BCC Minutes 07/28/1998 R July 28, 1998
REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 28, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 the 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. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert F. Fernandez, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
July 28, 1998
Item #3
AGENDA, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I would like to call to order
the July 28th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. If
you'd please rise for the invocation by Pastor Robert Jacobs of
Messiah Lutheran Church and remain standing for the pledge.
PASTOR JACOBS: We begin our invocation with the holy
benediction. Holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. Heaven and earth is
full of all of his glory.
Each day, Lord, you have a wonderful way of demonstrating your
glory and your greatness because as your people we experience your
compassion and your mercy and your kindness, your love for each and
every one of us as you remake us into your children and provide for
all of our needs.
Today we entreat your blessing upon this County Board of
Commissioners' meeting. Guide and direct all of their deliberations.
What a thrill this morning in their proclamations to be able to honor
these high school students as recipients of awards of achievement and
excellence.
We pray that those things that have been a part of their life and
have compelled them and motivated them and brought them to this point
may be those things which will motivate them in the future and enable
them to go on and be useful citizens of our Nation and of our County
and of our governments.
We pray also that you will guide and direct those people who are
receiving those service awards. What a privilege that they have so
willingly given of themselves in order that our County and the place
where we live can be a safer and a more wonderful place and a place of
enjoyment.
As we listen and deliberate on the many resolutions, some will be
rather easy, but others will be very difficult. There will be special
groups on each side presenting in a very logical way their reasons of
why they should be approved or not approved or changes that need to be
made.
We ask that you will guide and direct each of these
Commissioners, that you will enable them to listen, to hear and then
grant them the wisdom to deliberate and then to make that decision
which will be in the best interest of all of your people and that we
in Collier County may continue to live in harmony, in concord and in
peace.
And, finally, Lord, we recall the sad events at our Nation's
capital last Friday. Two men lost their lives in service to our
country and defending that Nation's capital and making it a safe place
for all who work there and for all who visit. Be with their families,
bring them that comfort and assurance that they need, that help, to
live each and every day and to put their lives back together with the
loss of these loved ones.
Protect our Nation, our President, our Congress and all those who
labor there. Protect our County government and the people involved in
this process and in this place. Enable all of us to be a people of
Page 2
July 28, 1998
integrity, of law and of order and to live our lives so that the whole
earth may be filled with your glory. It's in his name that we ask and
that we pray. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in
unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Pastor Jacobs.
Mr. Fernandez, do you we have any changes to our agenda this
morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Good morning.
The first change is to delete item 16 (A) (14). This is a
request to grant final acceptance of the roadway drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of Park Place West and to
continue that item for one week.
The next is a note that items 9 (A) and 10 (F) make a reference
to other agenda items. That reference should be 12 (C) rather than --
I am sorry. 12 (C) (3), rather than 12 (C) (4). 12 (C) (4) was an
item that had been deleted.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. Would you state that again?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Items 9 (A) and 10 (F), those are the ones that
refer to the article five -- the funding for Article Five.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: They make reference to item 12 (C) (4). And
there is no 12 (C) (4) on our agenda. That reference should be 12 (C)
(3) .
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Got you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. And the last is item 16 (E) (3) (E) should
include case numbers 70529-028 and 70718-096.
Item 16 (E) (3) (F) should include case numbers 6114-010,
70418-065 and 70522-030. These were included in the backup, but not
included on your index listing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commission Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 17 (A) I'm not going to have a problem
with, but I do have some comments I want to make on it. So if we
could put that on the regular agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is what is located in the summary
agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to move this to the regular agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where is that placed, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be a public hearing. So that would be
included in your -- in the public hearing portion of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 12 (C)?
MR. FERNANDEZ: 12 (C) (4).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, we've got a 12 (C) (4).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now we have it.
That was 17 (A)?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's all, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't think of lengthening this
Page 3
July 28, 1998
agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Smart man.
Okay. Do I have a motion for the approval of the agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The agenda and the consent agenda as
amended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
approval of the agendas.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
We have a motion and a second for the
Motion carries five zero.
Page 4
July 28, 1998
Item
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1998, REGULAR MEETING; JUNE 10, 1998, SPECIAL
METING; JUNE 15, 1998, BUDGET WORKSHOP; JUNE 16, 1998, REGULAR MEETING;
JUNE 19, 1998, BUDGET WORKSHOP; JUNE 22, 1998, BUDGET MEETING; JUNE 23,
1998, REGULAR MEETING; AND JUNE 24, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the minutes of June 9th, '98, regular meeting; June 10th, '98,
special meeting; and June 15th, '98, budget workshop; June 16th, '98,
regular meeting; June 19, '98, budget workshop; June 22nd, '98, budget
meeting; June 23rd, '98, regular meeting; and June 24th, '98, special
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for approval of
the minutes of the meetings previously mentioned.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MATT ANDREWS OF NAPLES HIGH SCHOOL, ERIC HUNT
OF BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL, ROBERT KEMP OF IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL AND
EDDY MAXIUS OF LELY HIGH SCHOOL AS RECIPIENTS OF THE AWARD FOR
EXCELLENCE - ADOPTED
Moving on then to proclamations this morning. Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is one of
those ceremonial duties that's really a lot of fun. This is one that
everybody up here on the Board gets a pleasure out of doing from time
to time when we do get the opportunity to do it. I would like to ask
the following people to come up and stand in front of the Board here.
Matt Andrews, would you come forward, please? Matt is from
Naples High School. Matt, if you would, just stand up here and face
those cameras so that all the people in TV land can see you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of like a firing line position.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eric Hunt from Barton Collier. Robert Kemp
from Immokalee. And Eddy Maxius from Lely.
Eddy didn't make it today? Okay. We'll make sure. He is
probably out working hard for the summer. And we'll get his award to
him one way or the other.
