function, it would seem that its purpose lies in making a PUD as
consistent as we possibly can. And if we were to do that, on page two
of 12(B)(5), you would see that we would be looking at this land in
terms of three dwelling units per acre for the 17.3 acres, and perhaps
up to 32 dwelling units per acre for the commercial conversion, which,
remember, is inconsistent with the future land use element.
So we now have a PUD that could be as low as whatever you decide
to grant for the commercial conversion, plus 52, or up to 84, to a
range of 120, as the petitioner is asking for.
Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission -- and of course
because of the action of the Planning Commission, the recommendations
-- the planning of the staff were set aside. But we think the
Planning Commission would have accepted these recommendations, had it
not been for the fact that we had a woefully deficient PUD.
And I would like to read those to you. And they are as follows:
At the -- to make this PUD as consistent as possible, recognizing
perhaps some limits of law, it was staff's recommendation that the
provision for any commercial zoning be deleted and in the event it is
retained, it should only authorize C-2 uses.
Now, when we wrote that staff report, the PUD that was in your
package not only asked to retain the C-2 as an alternative, but to
have uses that went beyond the C-2. That has been corrected. So to
that extent, recommendation number one is redundant.
Number two, however, is that in the event of commercial
conversion, the density that you allow be limited to 10 dwelling units
per acre, and for a total of 20 -- 20 dwelling units for the
commercial.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
MR. NINO: And three, that of the 88 units you only approve --
recommend -- or I mean approve 83 dwelling units. And let me say the
reason for that is the orig -- the current development order says that
they were allowing 83 dwelling units here -- 82 dwelling units, I
should say -- and six dwelling units for affordable housing.
And quite frankly, we have researched the record, we don't know
what drove that six dwelling units per acre for affordable housing,
and we suggest to you that it really has no relevance. Actually, the
number was 82 point something, more than five, and that's why we're
recommending that you acknowledge the historical zoning on this
property, which would have given them 83 dwelling units plus the 20
for commercial conversion.
The staff's recommendation is 103 dwelling units, and that you
allow the driving range to be a permanent facility, because after all,
we acknowledge driving ranges as a pretty inoffensive use, and we
acknowledge it as a conditional use in the agricultural area.
So we don't have a problem with a PUD that says they can opt to
maintain a driving range in perpetuity, but in the event they decide
to go to a development strategy, that it be one that recognizes a
total residential development of 103 dwelling units.
I'd be happy to answer any questions. I believe the petitioner
wants to make some presentations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, you sound more like an
archaeologist on a dig with this PUD, because this is a dinosaur as
they come.
We're dealing with a lot of different numbers here, and it's
really easy to get lost in those, so let me try and simplify them for
my own benefit, if I may.
The total acreage of the property, including the driving range,
is that the 19.3 number? MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the driving range is about two
acres?
MR. NINO: Well, the driving range takes place on the entirety of
the public property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh. Okay. So we're dealing with a total
of 19.3 acres, period?
MR. NINO: Yes, uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two acres of that currently is designated
commercial --
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- C-2 zoning.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we can correct so it's consistent
with current C-2 zoning; we don't have any zoning inconsistencies
there?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is, then, we have really two
scenarios, and that is, one, that entire conversion of commercial for
the entire site, or -- excuse me, conversion of residential on the
entire site, or a mixed use of C-2 and residential. That's really
what we're presenting.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If we look at -- I have to do a
little math here.
If someone else has some questions, go ahead. I need to kind of
crank through a couple of things.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris, question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Ferguson, what are we going to do
here, are we going to make a driving range or are we going to build
apartments, or what are we going to do?
MR. FERGUSON: Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, for the record,
Tim Ferguson.
I -- the driving range is intended to remain on the property
until the property is developed. When we came before this board and
asked for some direction on what the board wanted to do, the board
said you've committed yourself to a path, we're going to give you the
C-2, and we're going to give you the 88, and you just keep it like
you've got it and that's the -- and that's what we want. That's all
we want, to keep it just like we have it.
Now, a couple things need to be understood. The petitioner spent
over $99,000 on Old U.S. 41 widening the road and putting in turning
lanes. He spent another $300,000 on the pro shop and the driving
range. It -- a lot of the problem here has been that it's my legal
opinion that that commercial use is vested.
Then we have to start deciding how many units are going to go on
the rest of the property. My client wants to keep the C-2. He's not
interested in rezoning it. I've got a reference in the PUD -- and I'd
like to address the PUD document. Somehow we got a draft of the PUD
document before Ms. Student in the other hearing. I don't know how
that happened, I'll take responsibility for it.
Since then we've got a PUD document that complies with all your
regulations; we've accepted all the stipulations of staff. Instead of
arguing about a vesting of a C-2 use that provides a greater use,
we've agreed to accept the C-2 use as it stands today for the acreage.
As far as the number of units on the property goes, I'd just like
to say if there was no PUD, we would have -- we would have 10.5 acres
of RHF-6, which would give 65 units, and then we'd have almost seven
acres of agricultural, which we would get three units an acre for, and
that comes out to somewhere around 86 units; 85, 86 units. My client
doesn't have any problem accepting that. If we get --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if you did that, you don't have any
commercial.
MR. FERGUSON: No, we'd keep the commercial and then 86 units
behind it.
Now, I've got to point out for the record, you've got the
pictures and you've got the actual PUD that I handed out.
We've got industrial right across the street from us here. And
we've got an auto body shop where they take wrecked cars, and they're
real loud, and they aren't a very compatible use for a residential
neighborhood, not to mention the fact that what we have surrounding
the -- what we have surrounding the property are densities of, on an
average of 7.5 units an acre, and we're only asking for 5.1. Any
reduction from that I would -- I would suggest to the board would be a
spot zone. You've got a whole bunch of density all around my client's
property, and then my client has to accept something less, and is
willing to accept it, quite frankly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what you have, though, Tim -- do you
mind, Commissioner Norris? I'm sorry, were you in the middle of a
line of questions?
What you have is -- is 80 something dwelling units and two acres
of driving range that at its most intense can be a C-2. MR. FERGUSON: C-2 use, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But how you get from there to 120 dwelling
units --
MR. FERGUSON: Because --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and a golf range.
MR. FERGUSON: Oh, no, it wouldn't -- I put a maximum of 120
units, because if in the future whoever owns the property decided to
come back and say to you we'd like to convert these, he would be
entitled to ask for up to 120 units. Now, that doesn't mean you're
going to give him 120 units. The language in the PUD says up to 120
units are allowable, and then you would make that decision when they
come back. Right now --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I think I've got it. Here's what
you're asking for; let me see if I've got it, because I haven't
understood that yet, to be honest with you. MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That what you're asking for is 88 dwelling
units and a driving range/C-2 zoning with the right to convert the C-2
zoning to up to 32 dwelling units.
MR. FERGUSON: Well, I'm not asking --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- just help me know that. Is that
what your application calls for?
MR. FERGUSON: What the application calls for is two acres of C-2
and 88 units on the remaining 17.3 acres is what we're asking.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: His application makes no reference. It was
staff's recommendation to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Conversion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to a potential conversion of up to 10
units per acre. You add that to the 80 something and that gives you
the maximum -- really, you said -- the first thing you said was that
your client really has no interest right now in converting the
commercial to residential.
MR. FERGUSON: He has absolutely no interest. He wants to keep
the C-2. The board's direction was come back with an updated
document, keep what you got and go on with your life, and that's
exactly what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how did we get to this whole conversion
discussion? Was it staff's suggestion?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- that's based on the fact that we're supposed to
come back to you and recommend what's the most consistent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, I understand. And -- okay. So
the consistency -- so what we have here is a fezone to bring a PUD up
to date where we have a vested or potentially vested two-acre
commercial parcel. So that interferes with our ability to bring it up
to date, which would be totally residential.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention a lack of desire on my part
to convert it to a higher density.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially -- I mean, I can't imagine
residential going here. It's like an industrial area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Arbour Lake Club to the south is an
apartment complex that's built; am I correct, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: No, it isn't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It isn't built, okay.
I'm --
MR. NINO: Further south.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you're down.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Further south.
MR. NINO: Turtle Lake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Turtle Lake.
MR. NINO: Turtle Creek.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Turtle Creek, that's it.
MR. NINO: Meadowbrook.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the -- I know it's in Lee County,
but Spanish Wells just to the north, what is the density of Spanish
Wells? Do we know that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's huge.
MR. NINO: We -- it's undeveloped land. But we -- we do address
in our staff report. You know, given its location, it's a multi --
it's a multi use residential district.
Our assumption is that the response, the housing response, will
be a multiple family product --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. NINO: -- in that portion of Spanish Wells, simply by virtue
of where it's located.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, but density. Do we know --
MR. NINO: Oh, well, the density is for the entire Spanish Wells.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But I'm asking, do we know what
the project density is?
MR. NINO: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason is, Mr. Ferguson made a
comment about it would be spot zoning anything less than an --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I disagree with that. Arbour Lake
Club is at six and a half. And, you know, yes, you are surrounded by
fairly high density, but our growth management plan says four units an
acre. So, you know, to ask us to do something that's inconsistent
with the growth management plan on the sunsetting, there needs to be
pretty significant justification.
So what I personally was looking at was the two acres of
commercial and 69 units instead of 86, because 86 is inconsistent with
the growth management plan. And, you know, that was my starting
point, Mr. Ferguson, to be honest with you.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Well, when we start subtracting that number
of units -- those units have a value. I can discuss with my client
whether he's willing to do that. Right now the threshold is 83.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What created that threshold? Because I
didn't --
MR. FERGUSON: That was staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but why? Because I --
MR. NINO: That would make --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- got the same math that Commissioner
Hancock did.