The proclamation reads: Whereas, there are many ways in which
high school students demonstrate that they are serious, hard working
and concerned about the future of our community; and
Whereas, these qualities are especially well demonstrated in the
level of achievement displayed in environmental research projects they
accomplish; and
Whereas, Waste Management of Collier County has an Award for
Page 5
July 28, 1998
Excellence program to provide graduating high school seniors with a
$1,000 scholarship award for achievement on an environmental science
project; and
Whereas, the Manager of Waste Management has announced the
recipients of the Award for Excellence.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Matt Andrews of Naples
High School, Eric Hunt of Barton Collier High School, Robert Kemp of
Immokalee High School and Eddy Maxius of Lely High School are
recipients of the Award for Excellence.
Done and ordered this 28th day of July, 1998 by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman.
Ms. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we adopt this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
adoption of the proclamation.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Each get a copy of the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good work.
MR. BIGELOW: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, Steve Bigelow
with Waste Management. Pat Yancey, Terri Douglas and myself would
like to thank you for joining with us to recognize these deserving
students. Today we have not only a certificate for them and a medal,
but most importantly a $1,000 scholarship each. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, have we all chosen our college of
choice at this point?
MR. ANDREWS: U.F. for me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One Gator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go Gators. Anybody else going to tell?
MR. HUNT: Edison.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Edison. Stay local.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like it.
MR. KEMP: University of Southern Missouri.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: University of Southern Missouri. Trying
to get far away from home.
MR. KEMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You are. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get the checks, guys.
MS. DOUGLAS: That went first. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well done.
(Applause.)
Page 6
Item #5B1
July 28, 1998
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next on our list we have service awards.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, there's no medals for the
following people, but there should be.
Today we have a whole list of mere ten-year rookies that it's my
pleasure to recognize. If you'd come forward as I call your name.
First, for ten years of service in Road and Bridge, Franklin Chain.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Franklin. Good job.
Also with ten years of service in Road and Bridge, David Dornton.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: David, congratulations.
Also ten years of service in OCPM, Tina -- Tania -- excuse me --
Tania Ruiz. Tania.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We know OCPM hasn't been around ten years,
but you have been with us. Good job.
With Parks and Recreation -- I'm going to get this one wrong,
John. John Veit, ten years of service.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was a coin toss between Veit and Vett.
MR. VEIT: Good try.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will give you a hint. "T" as in
tine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good job. Sorry about the name.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how do you pronounce it?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Veit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in real property for ten years, Ms.
Deena Quinn.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations. Thank you.
In our Wastewater Department with ten years of service, Mr.
Robert Bizich.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Robert.
MR. BIZICH: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's my pleasure.
Also with ten years of service in Wastewater, Richard Stefanko.
He is not here. We'll make sure he gets his award and his pin.
And as we like to say usually in celebrating twenty years of
service, a fairly good start, Homero Partida who is with our Road and
Bridge Department. Twenty years of service.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Homero, you're halfway there. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
Page 7
July 28, 1998
Item #5Cl
STAN CHRZANOWSKI, PE, SENIOR ENGINEER, PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULYr 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then moving on, it's my pleasure this
morning to indicate our employee of the month of July. If Mr.
Chrzanowski would come forward, please. Turn around. We're going to
talk about you, Stan, for a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't be so bashful, Stan.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Stan's always taken the initiative to provide
significant accomplishments beyond his normal work responsibilities.
When the utilities engineer technician became ill, Stan was more than
willing to take on the utility conveyance responsibilities for more
than seven weeks while still performing his usual assignments in a
timely manner. Stan also has taken on the task of providing timely
utility plan reviews and approvals at times when other staff members
were not available to provide this service.
He has devoted countless hours in assisting the planner in the
MPO to become familiar with the bike path facilities that currently
exist within the County and providing positive input on current and
future needs. He's spent countless hours both in the office and in
the field.
Customer service is another endeavor in which Stan has excelled
and demonstrated his dedication to the County. He always makes
himself available to meet with and assist the public, as well as other
County employees.
Stan has a professional background and experience that make him
an asset in his review of all types of projects and being an excellent
problem solver when working with the public. We have received a
considerable amount of positive feedback and the result -- as a result
of Stan's actions. The Board of County Commissioners, South Florida
Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin and other governmental
entities also have praised Stan on his exemplary service.
Based on this, this is the reason Stan was selected as the
Employee of the Month for July of 1998. And to commemorate this
occasion, Stan, we have a plaque for you, which you may display. And,
of course, most importantly, we have a check for you. Our
congratulations. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's very rare that a month or two goes by
and I don't get a letter from someone thanking Stan for the work he's
done, whether it's a citizen or somebody. And the only complaint,
Stan, is we wish you were a little more jovial about your work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to get to say, too, that Stan is
the example of how you can be a bureaucrat and still have a lot of
common sense and know-how to work with people. And we're just really,
really lucky to have him.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Stan.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 8
July 28, 1998
Item # 5C2
"EMS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE YEAR" FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA PRESNETED TO
DIANE FLA~G BY DINO DILLANI, CHIEF OF STATE OF FLORIDA EMS BUREAU AND
JIM JUDGEr PRESIDENT OF FACEMS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next under presentations I think we have a
very unusual honor and certainly an honor for Collier County. At this
time I would like to introduce Dino Dillani.
MR. DILLANI: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners. I'm Dino Dillani from
the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical
Services. And I'm the chief there.
And I'm very pleased to be here today to honor one of your own.
And that is Diane Flagg. And she has received a very special award
which exemplifies her leadership abilities. And we at the State are
very pleased to have someone like her at the helm of one of our State
premiere EMS organizations in the State.
I had the pleasure of receiving the award for Diane.
Unfortunately, she was sick and could not attend the State Advisory
Council earlier this month. I had the pleasure of receiving that
award for her. And today I would like to introduce the President of
the Florida Association of County Emergency Medical Services, Mr. Jim
Judge, here to present this award before you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. JUDGE: Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of
the Commission. This award recognizes an outstanding leader in
emergency services that has contributed to emergency medical services
at a local, State and Federal level.
Chief Flagg is an enthusiastic individual with dynamic leadership
qualities. She's developed one of the most comprehensive outstanding
EMS systems within the State of Florida. She has earned the respect
of the entire State emergency services community.
Chief Flagg displays loyalty for her profession and dedication to
her community, which is all of Collier County. Under her direction
Collier County Emergency Services has set many standards for others to
follow around the State and the Nation. She excels in defining
problems and planning solutions with patient care always at the
forefront.
Chief Flagg is always ready to aid other EMS providers by sharing
her expertise. Her positive attitude inspires a team approach which
motivates the entire emergency services community to provide a higher
level of service.
The State of Florida is fortunate beyond words, as is Collier
County, to have the services of this dedicated professional. And I
join my colleagues, the other 67 individuals from the State of
Florida, in presenting her with this award.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. I would
like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues throughout the
State of Florida for this recognition and Chief Dillani and Chief
Judge for coming today to present the award. I would also like to
Page 9
July 28, 1998
thank the County Commissioners, the County Administrator's Office and
the EMS Advisory Council for their support and commitment for the many
programs that we have developed for our community.
The achievements and successes of the Emergency Services
Department would not have been possible without the dedication and
commitment of the Collier County Emergency Services Department
professionals who have given of themselves to serve the community
whose lives have been entrusted to them. To these professionals, my
colleagues within the Emergency Services Department, I extend my
deepest appreciation. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. DILLANI: Madam Chairman and Members of the Board, her
colleagues -- Chief Flagg's colleagues would like to present her
something before you today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It certainly is nice to have one of our own
recognized, obviously by the rest of the State of Florida. And when
it's an honor for Diane or any of our individuals that are recognized
in that manner, it's certainly an honor for all of Collier County. So
it's wonderful to be able to do this publicly and have this
presentation. So I thank the State for being able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Diane. You deserve it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. A lot of hard work.
INTRODUCTION OF PAUL MATTAUSCH, WATER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND
ACKNOWLEDGE OF INTERIM WATER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, ED FINN
Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator. This morning
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our new water
director to you.
As you recall, over six months ago we lost a long-time member of
our staff, Michael Newman, who had done an outstanding job for our
water department. And we went on a nationwide search to try to find
the best person we could to serve you and the citizens of Collier
County. We have found that individual and I want to introduce you to
him today.
If you will stand up, Paul Mattausch. Mr. Mattausch is the
former water superintendent for the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan and
has done an outstanding job in the water industry for over 25 years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mattausch, welcome.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Welcome to Collier County.
MR. MATTAUSCH: I'm pleased to be here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think Naples and Kalamazoo has a had a long
relationship, certainly through the girl's softball. And so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're glad that you've come down on this
side. Anyway, welcome to Collier County.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The winning side.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The winning side, right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may not be able to go to the games
Page 10
July 28, 1998
anymore, but you can see where it starts.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, we're pleased to have you here this
morning and welcome.
At this time if I could have Ed Finn come forward, please.
Edward, are you here?
If you'd turn around, Ed, and face the camera. We're going to
read something here. In recognition of meritorious services, Interim
Water Department Director for Collier County during the period November
1997 through July of 1998. During this period and while performing his
normal duties as Public Works Operations Director, the Water Department
was faced with a number of very critical operational and managerial
difficulties that would have stretched the abilities of any experienced
water director. However, because of Edward Finn's leadership,
direction and untiring devotion to duty, the Water Department continued
to provide a safe and reliable water supply to Collier County's water
customers. Thank you for a job well done.
And, Ed, we have a plaque to present to you.
(Applause.)
MR. FINN: Thank you.
Item #TA
JOHN D. JASSY REQUESTING PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS SURPLUS LANDFILL
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO CURRENT LANDFILL SITE - STAFF DIRECTED TO
INVESTIGATE FURTHER INTO SAID PROPERTY FOR A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND
BRING REPORT BACK TO THE BCC IN 60 DAYS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 7 (A). Mr. Jassy, a
public petition to discuss the surplus landfill property adjacent to
the current landfill site.
Mr. Jassy, you understand the public petition process?
MR. JASSY: I believe so, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. You have ten minutes to make your case.
You understand that we probably will not take any action on this
particular petition this morning.
MR. JASSY: Commissioners, I provided copies for the County
Attorney and each of you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. JASSY: Commissioners, I'm actually -- my name is John Jassy,
for the record. And I'm here actually on two issues. The first one
is that my partner, Jay Wachowicz and myself, would like to purchase
the 252 plus or minus acres of surplus land in Section 25 north of the
landfill site. And during the time between now and when the landfill
is closed, we would like to have time to acquire our permits and so on
and so forth and we would actually close and begin construction once
the landfill was closed.
Now, in addition to that, we would also like to, if possible,
upon the closing of the landfill site itself work out an arrangement
to lease the landfill or the areas -- whatever areas might be
available there to also use that as a golf course, which we think
would certainly provide revenue to the County and reduce a cost
element of certain maintenance items. We understand it still has to
be monitored by the County and a lot of the environmental agencies and
Page 11
July 28, 1998
so on. And we think it would visually certainly improve the area and
help the area and property values around it having it be something as
attractive as that.
So that is basically our petition. And what we've done is we've
met with certain members of County staff and tried to shape the
contract for the purchase as much as we could, as well as we
understood it, into the form which would be acceptable to the County
for that type of purchase.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, a question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment more. I think that this is
a wonderful idea. The problem for me is that you're ahead of the
curve on time.
It seems to me that until we know -- and, you know, I want to
hear from staff or from the rest of the Board. But until we know that
we have an alternate landfill site purchased and permitted and, you
know, otherwise we have the backup to be able to take care of County
landfilling needs, we need to go very slow and carefully about selling
or leasing the current property. That's my thought.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The acreage to the north has been
declared surplus and is still considered surplus. So I think we may
just differ there. And I know you've had concern about that all
along. But I think the majority of the Board has done that.
Mr. Weigel, correct me if I'm wrong, it's still considered
surplus property?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would like to do or ask the
Board to do is look at Mr. Jassy's proposal, see how closely it
parallels with what we had requested on two occasions before.
Obviously the golf course use was what we were looking at then. And
if this is, indeed, a public course and can be done along the lines of
what we had requested, that seems like exactly what we tried to
achieve twice before and not got an appropriate responder for.