MR. NINO: Let me say that the original zoning on the property
was RMF-6 and agricultural. It's our opinion that that RMF-6 would
have been deemed compatible with the ZRO process; they would have held
that zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But he didn't apply for a ZRO exception.
MR. NINO: He didn't have to, because he had a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: But the PUD was approved under the ZRO process for 88
units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. FERGUSON: There's an existing ZRO. He was exempted from
this whole process.
And what I've been trying to do is not go into the whole dog and
pony show, and try to make it easy on everybody, but we do have
substantial documentation of the fact that we were exempted. That's
part of your packet. We have that -- we have the amount of money that
we spent on the property.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody wants to try to -- I mean, I think
this board is real strong on protecting private property rights.
Nobody's going to try to want to get in the way of something you have
a right to. We're just trying to establish what is that baseline.
And I guess we have now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's 88 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we knock it down during ZRO, we've got
-- we may have some potential legal difficulties in doing --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- it's 88 and two acres apart.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- density reduction at this point.
MR. NINO: You'll recall that the only area that staff questioned
in terms of the number of units was the so-called five affordable
housing units, which, quite frankly, we don't know where it comes
from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. NINO: Quite frankly, we think the applicant would accept the
83 units and the C-2, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With all the other updates in the PUD, if
we stick with the eighty --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- three units and two acres commercial, I
think we've done pretty much everything we can do. But I don't have
any intention of rezoning that commercial or residential at a higher
density than what the growth management plan allows for in this area.
I think it would take this project above and beyond what's adjacent to
it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this PUD is here because of a
sunset --
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- tell me what is the reason why we
can't just sunset this PUD to agriculture.
MR. FERGUSON: Can I answer that question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that -- I asked Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: I would rather defer to our legal department.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't seen a sunset on a ZRO yet,
have we?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-uh -- well, yes, we have.
MR. NINO: Yes, you have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we have.
MR. NINO: You did fezone one back to agricultural.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We sent it all the way back.
MS. STUDENT: There may be some -- I believe there's property
received in up-front compatibility exception under ZRO. It didn't go
through the vesting process. But to the extent that some improvements
were made, there may be some reasonable investment expectations that
there may be a private property -- a Butt Harris private property
rights claim, and there could possibly be some vested rights again.
All of these issues are very difficult for us to draw a bright line
and say if you fall on this side of it you are vested, if you fall on
this side, you're not. And it would make it real easy if it were, but
it's not the case.
And it's very difficult to predict what a court might do. So all
I can say is there could possibly be some risk if we took this
property --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question.
MS. STUDENT: -- back down to ag.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And what is your name?
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon. Harjorie Student, assistant
county attorney for the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the kind of things that lawyers do
have to do is I might be asked by my client -- I might be told by my
client, here's my intention, my goal is -- and I'm telling you that my
goal is to reduce the density on sunsetted PUD's. I'm telling you
that is my goal.
Now, you tell me, what's the level of my risk if I choose to
pursue that goal in this particular case. That's my question for you,
not bright line on general concepts, because I know you can't do that.
But on this case '-
MS. STUDENT: Well, again, I think there is -- I think there
could be some risk. It's impossible to say what that level of risk
might be, but there could be some risk.
By the same token, we have a provision in 21.16, and if I may,
I'll just step away and get it in the Land Code.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing to consider, Pam, is that if
this thing were surrounded by three and four units an acre --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, it would be different.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you'd have a compatibility issue that
speaks differently than what's around it now. I don't like that, but
I think that's the circumstance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't want to get hung up on what
we're legally entitled to do versus what's a good land use decision --
and I may be going too far down that road -- but I would like for that
to be the kind of question you're prepared to answer for us as we go
through these.
MS. STUDENT: It deals with the effect of approvals under the
ZRO, and it talks about any use or structure that has been granted a
compatibility exception, exemption or vested rights under the ZRO is a
permitted use, and the district in which it's located, to the extent
it's approved maximum density or intensity of use, and to the extent
that it remains effective.
Now, exactly what that remains effective means is interesting.
Does that contemplate our sunset provision, and can you read those
together and say well, the sunset provision interacts with this, so
what you were given through ZRO, you can taketh away, if you will?
In the sunset -- I can't give you -- you could make an argument.
Again, I can't give you a concrete answer to that question. But we
could make that legal argument. That still doesn't deal with the
issue of common law vesting and Butt Harris Act private property
rights. So there is -- you know, there is some risk. And I cannot
tell you, you know, how it might all fall out.
I do believe the up-front compatibility exception, however, dealt
with issues of compatibility rather than vesting for that part of it.
And that's one of the things you need to look at when evaluating this
would be the compatibility of this property with its surrounding
neighbors. And if through the growth management zoning revaluation
process there was a compatibility issue, and it was found to have an
up-front exemption, that probably the factual basis of that has not
changed. And that's something that you would still need to look at,
you know, the comp. plan notwithstanding.
MR. FERGUSON: Can I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- if I may real quick, Mr.
Ferguson.
There's going to come a time when we're going to go ahead and
accept a Butt Harris challenge on a piece of property. I just don't
think that this particular one presents that scenario.
I'm comfortable with 83 units and two acres commercial and the
balance of the PUD being brought up to current standards as our staff
has required. And I'd -- you know, everything that I've heard --
yeah, I'd love to reduce the density, but I don't think we can get
enough to make a substantive difference in the immediate area, and I
don't think, you know, risking the challenge, based on the fact that
they want the ZRO process, that there's enough to be gained by that
reduction on this particular small piece of property.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't fully agree. I think we have some
recommendation in our -- in our backup material that -- that shows 52
dwelling units plus the commercial tract. And the petitioner has
stated that he wants to keep that commercial tract. I think we should
let him do that.
MR. FERGUSON: As a response, first of all, I've provided the
commissioners and staff with the -- the manager with some
documentation I'd like to make a part of the record. I'd like to
recognize Ron Nino as an expert witness, if the board would. I'd also
like to, since I have a Master's Degree in urban planning, I'd like to
have you recognize me as an expert witness.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ferguson, before going any further on
that, we have Mr. Nino's credentials in the area of planning. Do we
-- have you presented your credentials in the area of planning to the
board?
MR. FERGUSON: I have a Master's Degree in urban --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you practiced as a planner in the
State of Florida for a period of time? Do you have an AICP
designation?
MR. FERGUSON: I don't have a current AICP, but I've practiced
quite a bit of land use. Ever since I've practiced law I've practiced
land use.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Typically we need credentials in order to
recognize someone as an expert in the field that they're requesting.
If you don't --
MR. FERGUSON: A Master's doesn't count?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have anything in front of me
showing me your experience, your background, any of that. I have
nothing to consider but your word that you have a Master's. I can get
a degree in engineering, but if I don't practice it for 10 years, I
doubt I'd be recognized an expert in a quasi judicial proceeding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And wouldn't it be unusual too for the
lawyer to be presented as an expert witness? I mean, don't you have
to be in one suit or the other? I don't think we can have you as
both.
MR. FERGUSON: I don't believe so. The board said many times
that we're not -- this isn't a courtroom. And what I would like to
suggest -- what I would like to suggest here is that we've got the
staff saying that the use we're asking for is compatible. If the PUD
-- if you could sunset the PUD -- which I question; I don't think you
can, because I think that the PUD is vested, the whole thing. Staff
thinks that maybe the C-2 is vested, maybe the rest isn't.
But if you took the PUD away, you'd still end up with an
underlying zone. In the past, when PUD's have sunset, the underlying
zone was agricultural. In this particular situation, the underlying
zone is not agricultural. It's C-2, it's RMF-6 and it's agricultural.
So if we took that, we'd still end up with 86 units and two acres of
commercial.
And we've agreed to -- forget about the vesting argument that the
C-2 that was vested back eight years ago is what we were entitled to.
We've said okay, we'll come -- we'll come some for the county here,
we'll accept the C-2 zone as it exists today, we'll accept the 83
units instead of the 88 or 86 or whatever we're entitled to, and let's
go on with our lives. We've got the minutes where you said that's the
commitment that we'd made and you wanted us to stick to it and that's
what we've done.
And quite frankly, the two acres of C-2 commercial is a nice
buffer, and that's why I asked to be qualified as an expert witness,
because C-2 is a nice buffer between residential and industrial uses.
I don't think any planner in the State of Florida would tell you that
residential, right beside industrial use, it makes any good planning
sense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think anybody's arguing about your
C-2. I think we -- I mean, I think everybody acknowledges that we're
not going to fight with you over your C-2, that we think you probably
have a strong enough argument there that it's not worth the fight.
The question is, for me, what's the residential density on the
down zone? And I guess my question is, in the sunset ordinance, I
don't remember, does it say shall convert to the previous zoning or
shall convert to -- MR. NINO: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- ag. or -- it doesn't say shall convert,
does it?
MR. NINO: No, it says that -- it says to an appropriate zoning
district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. NINO: And when -- when we did the ZRO process, you may
recall, and when there were -- was down-zoning, the favored
down-zoning was RSF-3, because the underlying -- because the FLUE had
a base of 3, and RSF-3 was the zoning district --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we took this to 3, its density for
residential, assuming it keeps at C-2, take it to a density of RSF-3,
the number of units would be --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fifty-two.
MR. NINO: Fifty-two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it seems to me that's where we gotta
go.
MR. FERGUSON: That's an inordinate burden. That's 300,000
bucks. I'm asking --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What attempts --
MR. FERGUSON: I'm asking you to take the 83. We're willing to
take 83 and the C-2.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What attempts did your client make to
develop the property while the zoning was in place?