I think the interesting part of the proposal is -- I assume when
you say the existing landfill you mean the actual humps --
MR. JASSY: The actual humps. Or the pyramid as David Russell
calls them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mt. Fahey (phonetic); is that what we
were calling it?
I can't remember if it's Volusia County -- one of the counties on
the east coast somewhere up near Fort Pierce, Vero Beach area actually
did that and uses -- they are still monitoring. It's within their
30-year window, but they are using the old hill as golf course
property. So it would be interesting if we could do that. It
certainly would be, as you say, an improvement to the area.
MR. JASSY: And we're certainly looking -- and we'd certainly
look at these individually so that -- we understand that the time
table on the 252 is shorter than the landfill itself, but we would
just like to put our offer in on the landfill. So if and when that
opportunity becomes available, we would like to be moving forward on
it and so on and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I have one question relating to the
Page 12
July 28, 1998
process and then a couple questions relating to the offer. On
process, it seems curious that this would come to us as a public
petition at this point. It seems a little unusual for someone to
offer to buy some surplus property under a public petition process. Is that typically the way we would do it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that was actually staff's
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was staff's suggestion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's a very good question because --
notwithstanding, the Board should directly review this in regard to
the individual merits of this -- of this submittal. The previous
arrangements that the County had used were pursuant to statute in
regard to disposal of surplus property. And that is where there is,
in fact, an advertisement made looking for responses within a certain
specified period as indicated in the advertisement. And we would
still be bound to follow the statutory process there.
This -- having brought this forward as it is gives an indication
of the -- ostensibly of intent of this particular individual or group,
but they would still ultimately have to go through a process where we
formally solicit a response.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. A couple of comments on the
proposal, as we were just handed this proposal this morning. A couple
of comments I see that -- for one, it says a semiprivate golf course
and it also says limited residential development. Both of those
aspects I believe we have not contemplated in the past. We've
contemplated a fully public golf course without any consideration of
residential component. So this proposal does vary a bit from what
we've discussed in the past.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does semiprivate equate to public? I
just think in terms of Hibiscus or whatever they call that
semiprivate. I don't know what that means.
MR. JASSY: We would basically have it be a public golf course
with -- for the members they would just have preferred tee times. So
it would be open to the public. And the private element would just be
whatever is consistent with the comprehensive land plan.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that's one of the areas where
we -- if the Board decided to go forward with the proposal, we would
certainly want to have that ironed out in advance. And the other
consideration that would give me some cause for deliberation would be
the residential component.
MR. JASSY: And, again, we would just be whatever is consistent
with the comprehensive plan at that point in time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Jassy, in just reading your proposal
you've carefully looked at it. And there is no doubt in my mind that
your firm would probably lay out a good project and you're not new to
the area by any means. I appreciate that. MR. JASSY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a few issues that I think stand
in the way of us deciding to move ahead on this. One is that we've
already directed our staff to work with several groups on potential
uses for that site. This would in a way pull the rug out from under
that effort.
Page 13
July 28, 1998
And I don't think that's fair to those groups. Particularly
since there isn't an immediate time frame for the -- in other words,
your project, if you were to do it, is several years off anyway. So I
don't think the immediacy is worth pulling the rug out from under that
group.
The second thing is we talked -- and the discussion just occurred
about semiprivate or whatnot. We don't really need another
semiprivate golf course. The problem in Collier County is that, you
know, folks that don't retire with a fair amount of money cannot play
golf in the winter for less than 60 or 80 or $100 a round.
And if you retire to Florida -- you know, the idea is that you
can do what you want to do outside, fishing or whatnot, 12 months a
year. I probably would have been more receptive to this before I
received the information that I provided also to Commissioner
Constantine about how Boca Raton has a municipal golf course that
returns money to the general fund every year.
I am not willing to give up on the concept of providing a
recreational amenity for the next 50 or 100 years for this community
on land that doesn't have to be subsidized by taxes every year. I
think there is an opportunity to do it on this parcel. I would rather
see a true municipal course occur there that is self-sustaining than
to put this land out for development.
So if that can occur -- and what it also does is if we can return
money to the general fund, we can use those funds to make other
improvements. I have had people talking to me about everything from
ATVs to birding on this site. So I think there are a myriad of public
uses the land could go for.
And in the debate of open space and retention of open space, I
think there is a lot more we can accomplish for the public. And until
we've exhausted those efforts on this parcel, I'm not comfortable in
moving forward in any type of a real estate venture or speculation on
same. So it has nothing to do with you, Mr. Jassy, or your proposal,
but my priority right now is to determine if there is, in fact, a
viable public use for that land before going out to any type of
private use.
MR. JASSY: If I could just comment on that. If it were
required, we would be willing to make it a public course that we would
operate to address your first issue.
And on your second issue, I think that the purchase price -- from
the numbers that I've seen that these other projects would return to
the County, I think that if this -- this price that we've offered were
invested at any reasonable amount of what current returns are bringing
in would probably be in excess of the amount of money that you'd
receive back on these other proposals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Until I've worked through those other
proposals in more detail, I can't really make that comparison fully. I
appreciate your position and I certainly will consider it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would like to ask the Board to
do is set a specific time line if there's some different thoughts
about what's an appropriate use and what's not. We've talked in the
past and gone out to bid for the golf course. We have talked with the
alternative recreational use folks. I know they're looking at some
Page 14
July 28, 1998
money considerations.
But what if we set a specific time line in which we decided what
uses we're comfortable with and then took a realistic look. Is it
more cost-effective to have $1 million come in or are we going to
generate several hundred thousand dollars from the golf course, but
have -- say in 60 days we define specifically what we're comfortable
with for uses there.
We may not be comfortable with ATVs buzzing by homes, but we may
be comfortable with other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Golf balls buzzing by homes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Golf balls buzzing by homes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only if I'm exercising my hook or my
slice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or something. I don't know those things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But then perhaps after we've defined
what those are, either look at the two options of: Can the public
provide that or is it more cost-effective to do it privately? But at
least have a time line, rather than just let this drift on endlessly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on that. Is the Board
willing to also get advice from staff about what the timing should be
as we go through the process of seeking to acquire other landfill
property and trying to permit other landfill property?