MR. FERGUSON: Well, he developed the property with a driving
range, which we -- he was allowed to do. He's got a pro shop on the
driving range; he's used it. That was an acceptable use inside the
PUD. And so he's used his property for what was intended as the PUD.
He had choices and he's made choices, and he still --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that gets him the C-2.
MR. FERGUSON: Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it didn't -- you can't preserve
residential uses by commercial.
MR. FERGUSON: I'm saying the PUD is vested is what I'm saying.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you did not make -- or the property
owner didn't make a vested argument in ZRO or else that would be the
case. If a vesting argument was available to be made, that was the
appropriate forum in which to do it. Instead, a compatibility
argument was made in ZR --
MR. FERGUSON: No. Let -- let -- let me -- you've got -- you've
got that document. I believe you have that document. If not, it's in
the record. It -- we were found to be -- since we already had
presented a plan, we were found to be exempted from the ZRO.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But not --
MR. FERGUSON: The compatibility issue was answered by your
staff, which says that our development is compatible with the
surrounding development.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: ZRO had several facets to it. You could
be exempt in ZRO because you are vested, or because to -- through a
compatibility exception. There were several categories. What I'm
saying is, the time in which to make the argument that your entire
project was vested was during the ZRO process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And absent having done that, the sunset
ordinance applies. And as we apply the sunset ordinance today, we
have to look at what would be the RSF-3, the underlying zoning
district.
It seems to me we -- you know, we fezone it to that RSF-3 density
within a PUD, and you keep your PUD, you keep the standards of the
PUD, and you keep the C-2 commercial. But I don't see how you could
argue -- I mean, I used to try to argue for vested rights cases, guys,
and when you have a really, really good case they're hard to win. And
I recognize that our lawyers have to give us conservative advice, but
that's -- they're hard cases to win, vested rights cases.
MR. FERGUSON: I'm suggesting to you that the C-2 is vested and
that if you down-zone the property from 83 units, which we're willing
to accept, to 53 units, that's going to be an inordinate burden.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's inordinate burden mean? Is that --
MR. FERGUSON: Inordinate burden is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- some case language or something?
MR. FERGUSON: -- Butt -- Butt Harris Act.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we're going to have to test it
sometime, aren't we?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where's the -- what's been going on
with the property for 11 years?
MR. FERGUSON: It's been used as a driving range.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A driving range. And we're going to let
him keep that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Not that part, but all the
rest.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The rest.
MR. FERGUSON: The whole property is a driving range. We've got
__
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How far can you hit the ball?
MR. FERGUSON: -- a pro shop, parking and a driving range.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's 300 with the wind.
MR. FERGUSON: Three hundred yards. And then there's -- there's
buffers on either side.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But how many acres -- I mean, how far can
you hit the ball? How many golf balls have traveled beyond the C-27
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can hit it a long way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you might, I can't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trust me, two acres is not enough space
for a driving range. You need --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I don't know that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, you need a lot more than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just saying, with the -- I
mean, the number of units, it may have been acceptable in '87, but
it's been -- you know, you've been sitting on it for 11 years.
MR. FERGUSON: Yeah, but you're -- you've got a surrounding --
you've got a surrounding density of an average of 7.5, and then the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those are developed?
MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Nino can answer that. It's in his staff
report.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, how many of those are
developed?
MR. NINO: Turtle Creek is developed, and that's about a mile
south of the property. And immediately to the west of this property
is a development within Sterling Oaks that is a multi-family product.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the majority of the property
around there --
MR. NINO: Eight point nine --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- has yet to be developed; is that --
MR. NINO: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- correct?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I've got to imagine if they're not
back right away, they'll be under sunset review as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sterling Oaks is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know Sterling Oaks is active, but
I'm saying the ones that don't have any activity -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. NINO: Remember, Arbour Lake is a affordable housing project,
and that's why it has the density associated with it. And I believe
that was -- that was --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess I have a question for Harjorie.
MR. NINO: -- it was approved shortly not long ago, under the
sunsetting provisions, for an additional two years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point just being, Tim, it's kind of
hard to make the argument that it's compatible with everything
surrounding when a big chunk of what's surrounding isn't there yet.
MR. FERGUSON: Well, if it's been approved, why can't it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Approved when? I mean, this was
approved in '87. Is it just speculation for eternity?
MR. FERGUSON: Well, Mr. Nino just said there's affordable
housing that just got reapproved for the next two years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent distinction, 6.5 acres. Why are
they over the base density? Because they are affordable housing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Affordable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you affordable housing, Mr. Ferguson?
Are you committing to affordable housing at this time?
MR. FERGUSON: We're not committing to affordable housing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERGUSON: We've committed to six units of affordable
housing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That and a buck will get you a beer.
MR. FERGUSON: This isn't easy. I understand this is not an easy
decision. I've got a couple --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there criteria that we should make
findings on, Ms. Student, if we are considering down-zoning or
sunsetting this PUD? What kind of criteria?
MS. STUDENT: I would say there are criteria that exist in the
Land Development Code for any rezoning action for both PUD's as well
as straight fezones. And typically there -- both of them are looked
at.
And one of the things that you need to look at, and I think I've
already mentioned, is compatibility. And there's case law that
suggests that if property is rezoned to -- and is incompatible, that
that is an arbitrary and capricious act. And also the courts have
suggested in this district that -- they've hinted it could amount to
an inverse condemnation situation, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So an important finding --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think she's looking for supporting
information rather than --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: An important finding for us to make is
whether or not an 80 something unit project would be compatible with
the neighborhood. If it is compatible, then we should leave it that
way or be '-
MS. STUDENT: We could look at --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- hard pressed to defend.
MS. STUDENT: -- whether a lesser density is also compatible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That's the critical finding then is
compatibility.
MR. NINO: If I may, if that is the direction the board is going
to go in, may I suggest that what you would be doing is directing
staff to advertise a public hearing for a rezoning action to the
down-zoning classification.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't we do that today?
MR. NINO: And at that point in time we would then analyze the
criteria that is precedent to a finding for rezoning.
MR. FERGUSON: I'd like to remind you that you have a staff
report that says staff does not find any of the land uses incompatible
with adjacent properties. It's right in your staff report.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson.
Question for Mr. Nino on your last comment there. And maybe Mr.
Weigel or Ms. Student or somebody can help me. But I don't know that
I agree with what you just said. That's not the way it's always been
done when -- today is a PUD hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's open.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm wondering why then we would
have to give direction and have a public hearing later. This is a
public hearing. The PUD is wide open.
MR. NINO: No, this is a public hearing to fezone this property
PUD to PUD.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh.
MR. NINO: It wasn't advertised to fezone it to any other
classification.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm suggesting that we fezone it to a PUD
with a density of 56 units and 52 units -- MR. NINO: Yeah, that would be --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and then we don't have to have another
hearing.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can do that. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel's been wanting to jump in with
something, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't want to jump too hard. But Ms.
Hac'Kie was mentioning criterion and Ms. Student was responding. And
we also talked about findings.
And yes, there are some criteria, but above all, findings are
most important, that you can find the rationale for the decision
that's been made. And I think that the record already reflects some
rationale toward a potential direction or motion that the board may
take here. But hopefully, within the motion itself, either a
restatement of some of those findings and/or any particular sometimes
elusive criterion that may have been mentioned to you will also come
up to be formed part of the record.
But findings is really -- it may be a broader catch phrase, which
still is of great significance for the reasoning as to a decision, a
motion that may be made by the board.
And in regard to this being advertised as a PUD to PUD, as long
as you don't jump out of the PUD parameter, we're within the
advertisement framework of this hearing today.
MR. FERGUSON: I'd like to ask one question of the board. I've
provided a listing of costs and expenses. Are we going to accept
those, or do we need testimony to authenticate the figures?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you making a vested rights argument
with those?
MR. FERGUSON: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's not appropriate today.
MR. FERGUSON: What I'm -- what I'm saying is that I have to put
some things on the record here, and if you're going to accept my
client's figures of what he spent, then that's fine. And if not, I'd
like to authenticate his document. Because if I'm headed to Butt
Harris, I'm headed to Butt Harris.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got a -- I have -- separate from
positioning, could I ask a question about that? MR. FERGUSON: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Outside of expenditures associated with
the golf use, how much money has your client spent? MR. FERGUSON: $420,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not in any way associated --
MR. FERGUSON: No. Outside of the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. FERGUSON: None to my knowledge. And I can ask them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So he's got an operating working golf
driving range on the entire parcel, more or less right now, and you're
saying the costs associated with establishing that business is
relevant to the residential zoning on -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not.
MR. FERGUSON: I'm going to try to make several arguments. One of
the arguments I'm going to try to make to a court is that it's a Butt
Harris because it's an inordinate burden, and I'm also going to make
the argument that the PUD itself was vested when he spent the money to
improve the property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not the issue on the agenda, as I
understand it, Madam Chairman. What I'd like to do is first of all --
is make a motion to recognize Mr. Hulhere and Mr. Nino as experts in
the field of planning --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and ask that their resumes be entered
into the record with this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Zero. Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on that -- or moving from that, Mr.
Nino, if I may ask you first, the adjacent property at 6.48 units
which is not yet built, it's unbuilt, is affordable housing; is that
correct?
MR. NINO: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Would you find four units per acre
to be compatible at 6.5 -- or 6.48 units an acre? They're not
incompatible uses.