I realize that I've lost that fight, but I do want to continue to
raise the issue of the permitability and the acquirability of that
property and the length of time that it may take to have that happen.
We will need advice from our staff about whether or not we can, in
fact, dispose of property as we go through that process. I just would
ask you to fold that into whatever direction --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think there's a couple of issues here. I
think that certainly is one of them, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I also
think since we had the presentation from the other group and we did
ask staff I believe to review that, we kind of need to know where that
process is on that review before we make any other commitment or goal
seeking something else for that piece of property.
So I think we need to resolve -- this isn't your problem Mr.
Jassy. This is a problem kind of that we need to deal with here. We
need to get the landfill thing kind of squared away, number one.
Certainly that, in my opinion, is the first priority. And,
secondly, then we need to consider and see where staff is in reviewing
this other proposal.
MR. JASSY: I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I appreciate the fact that you have
brought this forward. I think this is -- you know, it's nice to have
this offer and put this in the mix of things, as well.
But that's no guarantee to you. I want you to understand that.
But at the same time, these are the kinds of things that we're looking
for.
MR. JASSY: Thank you. Also, just for clarification, there would
be no residential on the actual landfill site. That would be just
golf.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's
Page 15
July 28, 1998
concerns. We obviously can liquidate that. We've put it out for
offer on two occasions. And while you have that concern, the Board
has declared it surplus. It is -- legally right now it is surplus.
And I think the worst thing we could possibly do is renege on our
word to the community out there of East Naples and Golden Gate that we
weren't going to expand up there. We've said that I don't know how
many times now. Probably a dozen different times publicly. There is
enough distrust in government without reneging on that.
I would -- let me just make a suggestion then for an action plan.
And that is -- I think your point is right. We have to have some
specific answers on the alternative use park.
Maybe we can explore some of the financial end of what makes
sense from the other locations Commissioner Hancock has seen that
operate successful municipal golf courses. And maybe as a group we
can think about what other alternative uses might be appropriate
there.
Is there any objection to setting a specific time to come back
with all that information?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it helps the Board, I will personally
take the lead on the municipal golf course initiative to actually look
at the environmental data on the land, the potential for a layout,
construction costs, maintenance costs, relative income of similar
courses and whatnot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't have anything to do in the next
month or so that might keep you busy?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the next month is going to be a
little busy, but after that I might have a little more time. So
within the next six months I can complete that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say -- I see Mr. Olliff
nodding and saying, "We can assist in that." I was just hoping we
could do that in a shorter time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I said I'd take the lead. I didn't say I
would do it all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A shorter time than six months.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, Public Services
Administrator. From the previous Board discussion on the same issue
-- and without stepping off into a timing issue -- we are in the
process of developing I think the report that you're actually talking
about already.
We're meeting with the alternative sports people as one of the
options, but we've also gotten the financial statements, in fact, just
last week from Boca Raton on their public golf courses, as well as two
or three others that do seem to be profitable.
And we're putting those together as an option for you to consider
for a municipal golf course. It would actually be developed by the
County, operated by the County and run as a municipal type course. And
it's just a matter of how long it's going to take us to finish that
report and get it back to you so that you can have some serious
numbers and things to look at.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is 60 days a reasonable time? MR. OLLIFF: Sixty days is a reasonable time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, as someone who actually has
experience in golf course layout from my planning background, the
Page 16
July 28, 1998
environmental information on the site is important to understand what
can and cannot occur and what kind of layout can be done. It directly
affects your maintenance costs and whatnot.
Would you -- as that report comes to a close, would you put me in
the loop of information there? I may have some input to help get that
accomplished.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll take whatever expert advice we can get.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially free.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For free.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take advantage of that while we can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We like that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the 60 day time frame then -- I think
that's good.
Any other concerns from the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. JASSY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We appreciate it.
Item #8A1
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE ADVERTISED AND HELD IN SEPTEMBER, 1998, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH IRS REGULATIONS TO RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON
THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA, OF CERTAIN REVENUE
BONDS TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING LEASED BY THE
STATE OF FLORDIA AGENCIES
Moving on then to Community Development and Environmental
Services. The authorization to advertise a public hearing for August
4th, 1998 in accordance with the IRS regulations to receive comments
from the public on the issuance of the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida
revenue bonds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Pickworth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a public hearing or do we -- this
looks to me just to be a courtesy to another government that we're
affording.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll let Mr. Pickworth tell us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Don
Pickworth. This is one of those requests that I guess doesn't fall
within a particular bailiwick. I was contacted by the representatives
from the City of Gulf Breeze regarding whether the County would be
interested in allowing the City of Gulf Breeze on behalf of a
corporation, Cordova Community Facilities Corporation, to enter into
an interlocal agreement to allow them to issue their bonds to finance
certain facilities be used by State offices.
In order to do --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Pickworth. Actually, this
is just a hearing to advertise a public hearing. We can discuss the
issue next week.
MR. PICKWORTH: You're absolutely correct.
Page 17
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't need to discuss it twice. So I
will make a motion that we approve --
MR. PICKWORTH: Can I just ask for one modification?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
MR. PICKWORTH: At the time that I prepared these materials, we
were hoping we would get on the agenda right before your break. And
August 4th would have worked on the advertising, but we didn't get the
clearance from the County's bond council in time so we really need to
do this in September --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PICKWORTH: -- at one of your public hearing dates. In
September either the 8th or the -- I think the 8th and two weeks
later. Those are your two public hearing dates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. PICKWORTH: The 8th works well if it's okay with you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion includes designating a
September date?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
we'll
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Correct.
Just leave it at a September date and then
Let the staff decide when --
Is that all right?
MR. PICKWORTH:
MR. FERNANDEZ:
September.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. PICKWORTH: Great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it will be September.
know.
Sure.