MR. NINO: They're not -- they're not incompatible. I appreciate
that -- you know, I don't look at density -- narrow bands of density
as really a compatibility issue in planning. I'm sorry for that, but
__
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The closer they are in density, the more
compatible they are.
MR. NINO: The closer they are -- you know, density --
compatibility in technical terms is really a relationship between
opposing land uses. And when we're talking about residential density,
we're talking about housing next to housing. And density is not a
parameter that measures compatibility, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, would you find the
development restrictions or regulations in Collier County associated
with multi-family four units an acre, multi-family -- say RMF-6 capped
at four units an acre, would you find that consistent with Arbour Lake
PUD zoning --
MR. NINO: Yes, I would. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if this project were to be
rezoned at -- with RMF-6 residential characteristics at a cap of four
units an acre, would that be a consistent --
MR. NINO: I would find that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- zoning for Arbour Lake?
MR. NINO: -- consistent. I would find that compatible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, you look like you had
something to say.
MR. MULHERE: While Ron's up, I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait, Mr. Ferguson, let me get my
questions answered first, and then if the chair wishes to recognize
you, we need to go through that.
MR. FERGUSON: Because I'm entitled to cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. Would you sit down while
we're asking Mr. Mulhere some questions, please?
MR. MULHERE: Perhaps I'm stating the obvious or something that's
already been stated but I -- Commissioner Mac'Kie asked the question,
talking about what criteria we might use, or the board might use, to
evaluate this type of petition under the sunsetting scenario.
And in addition I think to the compatibility and the standard
findings that we address in our staff report, I think it's important
again to focus on the fact that the entire premise of the sunsetting
provision in the code is to afford the board an opportunity to
determine whether something which has not been developed is consistent
with the comprehensive plan as it stands today.
And beyond that, if other changing factors in the surrounding --
immediate surrounding and adjacent area make the uses that were
previously approved less compatible or incompatible as they were
approved.
So I think that you're certainly well within your rights -- and
I'm not speaking legally, I'm speaking my interpretation of what the
sunsetting provisions were intended to accommodate -- you're well
within your rights to look at whether or not it's consistent -- an
undeveloped piece of property is consistent with the current
comprehensive plan, and if it's not, I presume then that the intent of
the sunsetting provisions was to make it consistent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And consistency and compatibility are
identical concepts; am I right?
MR. MULHERE: I think they're close. We look at -- let's look at
examples where we talk about a density of up to some -- some number of
dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: It may be consistent at the higher number --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. MULHERE: -- it may not be compatible at the higher number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But they're awfully relevant. I
mean, they're awfully similar.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's why I asked the question about
RMF-6 zoning characteristics with a cap of four, because many times
compatibility is based on like product, like setbacks, like
development heights; in other words --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because what you're saying is single
family here is probably not compatible, and that's why you're looking
at a multi-family --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, single family could be compatible.
There's examples all over the county of single family being right
across the fence line from multi-family.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's what this -- this would be
RSF-3.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, my question was RMF-6 zoning
designation with a cap of four units an acre. Because it's a PUD, I
don't think we are precluded from assigning something other than
RSF-3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I think we're seeking a
compatibility argument here. And that's why I asked the question is
-- compatibility isn't just density, as Mr. Nino stated. It's also
development characteristics: Building heights, setbacks and so forth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is RSF-3 compatible?
One of our experts want to answer that question?
MR. NINO: I would -- it would certainly be compatible with the
developments taking place in Sapphire Lakes, which is the most
contiguous property in which there will soon be houses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why wouldn't we go there instead of in
a multi-family direction?
MR. NINO: Well, if I might, I don't think the issue is
compatibility. The issue is consistency with the growth management
plan. The growth management plan already dictates what type of
development will occur in this property. And it's residential. And --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At a base density of three.
MR. NINO: At a base density. That is what's consistent --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we have two '-
MR. NINO: -- irrespective of the issue of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- charges, Mr. Nino. We have the
consistency we have to look at for -- that's why we have sunset. And
then we have compatibility that we have to be sure we are defensible
from a vested rights standpoint. We have to be sure that the use we
assign is also compatible to the surrounding uses.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me pick up on the statement that
Mr. Nino just made. Mr. Nino just made the statement that the growth
management plan dictates that this property be residential with a base
density of three.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So what's the problem?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are we talking about?
MS. STUDENT: For the record again, Marjorie student, assistant
county attorney.
I think there's two principles here: Consistency with the comp.
plan and compatibility. I don't think anybody argues with that.
The reason we had the compatibility exception and compatibility
exemptions were when we went through and adopted the new comp. plan,
there could be situations where the comp. plan might dictate a use for
property that was incompatible with the surrounding district. Even
though it's consistent with the comp. plan, there's still a
compatibility problem.
And that's why we went through ZRO, because the common law of
this state is that you can't have a situation -- and it is more in a
sense of land uses than other types of considerations -- because if
you have a situation where you're consistent with the comp. plan and
the subject property is still incompatible with the surrounding land
uses, you still may have a legal problem.
And that is why we made compatibility a component of the zoning
teevaluation process, to avoid legal problems with vested rights, as
well as compatibility. So there's two separate and distinct
principles there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Student, the reason sun -- the reason
we have sunsetting is we recognized even in ZRO that we need to give
the property owner ample opportunity and time to develop their
property --
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- under current zoning. If they choose
not to do that, whether it be by market factors or their own choice,
whatsoever, then the sunsetting has to apply to the property and -- in
other words, we gave them a five-year window that someone else didn't
have.
MS. STUDENT: I don't disagree with that.
My take on why we have the sunsetting is because before Butt
Harris, the case law of this state was without more -- and that's just
zoning by itself -- gives no claim to a vested right. In other words,
you haven't done anything in furtherance of the zoning that you have
in your zoning district. And that is why we have sunset. In
recognition of that, and also in recognition of our need to plan
infrastructure and so forth for what we have on the books, and the
need to get speculative properties off the books so we don't overplan
infrastructure.
But despite the fact that we have our comp. plan and we must be
consistent with it, we also need to look at the compatibility issue,
because if we fezone someone to -- in a situation that's consistent
with the comp. plan but where there may be an incompatible zoning
district, we still have a problem. It could either be spot zoning or
reverse spot zoning. And that's what we're trying to avoid.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. NINO: Commissioners, if I might, I want to qualify that
statement I made, that that is under the normal circumstances when
we're dealing with vacant land, unzoned land. In this sense, we were
dealing with a PUD.
And we need to be sensitive to the issues, the legal issues,
quite frankly, that Ms. Student is raising here with respect -- and
the petitioner with respect to the Butt Harris property.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask the petitioner a question here.
MR. NINO: I'd also like to enter into the record, that we keep
forgetting, the temporary driving -- the driving range was a temporary
land use that was permitted. And furthermore, I think negates any
action -- any suggestion that that would vest the project.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ferguson, can I ask you a question,
please?
MR. FERGUSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would your client be willing to accept a
density of 66 units plus the two acres of commercial, plus the ability
to use the property as a driving range until other development occurs,
assuming that you bring it up to current PUD standards?
MR. FERGUSON: The answer is first that we are current with the
PUD standards. And then can I ask -- can I get them for just a second
and ask?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Mr. Weigel had a point while we're
waiting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Just a point -- a point on procedure. And that
would be that when the commissioners have finished with their
questions of Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Nino, that Mr. Ferguson be afforded
the opportunity to question or, quote, cross-examine them in regard to
the line of questioning they had.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question on procedure?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if Mr. Ferguson comes back with a
positive response --
MR. WEIGEL: It may not be necessary. We can waive that, that is
correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can certainly waive his -- do I
remember from last week that there was some discussion that some of
you guys had to leave at a certain -- what --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is, and it's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's fast approaching.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's rapidly approaching.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry and I and Mr.
Fernandez, I believe, have a 6:15 flight out of Fort Myers to be in
Tallahassee this evening. So --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just looking in the back of the room
and wondering if there's anybody back there that wants to postpone
their petitions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: After waiting all day?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Karen?
MS. BISHOP: How much time do we have?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what time do you guys have to be
gone by?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We might breeze through some of these, if
they'll come back in with a positive response.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Might as well wait and see, I guess.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the next one is probably the one
that's going to require the most debate or discussion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which one's next?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 12 (B) (6) .
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's Karen's.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's Karen's? Good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: After that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What time do you guys have to be out of
here by?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've got to be out of here in order to get
home, and then be in Fort Myers. I've got a half hour drive home,
with the traffic. So I've got to be out of here by 4:30, at the
latest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those of us that packed ahead can leave as
late as 5:00.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I am packed. It's just that I live out in
rural America.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean God's country?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we've got a half an hour left. We've
got a lot to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- I'm sure -- Mr. Ferguson, hear me,
if we don't get a response within the next 15 or 20 seconds, I would
go ahead and table this and go ahead and begin the next hearing.
Because -- Commissioner Norris, you're hitting on the right area.
You know, all we're looking to do is drop the density down to
something compatible and reasonable. And if they're willing to agree
to that, I -- I'm with you, 66 units sounds fine to me. I'd like to
go that way with it, but we need to hear from them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we just make that motion and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need to give him the opportunity to
respond and cross-examine, if he wishes.
See where we need that theme from Jeopardy I keep talking about.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least bring the sound effects in,
maybe I can --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep going?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my favorite.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Why don't you table this anyway and pass on it?
MR. FERGUSON: What I think might be a good solution -- the
problem here is Mr. Gadaleta owned the property, and he sold the
property to the trust. They have some outstanding issues on if we're
going to accept 66, how do they adjust the contract.
Would you at all be willing to table this and let us come back in
two weeks?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We certainly would.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to table for --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to table this
item.