We'll put it on the appropriate agenda in
That much you will
MR. PICKWORTH: That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
September date for a hearing -- a public hearing.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Item #8A2
REPORT PRESENTED ON THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION
COORDINATORf GOOD WHEELSf INC. FOR 1997-98
Moving on then to the transportation coordinator -- good morning,
Mr. Heatherington -- regarding Good Wheels, Inc.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love this. We've never had an agenda
item called a retrospective.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm waiting for the theme music
to come up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want some music, a little Motown retro.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Good morning. Ken Heatherington, MPO
Coordinator, the Naples-Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Page 18
July 28, 1998
Pursuant to Board direction at the June 23rd meeting we're before
you today to provide a brief overview of the Transportation
Disadvantaged Program and its structure, as well as a review of the
eight month data for service delivery by Good Wheels.
It's my pleasure today to introduce Julia Savage from the
Regional Planning Council as staff director to the MPO for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program. Also in the audience is Dee
Sheridan, President of Good Wheels, and Fran Theberg, Florida
Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Office.
With that brief introduction, we will actually hope that the --
that our tech people are cuing in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ours is working.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Yours is up?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has been up since we got here. We just
lost it.
MS. SAVAGE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was a bad thing.
Okay. We're back.
MS. SAVAGE: Okay. I won't do that again. Good morning, Madam
Chairman and members of the Board. Thank you for inviting us to make
this presentation today. It's a great opportunity to update you all
on the program and to provide the citizens of Collier County with an
overview of this program.
Last year a request for proposal was conducted to locate a
community transportation coordinator. As a result of that proposal,
Good Wheels was designated the community transportation coordinator
for Collier County by the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged on August 13th, 1997.
Good Wheels began its coordinated transportation services less
than seven weeks later on September 29th, 1997. The Commission for
the Transportation Disadvantaged normally allows 120 days for a
coordinator to start up. The local coordinating board recently
nominated Good Wheels for the Commission's new coordinator of the year
award due to Good Wheels' ability to get up and running so quickly.
The Transportation Disadvantaged Program was created by the
Florida legislature in 1989 to provide coordinated transportation
services for the State's transportation disadvantaged citizens who
are, pursuant to Chapter 427 Florida statutes and Rule 41-2, Florida
Administrative Code, unable to transport themselves or to purchase
transportation because of physical or mental disability, income status
or age and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to
life sustaining services, including health care, employment,
education, shopping, social activities.
You need to click. We need the flow chart up.
We have a flow chart we're getting up here in just a moment on
the visioning screen. The components of the Transportation
Disadvantage Program include the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged, which is a 27 member body that sets
policy, designates coordinators around the State and manages the
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund.
The community transportation coordinator is responsible for
Page 19
July 28, 1998
arranging cost-effective transportation. The designated official
planning agencies provide staffing and planning services to the local
coordinating board. The local coordinating board provides information
and advice and direction to the coordinator. They may set policy, but
the local coordinating board is not responsible for the day-to-day
management of transportation operators. That is the role of the
coordinator.
Well, what does coordinated mean? In Florida coordinated
transportation means that in each County a single entity, the
community transportation coordinator, is responsible for arranging
transportation for eligible transportation disadvantaged passengers in
the most cost-effective manner possible.
Prior to Chapter 427, back in 1989 agencies operated their own
transportation services in a system that was sometimes fragmented and
duplicative. People who were not sponsored by some agency went
without transportation. The program was managed by the Florida
Department of Transportation, but it had no funds to administer the
program.
After 1989 all that changed. Now the coordinator uses a mixture
of Federal, State and local funds -- excuse us while we learn our
technology here. The coordinator uses a mixture of Federal, State and
local funds to arrange transportation. In Florida, State agencies
must purchase trips for their clients through the coordinated system.
Chapter 427 created the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund.
This funding is also called the non-sponsored grant because the
coordinator uses it to purchase trips for people whose transportation
is not sponsored in some other way. The monies for the Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund are collected from fees for motor vehicle
registrations through a voluntary dollar program when you register
your motor vehicles and from the disabled parking permits.
The Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund money is deposited --
is distributed to each County through a formula. These funds are
distributed based upon the need of the recipient and according to
criteria developed by the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged.
In fiscal year '97 - '98, $23.9 million of the Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund was allocated for trips. From that amount
Collier County was allocated $378,611.
Pursuant to Chapter 427, the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged designates an official planning agency. The Collier
Metropolitan Planning Organization is the planning agency.
The MPO is assisted through a staff services agreement by the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. For the TD program the
Metropolitan Planning Organization is responsible for providing staff
to the local coordinating board, selecting a chairman for the local
coordinating board -- Commissioner Constantine is our chairman --
appointing members to the local coordinating board and developing the
transportation disadvantage service plan. This is a three-year
service plan of services that are available and the funding available
to support them.
The community transportation coordinator is responsible for the
delivery of transportation services to the transportation
disadvantaged. The coordinator may provide those trips itself as a
Page 20
July 28, 1998
sole provider or it may subcontract out some of those trips as a
partial brokerage or it may subcontract out all of the trips as a
complete brokerage.
In Collier Good Wheels is a partial brokerage. By the way,
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council will be conducting a
request for proposal to find operators for Good Wheels. We were going
to do it in July. It's moved up to August and September now.
Good Wheels has many roles in the community, including they are
the transportation disadvantage coordinator not only for Collier, but
for Glades and Hendry Counties. And they are an operator for Collier,
Lee, Glades and Hendry Counties. They also operate the Immokalee
circulator service, which you'll hear about a little more. And they
provide WAGES transportation and they provide other community
services, as well.
The purpose of the local coordinating board is to administer the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program in the County. The local
coordinating board provides advice, information and direction to the
coordinator. Part of its responsibilities include reviewing and
approving a transportation disadvantaged service plan, reviewing
coordination strategies, monitoring and evaluating the coordinator and
assisting the coordinator in developing trip priorities.
The local coordinating board prioritization policy and fair
structure for the non-sponsored grant includes the following trip
priorities. The first trip purpose is medical. The second category
is employment, training and education. Part 2-B is nutrition. The
third category is social purposes. The fourth category is personal
business. Recreation is divided into two groups, 5-A and 5-B.