Thank you very much.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to call it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh. All those in favor of tabling the item?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Yes, that's important to vote on that.
Item #1286
ORDINANCE 98-24 RE PETITION PUD-97-18, KAREN BISHOP OF PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTING SIGNATURE COHMUNITIES, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RHF-6, RHF-12(6) AND RHF-12ST(6) TO PUD TO BE
KNOWN AS THE DUNES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A HAXIHUH OF 531
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF lllTH
AVENUE NORTH AND VANDERBILT DRIVE (WIGGINS PASS LANDINGS) - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS
Okay, moving on then to item 12(B)(6). Petition PUD-97-18
representing The Dunes PUD.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, disclosure here. I
have spoken with the petitioner, but I will base my --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we've got to swear everybody in first,
okay?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, all people wishing to speak to
this issue, please rise to be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Disclosure. I have had communication from
the petitioner and others in this particular area, but I will base my
decision according to law.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, disclosure?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have I talked to -- okay, I've spoken with
people outside the hearing about this, but I'm gonna decide based on
the facts we hear today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You already did.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Disclosure. I met with the petitioner
with representatives from two separate associations affected by the
property, a couple of dogs, a few cats and I think a mouse.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We are getting tired, aren't we?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, planning services department.
The petition that's before you asks that you fezone property
currently zoned basically for six dwelling units per acre to a PUD
classification to allow 531 multi-family or mixed residential dwelling
units to the 88.5-acre tract that is -- that is contained within this
PUD.
The Planning Commission -- incidentally, that density is
consistent with the premise that all of the property that makes up the
88.55 acres, including land that is currently included in platted
rights-of-way and proposed waterways, is part of the total acreage,
and that the six units per acre ought to apply to that entire 88
acres, and consequently we come up with 531 dwelling units.
If you accept that proposition, then clearly the PUD is
consistent with the future land use element, since the RMF-6 zoning is
the subject of the ZRO process and was confirmed. Actually, the ZRO
process down-zoned the property from its current designation of RMF-12
to 6, so that -- that went through the ZRO process and was confirmed
as six dwelling units per acre. That makes it consistent with the
future land use element.
All other reviews for consistency with applicable elements of the
growth management plan suggest that if this plan is approved as
proposed, that it would be indeed consistent with all elements of the
growth management plan.
The Planning Commission heard this petition on January the 15th,
and by a unanimous vote, recommended approval of the PUD.
There was one -- there was a concern raised that -- by the
District II and by residents in the Vanderbilt Beach area -- that the
access on Bluebill Avenue ought to play a minor role in access to this
property. And that resulted in the development of some stipulations
that are not contained within the PUD that you have, that are
responsive to that citizen negotiation process.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the petitioner prefers to call
that wanting to be a good neighbor.
MR. NINO: So in fact, we have a PUD, as amended, with the
additional stipulations that appears to be consistent with local
concerns, and is indeed a PUD that the Planning Commission has
recommended.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, if I may?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since you're familiar, I'm going to go
down my hit list, since I haven't had a chance to review this, and
maybe you can tell me whether these are included or not.
Did The Dunes project include in their site plan a minimum
20-foot easement along Bluebill Avenue for a variety of purposes? Is
that included in the PUD somewhere? MR. OLLIFF: Twenty-five.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-five foot easement?
MR. NINO: Twenty-five feet, yeah, 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see Ms. Bishop shaking her head, so I'll
tell you what, I'll hold that question 'til Ms. Bishop's to the
microphone.
The following is just a list: No construction traffic --
MR. NINO: Page two-four of the handout --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- there's the provision for .... The south 25 feet of
the property will be available for use by the owners of the Dunes
Project and by Collier County", to serve as the joint landscape to
facilitate a possibility of a county parking facility along Bluebill
Avenue. (sic.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason that's important is it does not
then preclude us from placing beach parking on the north side of
Bluebill, should we decide to do so at a later date. So that was
something that was worked out.
Was construction traffic prohibited on Bluebill by way of the
PUD?
MR. NINO: I believe it is, and that is -- I believe that is on
page five-three of the handout.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Construction traffic and other truck traffic shall not
be permitted through the Bluebill Avenue access.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Was there a fair share contribution
required for a light at the intersection of Bluebill and Vanderbilt
Drive on the PUD?
MR. NINO: I'm -- there have been a number of guesses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's G on five-three. Applicant shall
contribute a fair share toward the cost of traffic signals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And one thing I ask of the applicant were
(sic) that because of the nature of this project, its location, its
obvious marketing due to proximity of the beach, that they be
responsible for sidewalk improvements, getting people over the bridge
on Bluebill Avenue. Can you point to where that has been included?
Would it be maybe page five-four, item I? MR. NINO: Page five-four.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: See how I catch on after a few minutes?
MR. NINO: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There are a couple of other things,
but that was punch list A, and I've discussed with Ms. Bishop some
other requests, so that's all I have for now.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any
questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
I think we'll hear from Ms. Bishop, if she'd like to get
something on the record.
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, applicant for -- excuse me,
representative for the applicant.
I really don't want to add more than what Ron has to say, due to
this late hour. I do have a little handout of the improvements for
the pedestrian walkway over the bridge that you might be interested
in, Mr. Constantine -- Mr. Hancock. There's the big picture up there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just cost a vote right there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need four, be careful now.
Okay. And I assume this is being entered into the record by way
of anticipated improvements? Thank you.
What we have there is kind of a dangerous situation right now,
and this would actually make -- go a long way towards improving the
strong pedestrian character of the area.
Ms. Bishop, second thing is that the -- what is called the
marginal wharf, which I have still looked for in the dictionary and
can't find what exactly that means, but it looks like a boardwalk
along the mangrove area. That obviously has to be permitted by the
state. But I wanted to ask that overnight docking of vessels be
precluded along that wharf.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I appreciate that that's what you would like.
I would like to ask you if perhaps we could look at another way of
doing that in that I still have to go through the federal land state
permitting. I may or may not even get that.
And perhaps I could come to you with a plan at that time for you
to look at what's out there, which gives the -- there's several public
in -- processes through the permitting that would give people their
opportunity to speak.
Because it was such a late hour this morning when you mentioned
this -- and this has been a part of our PUD from the beginning -- and
that wewve been in this process now for three or four months, that
itls kind of out of left field for us, and I would like to try to
leave it in there. Itls just a use, it doesnlt really give me the
ability to do it unless I get my permits from the state.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: You know, the hoops are so severe that
have to be jumped through for any kind of overnight parking --
overnight docking at the state and federal level.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is that a boardwalk becomes a
marina. If we allow vessels to be moored there overnight, basically
anyone can tie it up and leave it there as long as they like, and next
thing you know, welve got 200 vessels moored up there. And thatls my
concern.
The reason it was late is because the Property Owners Association
of North Collier County faxed me this morning. I had had discussions
with the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association as much as a
week ago, but was still waiting to see the plans and to look at them.
And I really didnlt think it looked like you were trying to build a
docking facility but rather just a pedestrian boardwalk. So I didnlt
think it was going to be a real problem, to be honest with you.
MS. BISHOP: Well, what we did at the time we put that in there,
we wanted to show some sort of water activity. We put in there the
docks because we -- itls a normal use for residential along
waterfront.
What Iid like to be able to do is just stick it in as a
conditional use or provisional use and come back to you again with
that plan, if I can get it permitted. There is certain criteria that
I would have to adhere to at the state level. Because of the width of
this canal, I can assure you, thereill never be a marina here, itls
not wide enough.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If youlre willing to put it in as a
conditional use that will require board approval at some point in the
future Iid be glad -- that would be happy -- Iid be fine with that,
because that gives the community a chance to review and -- MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- respond to detailed plans, as opposed
to a marginal wharf.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you. Thank you, thatls what we would like to
do then. Provisional or conditional use, whichever you prefer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any questions? Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
I just wanted to put on the record that we had not had a chance
to review the sidewalk proposal across the bridge, and I would simply
want to make sure that you recognize that subject to a structural
engineering review, we -- there may be more extensive work than is
shown on that drawing. Thatls to be taken as a conceptional drawing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be safe to say, then, that I assume
youlye done a cost to construct on those sidewalk improvements, Ms.
Bishop, and do you know what that cost to construct is?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. From the structural engineering that we
hired, which is Jenkins and Charland, they have given us an estimate
of $120,000 to do the improvements over the bridge. And that, I
believe, is on the exhibit I gave you.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is. Approximate construction cost,
120,000.
MR. KANT: And that would be for both the north and south
sidewalk improvements, as shown on that. So are we to assume that the
developers would be responsible for all those improvements?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MS. BISHOP: That's as stipulated in the PUD.
MR. KANT: Okay. Again, we would still -- if -- prior to issuing
any permits, we still want to make sure we had adequate review.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Obviously, if it isn't going to
work, we're going to want to revisit it. But we're going to assume at
this point that Jenkins and Charland designed something that will work
-- or proposed something that would work.
Okay. Just for information sake, I only received one objection
to the height from a resident in Vanderbilt Beach, which was kind of
surprising. The folks that live in Baker Carroll Point, which is
across the waterway, I have not received correspondence in the way of
objecting.
Have we received anything for the record, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: No, we haven't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I received one phone call objecting
to the height from --
MR. NINO: Other than what's in your -- well, there is some stuff
in your -- some material in your packet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the Ed Ruff proposal scared
everyone to death when this started to look pretty good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. NINO: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we all got that same correspondence.