This prioritization plan was one of the first ones to be
established in the State. It works with a passenger fare structure.
It is implemented at the discretion of the coordinator and applies
only to the non-sponsored grant funds. And the policy is reviewed and
modified every so often by the local coordinating board prioritization
committee.
Well, let's get into the trips. From October of 1997 to March of
1998 this is the percent of trips that were provided for these trip
purposes in Collier County by Good Wheels in the coordinated system.
Twenty-eight percent were medical, 19 percent were employment, 15
percent were for training and education, 7 percent were for
nutritional trips, 2 percent were shopping and 29 percent were the
other trips.
Within the world of coordinated transportation and TD trips there
are program trips and general trips. These distinctions come from the
different funding streams that support the program. Trips sponsored
by an agency to provide rides for program participants are known as
program trips. Examples of program trips would be all the Medicaid
trips, trips for the Boys and Girl Clubs, trips for the WAGES program
and services for seniors.
And then there are the general trips. These are provided for
anyone who qualifies for transportation through the Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund, the Collier County government funds, Florida
Department of Transportation Section 18 grant for the Immokalee
service and a few other sources.
In Collier County the program trips were 60 percent of the
Page 21
July 28, 1998
service and the general trips were 40 percent of the service for the
past eight months. Those percentages are a little different in each
County depending on the composition of the funding streams.
For the past eight months this is a trend of trips for all trips
in Collier County, general and program trips. The trend lines shown
in black are the general trips. And this is a typical trend line for
transportation services in Southwest Florida. I have 15 years of
experience with this and this is a very typical trend line for these
eight months of service.
The program trips -- we're waiting to see what will happen with a
12 month trend line for Collier County. I haven't looked at trend
lines for that yet.
The composition of the general trip funding sources for nine
months of data. The trust fund from the Transportation Disadvantaged
Trust Fund, that was 71 percent; Collier County government made up 19
percent; Florida Department of Transportation Section 18 funds was
nine percent; and one percent was other.
I am using what we call an old name for the Florida Department of
Transportation's funding. They've changed their name recently, but
those of us that have been with it we call it Section 18.
Okay. The funding trend for the general trips -- the funding by
source or trips by funding source is shown here on this flow chart
here. This is, again, nine months of data for 86,000 trips. And,
again, the trust fund shows a normal distribution of trips for
transportation service in Southwest Florida.
Well, we all want to know how Good Wheels is doing. Good Wheels
is doing fine. Their costs for the past eight months average out to
$1.08 per vehicle mile compared to a Statewide average of $1.72 per
vehicle mile. Their other costs -- we have a lot of different ways of
looking at costs. And their other data are $10.34 per passenger trip
compared to $10.48 per passenger trip for the Statewide average.
The Immokalee circulator was introduced in January and its trips
have blasted off since then. We have 275 percent increase in service.
We have some maps over here on the side of the building here that show
you where that route goes in Immokalee. It's what we call a feeder
circulator. Ms. Sheridan can provide you a little more information on
the difference between feeder and circulator and more information on
how that is doing. Someone is zooming in on the maps.
Well, as I mentioned earlier, one of the duties of the local
coordinating board is to conduct a midyear evaluation of the newly
seated community transportation coordinator. In June of this year the
local coordinating board concluded its evaluation of Good Wheels'
first six months of coordinated services.
The local coordinating board will be reviewing these
recommendations in a report from the evaluation committee here in this
room tomorrow at 2:30 in the afternoon. The meeting is open to the
public.
The local coordinating board will be asked to endorse the
committee's recommendation for the coordinator's improvement of
services. These recommendations include to continue to monitor and
report performance measures; to implement the local coordinating board
trip prioritization policy for non-sponsored trips on an annual basis;
to implement changes to its data management system; to refine the
Page 22
July 28, 1998
implementation of approved transportation plans that exist in the
community; to continue to refine and expand its marketing, advertising
and public awareness efforts to meet the unmet demand and educate the
public; and, finally, to participate in the transit development plan
process, which is ongoing at this time.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide this update. Do
you all have any questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of comments. We had the
discussion just prior to our break over the money issue and making
sure we continue to service. My concern at the time was that we made
sure we still got people to employment or education or going to buy
food or even social activities and those things. If you are without
the service you are literally shut in and would have been for 30 days.
I don't have any objection that we look at -- and this is,
indeed, what the committee is doing and what the LDC is looking at in
detail tomorrow -- the actual structure and how we can improve that.
And there is no doubt that we can continue to improve it, but I will
tell you as Chair of that that we are dramatically improved from where
we were a year ago.
And while we hope to increase ridership numbers more, I think
we're at about double the number of riders we were on the previous
system per mile -- per driving mile. And so the numbers are headed in
the right direction. We have some ideas on how we can continue to
improve that, but we are far better off than we were.
The other thing we're looking at -- and maybe either Ken or Dee
or someone can share with me our time line on this. But we're looking
at having some public ridership available and we're delayed now. We
had hoped to have that in place by now, but I know we've been doing
some different homework on what routes will work or what areas will
work, what times of the day and so on.
MS. SAVAGE: That sounds like a Dee question.
MS. SHERIDAN: I have just recently applied --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your name?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself.
MS. SHERIDAN: Dee Sheridan, President of Good Wheels. I have
just recently applied for some additional funds from the Florida
Department of Transportation. We are currently operating a circulator
route in Immokalee, which has been very, very successful.
We are also operating a route from Immokalee through Golden Gate
into Naples. I have no funding for this particular route. Right now
we're taking between 10 to 12 people shuttling them back and forth.
It is not cost-effective; however, they're students and I have
committed and we are going to continue. So what we have done is we
have applied for some funds to help us sponsor that particular route.
We also had looked at a circulator from the Health Department
through East Fort Myers -- East Fort Myers -- East Naples. The
funding for that fell through. It was through Healthy Start, I
believe. We were going to team up with them.
However, I have made application to sit on that Board so that we
can enlighten them on transportation and transportation needs of those
who need to get their children to the Health Department. If they're
walking to the Health Department and they're in not very good shape,
Page 23
July 28, 1998
certainly there is a transportation need there.