MR. NINO: There's correspondence in your packet that does
present some -- I think they're more confused than objecting, quite
frankly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: And they're dealing -- still dealing with a 15-story
building --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. NINO: -- which, as you know, we managed to get it reduced to
12.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have two. Don Cox and
Dick Lydon.
MR. COX: My name is Don Cox. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt
Towers III, that's on Baker Carroll Point. Baker Carroll Point is in
back of the park.
When I moved there, there was five condos. There are now 10.
This, in my opinion, has kind of gotten out of hand because of the
fear of parking. It all started about a year ago. And it hit the
newspaper that there was going to be parking and a trolley service.
And there was a meeting that was held in the church last March, and it
was full of people, and they were very much opposed to this parking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, you're wrong. Some of them were
opposed and some of them were in favor.
MR. COX: Well, I was there, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So was I.
MR. COX: And I'll tell you, I'll go for 90 percent.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You'll be wrong, but that's fine.
MR. COX: Well, it was awful close to it.
I'm not opposed to the project at all, believe me.
I do have a little bone to pick with you, though, sir, because
last year somebody told me that you said that it was an eyesore, the
south side of the street was an eyesore on Bluebill; was that true?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At times --
MR. COX: Because if it wasn't then --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, excuse me, are you going to let
me answer the question?
MR. COX: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At times, yes, it can be.
MR. COX: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At times, yes, it can be. People dump
things over there and whatnot. Yes, sir.
MR. COX: Okay, I'll go along with that. It's just a little -- a
little -- a comment.
For the last six months I'll guarantee you it's been an eyesore.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know it has.
MR. COX: Okay. The problem -- the problem that's going to
exist, and a serious problem in my mind, is that I think that my right
to get to my house is every bit as important as somebody else's right
to get to the beach. And the traffic there and the congestion is a
very serious problem. It backs up from the park, the whole way to the
cemetery.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we're talking more here about the
proposal for Bluebill's park development than we are about this
particular project, though, sir.
MR. COX: Well, no, we're certainly not. We're talking about it
here.
I won't take long, ma'am. You be -- I won't take long.
The problem is, as it stands now, when people try to leave the
proposed parking lot, they won't be able to get across the traffic to
be able to go east. And it's going to back traffic up and make life
miserable for everybody, the people that park, the people that try to
use the lane, because all the traffic from 3:00 in the afternoon goes
east. That means they have to cross the roadway. And it's going to
be murder.
And if you want proof, go right up the street to the church.
Because every Saturday afternoon and every Sunday morning, they have
to have a policeman there to stop the traffic to get the traffic out
so they can clear their parking lot. Every -- it happens all the
time. It's constant.
I think the parking lot is on the wrong side of the street. And
the reason they want to put it there is they have a terrible fear that
since Collier County owns both sides of the street, that they were
going to put two parking lots in and really have -- that was their
fear, sir, believe me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, you've already stated several
inaccuracies. And I'd love to sit down and talk to you about them,
because they're simply not true. There is no plan right now that says
this is what we're going to do. We're still working with the
parameters of what is --
MR. COX: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and isn't acceptable here.
MR. COX: -- I said it was their fear. It was there. They're --
they were fearful. They were fearful that there were going to be two
parking -- and a trolley and a tram and everything else. Historically
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Back to the actual petition at hand,
though -- I hate to bring us back to the topic we're supposed to be
discussing, but your concern is -- you're okay with this or you're not
okay with this?
MR. COX: Oh, I -- this is a wonderful company. They're doing a
great job down the street. They're fine people. I have no problem
with them at all.
I'm just saying that in the future if the parking isn't studied
and restudied and figured out, we're going to have a monumental
problem on our hands trying to get down there; the users themselves,
the police department, the fire department and everything else. It's
a congested area and a small bridge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're opposed to any additional beach
parking in the area?
MR. COX: No, no, I'm not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. COX: I think we should have parking for people. I think we
should restudy where the parking should be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I meant, in the area.
MR. COX: And I'll tell you why. If you go back in history and
you -- and you look at it, the people park on the south side of the
street because they could pull onto the lane and pull away in a
minute.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I look forward to your comments, because
we're not done even talking about that scenario yet. Nothing's set in
stone, so --
MR. COX: That's fine, sir.
Thank you for listening to me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dick Lydon.
MR. LYDON: Dick Lydon, president of the Vanderbilt Beach
Property Owners Association.
I could go on for several hours about that previous conversation,
but I'd just like to say we think that Signature is going to be a good
neighbor. The aesthetics of a boardwalk outside of the fringe bothers
us a little bit, and we really think we don't need any 75-foot yachts
tied up alongside of that mooring. But in the interest of getting
you-all out of here on time, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Dick.
If there's no further speakers, then I will close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the project
-- wasn't there -- with the additional stipulations in the handout
that Mr. Nino gave us at the beginning of the meeting. I'll make mine
available for the court reporter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the conditional use --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, and additional use application
before the board as a precursor to any overnight boarding of boats at
the boardwalk.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, actually it was just covering the
marginal wharf.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Marginal wharf.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Marginal wharf?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's their term. I again still don't
know what that means.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody does, but it's --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But it's how it's referenced, so -- the
marginal wharf is a conditional use and must require a board hearing.
Is that entertaining the motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my intent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have a second?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
further questions?
If not, all in favor.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to thank the board. Mr. Cox is
Item #12C6
RESOLUTION 98-84 RE PETITION AV-96-001 VACATING THE PLATS OF WINGGINS
PASS LANDING UNIT 1 AND WIGGINS PASS LANDINGS UNIT 1 ADDITION - ADOPTED
MR. HULLER: There's a companion item --
(Commissioner Mac'Kie exits area to audience area.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- looking at it in perspective, the 25
feet being given is in case the parking area goes into the north. We
don't know where or if it's going to go. That's what we're going to
have to decide later after more input from the community. So this
didn't make that decision happen. This is just not precluding it.
MR. COX: Yes, sir, thank you.
MR. HULLER: I have a companion item to that. I have a companion
item to that petition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 12 (C) (6) ?
MR. HULLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, petition AV-96-001 to vacate the plats
of Wiggins Pass Landing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- unit number 101.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any questions
or comments? If not, I'll --
MR. WEIGEL: You want to close the --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- close the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero.
Thank you for your presentation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, did you wish to vote on that last
item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am, you're fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you have -- I think you have to vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're in the room.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you're here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am, that's a five-oh
vote.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That was on the Wiggins -- the
platting of the Wiggins Pass Landing unit number one, vacating --
actually it's a petition to vacate that. It's a companion to the
other one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am, I'm familiar.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 98-85 RE PETITION AV-98-003 VACATING A PORTION OF A 7.5'
WIDE UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE EASTERLY 7.5' OF LOT 11, BLOCK 69,
NAPLES PARK, UNIT 5 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then to petition
AV-98-003 to vacate a portion of the 7.5 foot width of the utility
easement along --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mullet, is anybody opposed to
this?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any other super majority votes --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait, this isn't a super majority. This is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have any?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so -- yes, we do, over on the
second -- the last page.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We do?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's deal with this one right now and then
go directly to that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if you close the
public hearing, I'll be happy to make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I can do that.
I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve petition AV-98-003.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- second?
We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 98-86 RE PETITION CU-92-16A, COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
93-129 BY REMOVING CONDITION "C" WHICH REQUIRES A BIRD SURVEY AS A
CONDITION OF THE OPERATION OF EVERGLADES PRIVATE AIRBOAT TOURS ON 1,016
ACRES - ADOPTED
Going on then to item 13 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: (A) (2) ?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- (A)(2), which is petition CU-92-16A,
community development and environmental services division advisory
board requesting amendment to resolution 93-129. It's a bird survey.
All people wishing to speak to this issue, would you please stand
and be sworn in by our court reporter, please?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this is just a common
sense item. Maybe staff can real quickly help us, but this is
consistent with the discussion we had a few weeks ago which said if
nothing's coming from these, we don't have some back end to it, we
probably shouldn't require it. MR. REISCHL: Fred --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: PUD's recommending --
MR. REISCHL: -- Reischl, planning services. Right, you gave us
direction --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that we take it out, so --
MR. REISCHL: You gave us direction to bring it back, and this is
the item back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there aren't any speakers, I'll move
the item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Oh,
first I'll have to close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
And at this time I'm going to exit the meeting and turn the rest
of the meeting over to Commissioner Hancock -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we voted on that while you were
gone, John.
(Chairman Berry left the boardroom.)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Chairman left the building.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, we're to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the meeting's slowing --
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 98-87 RE PETITION CCSL-97-5, BRETT D. MOORE, P.E., OF
HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS, REPRESENTING RICHARD G. AND NEONA L. COLE
REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT LOT 32, BLOCK A,
REPLAT OF UNIT 1, CONNER'S VANDERBIT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12(C)(4)?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 12(C)(4), CCSL-97-5, Coastal
Construction setback line variance.
This is for the reconstruction of a building.
MS. BURGESON: Yes. Yes, it is. For an existing single-family
residence.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is consistent with the line that
was already there?
MS. BURGESON: Right. This will be actually more land --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Landward than that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You need to identify --
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson, current
planning.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you call this a no-brainer, Ms.
Burgeson?
MS. BURGESON: I would call this simple.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Simple.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not preferring my term to hers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did she say she would call you simple,
or --
MS. BURGESON: No, I didn't, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear that very well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absent public speakers, I will close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- CCSL-97-5.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second; however, Ms.
Mac'Kie, if you --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Premature --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Herein known as --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- motions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It passes four to zero.
Item #12C5
RESOLUTION 98-88 RE PETITION SNR-98-1, LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM LELY BEACH
BOULEVARD TO BAREFOOT BEACH BOULEVARD LOCATED IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH
SUBDIVISION - AODPTED
The next item is petition SNR-98-1, Lely Barefoot with the
name change on a road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't say as I blame them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of objection on
this one?
MR. REISCHL: I received 17 letters, all in favor. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There are none.
Item #12C7
PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE - FAILED. CONTINUED
FOR TWO WEEKS AND STAFF TO BRING BACK EDUCATIONAL PROPOSAL. STAFF TO
WORK ON EDUCATIONAL PROPOSAL TO BE INCLUDED IN MAILERS
Next item is petition AV 96-001.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need some --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was already heard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we did that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, was it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and approved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, that's the one when I was coming in.
Okay.
Then the next one is 12(C) (7), Collier County --
MR. FERNANDEZ: (C) (5). Have you done (C) (5)?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really need --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He did that one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Adopt the proposed Collier County
water irrigation ordinance we did?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we haven't done that. We need to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the one we're doing right now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All I heard you say was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (C)(5) we did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need some real help with this. This
is one of those where I want to make sure we're actually doing
something of substance rather than just a feel good thing. And I see
Clarence is here, but I know we get studies every year that show oh,
not only is there plenty of water now, but there will be for years to
come, and so on.
And if this is necessary, that's fine. But if it's just one of
those things that it's Henny Penny, the sky is falling, I want to be
real careful, so I'd like to have some real substance to it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a different objection, and that is
I'm not sure that I want to -- well, I know that this is -- this is
something that is necessary in principle that we don't water our yards
in the wrong hours, that sort of thing. I really don't want to turn
our code enforcement into a bunch of sprinkler police. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that's what we want to do.
It seems to me that we could -- we could make a lot of headway by
doing some education programs, perhaps mail-outs within their utility
bills or something of that effect, since most people get a utility
bill monthly anyway. Perhaps we could do some education that way,
rather than do something like that.
Because frankly, you know, you think about our code enforcement
people and how overworked they are to begin with, how much good are
they going to do out there? I mean --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what better education -- you know,
what -- what -- it's -- my opinion is that when we send out the
notification, we would be really getting people's attention from an
education standpoint if we had said not only do we recommend but we
prohibit. I mean, that makes people understand that this is a
seriously bad thing to do, and it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems like more regulation, more law,
more government to me.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I hear you, but --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a -- there's a district --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I knew you were going to say that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that does that sort of thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we'll hear from Mr. Tears and he
could give us more of the science about why we should do this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Finn was prepared to do that, I
believe.
MR. FINN: I think it's just an indication of how well prepared
the staff item is that the board said we'll have this discussion
without my help.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't break your elbow patting yourself on
the back, Ed.
MR. FINN: If the board is interested, I do have a map of the
water sewer district, which is the only area encompassed by --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did want to see that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to hear from Mr. Tears about the
rationale, but I'll just be honest with you, when I see somebody
watering their lawn during the day, I just think it's dumb. It's just
a waste -- you're wasting more water than -- you know, you have to use
more water when you do it that way. The upper aquifer, particularly
in the areas close to the coast, can be problematic for saltwater
injuries.
And so anything we can do to kind of lower that, you know, or be
reasonable about it, yeah, I think -- I think it's reasonable.
What I don't agree with is the first offense penalty of 100
bucks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I would like to do this, but I
would like to change it to first offense warning --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm listening. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We'll inform them later of what we
discussed.
What I'd like to see us have -- what I'd like to see happen here
is 10:00 to 4:00 is not overly restrictive. I think it's reasonable,
but I'd like to change it to first offense warning, second offense
fine, because I -- I mean, you know, first offense, 100 bucks? That's
a little steep.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's what it takes to get you to pass
this, I'll certainly agree with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I would like to hear from -- I don't
have anything for Mr. Finn at this point, because it's such a well
prepared staff item, but I would like to hear from Mr. Tears as to is
this the sky is falling? Because when I go speak to homeowners'
associations, they don't separate -- differentiate between irrigation,
the upper wells that they draw and our drinking aquifer. And they're
sitting there saying, well, there's all these -- these water shortage
problems. And I try to tell them the two are related, but not as
directly as they think. And so again, I don't want to scare people
unnecessarily.
MR. TEARS: For the record, Clarence Tears, director of Big
Cypress Basins, South Florida Water Management District.
Some of the statistics I looked at is 60 percent of our potable
water supply is used for landscape and irrigation. It's been proven
that if you water your lawn during the day, it takes a lot more water.
It's actually bad for the lawn. And this is just one conservation
measure that the district has implemented in 15 other counties, except
for Collier County, to conserve water.
Collier County does -- during the dry years, we go on water
restrictions. That's a sign that we don't really have enough water.
There is enough water available, but we see signs of saltwater
intrusion.
So then you look at in the future our water supplies, we're
looking at reverse osmosis. If you look at the State of Florida south
of Lake Okeechobee, our Floridan aquifer, all the other aquifers, are
considered soft. So over time, the cost will rise.
So it's just one conservation mem -- one conservation opportunity
I think that's available for the Collier County to be a little more
pro-active. And also what it does, it extends probably the cost of
infrastructure for future water supplies maybe a little further into
the future. And I think by adopting this ordinance, it in itself is
an educational opportunity. Because by adopting it, people learn
about it. And all it is is just resetting their timers, and it could
save a significant amount of water.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I just think there's -- I
appreciate what you're trying to accomplish. But educating the public
and creating a new ordinance are two different things. And -- MR. TEARS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- could it conserve some water, could
it do some good things? It certainly should. But do we create a
whole new law and institute fines and enforcement mechanisms and all
for it? I don't know that it reaches that par. I don't know that it
reaches that level.
MR. TEARS: We have educational programs through the school,
through the public, yet I can go down the road and the day after --
the night after it rains two inches and see everybody watering their
lawns.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have code enforcement laws that,
you know, don't let you park junk cars in your yard or boats in your
yard more than overnight, and -- but it still happens from time to
time.
MR. TEARS: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A law isn't going to magically make it
go away.
MR. TEARS: But usually 95 percent of the public will follow the
law. And that's what we're trying to approach is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what percent follows your
suggestions? I mean, if we send out, you know, a notice as part of
different billings and all, then I think you can achieve substantially
the same thing without putting a new law on the books and new
enforcement effort and so on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- you know, again, this is one --
MR. TEARS: I think it's a -- I don't really -- did you -- have
you seen what ABTAB has recommended? I think the wording of the
ordinance on water conservation ordinance would be better than
irrigation ban type ordinance.
But I think the ordinance itself is a good step for the county.
It shows that we do have some concerns about our water supply, and
it's just common sense to try to conserve what we have.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's just go through this logically. If we
simply pass an ordinance prohibiting daytime watering, then our code
enforcement people become sprinkler police and it's not going to be
very effective at all, because they're not going to have the time to
do much of that. So what we're going to have to do is to educate the
public.
Now, you say well, we could do them both. But then if you're
going to do that, the argument becomes well, why don't we try
educating people and see how much voluntary compliance we get before
we jump to the next step which is to use the heavy-handed tactic of
applying an ordinance to make it a criminal offense to water your yard
in the daytime?
I would much prefer and I think -- and personally, I think it
would be much more effective to do the education by itself first and
see what kind of voluntary conformance we get.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess -- you know, you can educate 'til
the cows come home, but if someone -- if they're -- for some people,
if there's just no desire, there's no desire.
What happens is we pass the ordinance, the news story goes out,
everyone hears about it on TV, they read it -- about it. Hopefully not
everyone reads it in the paper. But some do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You wouldn't see it, for example.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't see it. But --
MR. TEARS: I'll fax you a copy.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the education starts there. As far as
their -- you know, turning code enforcement into water police, I think
what happens is yeah, there's going to be -- it's like any new code
that we adopt. Whether it be for rent -- you know, renting or
commercial vehicles, there's going to be an initial surge of activity
in that area, but after a while it just becomes common knowledge that
from 10:00 to 4:00 you don't water your lawn.
And I think it makes sense -- it doesn't mean we're in dire
straits, it doesn't mean everything's going -- you know, going to hell
in a hand basket. It just means that it makes sense to preserve some
repotable source, make it last a little longer so we don't have to go
through the expensive process of finding -- going to the next aquifer.
So --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
MR. TEARS: And also, another thing that I would do through my
staff is if we did see somebody watering during the daytime, just to
remind them that there is a county ordinance on the books.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And do you know what the difference is, is
that without the law right now, when Clarence's staff sees somebody
who's watering at noon, you know, he can say, "Excuse me, I'm sorry to
be on your property, but please, I just wanted to educate you that
this is not the best idea." But if we have a law against it, then
they knock on the door and say, "Excuse me, did you know that this is
a violation of county ordinances because we're trying to be very
careful about conserving water in this county?" That has a whole
different weight.
Nobody is saying that we hire a whole lot of new sprinkler police
to go do this, it's just that it makes the county --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want one of those badges.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You want to hire sprinkler police?
It makes the county's position clear, and it's just so common
sensical.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention we directed staff to
develop this in return --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not all of us.
Do you have anything further?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Joe Friday, sprinkler police.
MR. TEARS: I just hope the board would support this ordinance,
because I really believe it's in the best interest of the water
resources of Collier County.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
Close the public clearing?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion by Commissioner Hac'Kie, second by
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock second.
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
The motion fails by a tie vote.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that what happens, Mr. Weigel?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought so.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there a substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Substitute motion to reconsider this item
seven days from now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is going to be the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good effort.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- same vote.