We can provide some of those transportation needs with our
Medicaid funding, however, there are a lot of people who are in need
and, however, do not have Medicaid. They're the ones that are seeking
services at the Health Department.
So we're trying to be an all-service transportation provider. We
see where the needs are. Right now we're in the process of
identifying funding so that we can set up the routes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, I'd just say
you're doing a wonderful job on this and please keep going in the
direction you're going. The frustrating aspect for me and for people
just watching those buses go by are all those empty seats. And I know
that's a frustration for you.
If there is some way through private funding that we can fill
some of those seats, I hope you're exploring that, in addition to all
of these public funding opportunities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are indeed. As I said, the numbers
are still lower than they need to be. You still see a body on the
buses, but a couple things have happened. I think the size of the
vehicle and the effectiveness of using the actual fleet has been
improved dramatically.
So you're less likely to see a 52 passenger bus go by with nobody
on it or one person on it than you were, but also the person per mile
statistic is going up and up and up each time, which is good. We
still need to go up dramatically more, but we're headed in the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're going to see about the
exploration of private opportunities in there?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Sheridan, could I ask you -- you
mentioned students from Immokalee coming through Golden Gate. What
ages are --
MS. SHERIDAN: We're talking about Edison and the vocational
school. This particular route was designed to address education
needs, as far as our students that are living in the eastern part of
the County. So we are working with some of the people out there in
Immokalee to help fund some of this program, but our next marketing
effort will be to market Golden Gate and Immokalee so that people know
that this service is available.
We're operating the route three times a day. And, hopefully, we
can generate enough ridership to help support it. Like I said, we
have also applied for additional funds transportation -- from the
Department of Transportation to help assist us in that.
And to answer one question about empty buses, please take a trip
to Immokalee. I was thrilled when I --
COMMISSIONER FLAC'KIE: I know they're not empty out there.
MS. SHERIDAN: I was thrilled when I -- I was there last week,
boarded a bus and we had one empty seat. And that empty seat was
filled with a baby seat. It's a success story. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MS. SHERIDAN: I cannot believe how many people are using that
circulator service that we have set up.
Page 24
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can believe it. And that's,
frankly, why I'm encouraged to hear that you're seeking to expand that
kind of use because that's what there is such a demand for in the
community.
I just wondered, too, Mr. Fernandez, if there is something --
another weak spot seems to me is in the public relations category. I
don't know if we fund any of those efforts, but it sure seems like
County government ought to be telling its residents that this is a
service that's available.
I don't think people know as much as they need to that the
service is available. I think that would fill a lot of the seats on
the empty buses in the western part of the County.
MS. SHERIDAN: Any help we could get, we'd greatly appreciate.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: If we may speak to that issue for just one
brief moment again. The nature of this is para-transit. And a large
percentage -- Mr. Smykowski had done a trip distribution also for the
trust fund dollars only. And we look at 46 percent of those are
demand response or will-call trips because it is the nature of fare
transit.
We do our best to have consumers come in and schedule their
medical appointment, their shopping and trip appointment or whatever
that might be, but chances are when you're going to the doctor you're
not sure when you're going to get done. So what they typically do is
we'll will-call. And that ends up being a demand response, single
passenger trip, still the nature of para-transit.
As Commissioner Constantine had spoken to, we hope to evolve this
system a little bit more into the circulators. And one of the visions
that some of the para-transit community have is using your cable
television network, as well. Turn that on and find out where those
buses may be in your community. Look at it and it will be at the
corner of Golden Gate at 9:15 and you have the time to go out and do
some of those things.
Looking at the Transportation Efficiency Equity Act of -- the
Transportation Equity Act of 1998 here and some of the Federal
requirements, the opportunities for ITS, or Intelligent Transportation
Systems, there are some new opportunities. I think we need to
continue to have a vision to evolve this system and we can fill those
buses up in this community in the future.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there a schedule pretty much that you do
have?
MS. SHERIDAN: For our circulator?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
MS. SHERIDAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the one loop from Immokalee in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What I was wondering is if there wouldn't be
a chance that we could put this on channel 54.
MS. SHERIDAN: The schedule is printed there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But just take that same thing and if we could
put --
MS. SHERIDAN: We would be happy to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can just run it on 54 at some point in
time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
Page 25
July 28, 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At least it would get -- I know not everybody
can get channel 54, but at least it might be an opportunity to get the
word out. Another source.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since that route is predominantly in
Immokalee, do we know that channel 54 is in Immokalee?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. But there is something that can work
through the school system out there, Tim. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There is a channel that used to work -~
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's something we need to stick Ms.
Merritt on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not sure now. There might have been
changes made since I was there, but there is something that works
through the school system out there whereby they -- MS. SHERIDAN: We can get a cable.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Whereby they can transmit within the
Immokalee area. Now, whether that's changed or not with some of the
things that have happened. That might be a possibility that they can
put that on out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially considering Vo-Tech --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- being one of the primary destinations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. Because I know from my past
experience that that was always a big concern for students out there
to be able to access Vo-Tech.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that something we want to involve Ms.
Merritt on to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. Exactly. Maybe somebody can take a
look at that.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: We have taken the initiative to have these
laminated and distributed to the social services agencies, the
hospital, the library, the school. So they are available, hopefully,
for the community. But the more communication we have, the better
service we'll provide.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Somebody may pick up on it there.
MS. SHERIDAN: I have to tell you one short anecdote about the
circulator. It didn't take too long for people to learn that the
circulator went around through town and came back to the library. And
as you may or may not know, we charge $1 for each trip.
So the folks that live down in Farm Workers Village have decided
that they can now use the library, however, why should they all spend
$1. So they load one person up with 15 books and they all chip in for
the dollar so that they can go take their books. I said, "Well, it
didn't take long to break the system," but they have figured it out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good for them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We appreciate their economy.
MS. SHERIDAN: The thing is it's working.
There you go. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things you'll notice is --
she went through some of those statistics. You'll see an increase in
some of the shopping and food and nutrition and some of those things.
You will have the debate over, (a), are