We have a motion and a second to reconsider next week.
Wait a minute, I'm sorry, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't, can we? The motion to
reconsider has to come from someone who was in the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who prevailed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I should have motioned to table first.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I thought about it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would have failed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we --
MR. WEIGEL: You can reconsider at the same meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you can think about it again in
like five minutes.
What -- what if instead we give some staff direction to work with
the district in a public education effort -- particularly with Channel
54 now, we have some opportunities that didn't exist before -- to get
the message out, so while we may not pass a law today, we might have a
very good opportunity to educate the public on a topic.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My thought on that would be to -- a simple
one-page -- not folded, but just a simple page flier that goes into
the utility bill, because that's a full-size envelope -- and point out
that the County Commission declined to pass an ordinance at this time
prohibiting this, giving some of the reasons why it's necessary to not
water in the daytime and then pointing out that hopefully we won't
have to pass an ordinance in the future. That's what I'd like --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel has something to say.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Something like that.
MR. WEIGEL: If you want to save the advertising that you've got
-- and this is the first advertised date -- what has occurred with the
two-two vote is that there has been no vote -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No vote.
MR. WEIGEL: -- to be reconsidered. So you could continue the
item with directions to staff and have it brought back, or something
of that nature.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, there has been a vote. There was
not affirmative vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there is vote, but it's not a denial and it's
not approved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion that we continue this item
for two weeks, and in that two weeks, we direct staff to bring back a
proposal for education using Channel 54, using this particular idea
about a flier, and also leaving open the question of a part of the
education being --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- an ordinance.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a second on that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's see, that would be the
anti-environmental group there? Come on, guys, what's wrong with --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey, don't call me --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- conservation?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't call me an environmentalist now.
You and I are getting to be friends.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean as opposed to the more
government group that's been -- be careful swinging around those
labels.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point, if no action has been
taken, the item can be brought back on an agenda and advertised at the
request of commission -- the commission at a later meeting. So should
there be a majority of this commission at some later meeting that
wishes to consider this ordinance, a motion can be made at that time;
is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I understand. If there's any
direction --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Norris, I'd like to make a motion
before we even explore that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, what is it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Substitute motion.
I'd like to make a motion we give staff direction to work on the
public education aspect, particularly Channel 54 and the mailer with
our regular utility bills, our regular water bills. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's tempting, isn't it, Tim?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of us are just team players.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right, moving right along.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: However --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the ordinance still can be brought
back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know, we handled that item.
We passed that item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That item's done.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 98-89 RE PETITION V-97-18, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES
ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUESTING A 3.5
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT OF 13.5 FEET ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDE YARDS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTH HORSESHOE COURT - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Duane is next.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to just call it a day?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just call it a day. It's time to go home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind.
Who's doing that one? Are you? Let's go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: PUD 97-18.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Swear him? Are you going to swear him?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Swear him in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: Ray Bellows. I'm with current planning staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to disclose I have nothing to
disclose.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have nothing to disclose.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I met -- is this the Kraft
Construction?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think I met with -- yeah, I did
meet with Fred Pezeshkan and he mentioned this briefly. That's it.
MR. BELLOWS: The petition seeks a variance of 3.5 feet from the
required side yard setback of 13.5 feet to 10 feet for both side yards
to allow for a construction of a warehouse and office building.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know we're tired, but this is another
no-brainer. It's, you know, three and a half feet in an industrial
area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No objections?
MR. BELLOWS: No objections.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anything you gotta tell us, Mr. Duane?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Want to give us some reason to turn this
down, Mr. Duane?
MR. DUANE: I could make a short presentation, if it's your
pleasure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would give us enough reason to turn
it down.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That would -- yeah, that --
MR. DUANE: Then I would make no presentation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- would turn it right down.
Close the public hearing?
THE COURT REPORTER: What is your name?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: His name is --
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There aren't any. No opposition. That sort
of cleans us out here.
Item #14(1)
ALLEGATIONS OF THE ISLE OF CAPRI BOARD MEMBERS - ADVISORY BOARD TO
DISCUSS BY-LAWS AT THEIR MEETING
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's still three items under
communications.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel's up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I have no comment other than I couldn't keep up in
my notes if we have heard 12(C)(3). Has that been heard?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(C)(3) was heard.
MR. WEIGEL: That was vacation with seven and a half foot wide
utility easement?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion by Commissioner Constantine. It was
approved by the -- four-oh?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, five-oh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five-oh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five-oh.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. McNees?
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, you have something under staff on the
add-on sheet today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yeah, okay.
Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Staff was asked last week to come back with
the results of the public petition that you heard from Mr. Luckerbauer
from the Isles of Capri, petitioning the board to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To remove the --
MR. OCHS: -- dismiss the seated members, or remove the seated
members of the advisory board.
I have about a 90-minute presentation there, and then I'll move
right along.
Actually, I just wanted to tell the board very briefly that I had
met with Chief Rodriguez back on February the 5th to address some of
his concerns about the working relationships that existed down there
between the chief and the seated members of the advisory board.
I'd met again on the 18th of February with him and emergency
services director Flagg and HR director Jennifer Edwards. As a result
of that meeting, what we decided to do was to put together a set of
bylaws that we thought would help that board operate better, establish
clear roles and responsibilities for both the advisory board and the
staff, and we decided we would bring those down to the March 5th
meeting of the advisory board, present those, discuss them with that
advisory board, and recommend that they consider them for adoption at
their April meeting.
So that's what we've done to date. We had a good discussion on
the 5th with the advisory board, and we're very hopeful that they'll
adopt those bylaws and we can continue on at that point.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's it?
MR. OCHS: That's all I had to report.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excellent presentation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
Mr. McNees, anything else?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No items.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson, are we done? We're done.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris
and carried unanimously with the exception of Item #16B5 which is 4/0
(Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained), that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FOR FUNDING SEA TURTLE PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES
Item #16A2
STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FOR FUNDING EXOTICS REMOVAL IN THE LELY BAREFOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Item #16A3 - Moved to #8A1
Item #16A4 - Withdrawn
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF "KENSINGTON PARK PHASE THREE "C" - SUBJECT TO CASH BOND,
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT ONE - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT,
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUHNLARY
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "GLEN EDEN, PHASE ONE" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
ACCEPTANCE OF BID FROM DAVID P. HOPSTETTER, TRUSTEE IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$130,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF THE MARCO ISLAND TRANSFER
STATION; STAFF TO PREPARE THE REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENT AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS FOR THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION
Item #1682
APPROPRIATION OF $39,000.00 FROM FUND 131 CARRY FORWARD AND $25,000.00
FROM FUND 131 RESERVES TO THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION FUND
OPERATING AND CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR THE MARCO ISLAND H.S.T.U. TO FUND
UNANTICIPATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COSTS
Item #1683
BID NO. 98-2781 FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF ONE TRACTOR FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - AWARDED TO CREEL
FORD TRACTOR COMPANY IN THE A_MOUNT OF $72,950.00
Item #1684
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER NO. WHBP FT-96-7 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON
& PEEK, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY AND HAPPING FOR THE WIDENING OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $38,140.00
Item #1685
WAIVER OF ROAD AND EHS IMPACT FEES FOR THE NAPLES ART ASSOCIATION AND
THE NAPLES PLAYERS
Item #1686
WORK ORDER WHBP-FT-98-5 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $30,700.00 TO WILSON, HILLER,
BARTON & PEEK, INC. AND WORK ORDER BSW-FT-98-4 IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$32,200.00 TO BARANY, SCHHITT, WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, RESPECTIVELY, FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE FITNESS CENTER
Item #1687
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO HITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR THE
RECLAIMED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM QUAIL CREEK TO THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PHASE II, CONTRACT NO. 97-2674 - IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $44,738.47
Item #1688
BID #97-2750 FOR BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATED
MATERIALS - AWARDED TO FERGUSON UNDERGROUND AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR AND
HUGHES SUPPLY AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR
Item #1689
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH CH2H HILL FOR THE PINE RIDGE ROAD
IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT NO. 60111 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $191,065.00
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 98-76, APPOINTING THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS TO COLLIER COUNTY
AGRICULTURE FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS: TERRY
WOLFSON, PRESIDENT; HANK DOUGLAS, VICE-PRESIDENT; PAT COOKSON,
SECRETARY; JOHN YONKOSKY, TREASURER; JIM HANSBERGER, SECURITY; TAYLOR
BAKER, EDUCATION; DUANE WHEELER, CIVIC; KEN CUYLER, ATTORNEY; AND RANDY
RINER, AGRICULTURE
Item #16D1
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR AN EMERGENCY
EXPENDITURE FOR THE TAX COLLECTOR'S UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM -
IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,883.00
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 98-77, RE A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Item #16D3 - Deleted
Item #16D4
APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CONTRACTUAL FIRE SUPPRESSION SERVICES
PROVIDED BY THE DIVISION OF FORESTRY - BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,563.00
Item #16D5
RURAL COHMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION GRANT FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT TO PURCHASE COHMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND THE LEASING OF PAGERS
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $8,000.00
Item #16D6
ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER RFP #97-2767 REJECTED; STAFF TO RE-SOLICIT
PROPOSALS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF HAIL CENTER EQUIPMENT
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-160 AND 98-172
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:
Item #16H1
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND THE SIGNATORY AUTHORITY LETTER FOR THE
SUBGRANT AWARD OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
GRANTS PROGRAM GRANT #98-DV-7T-09-21-01-043/DOHESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT
PROJECT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $173,400.00
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:20 p.m..
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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, INC.
BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC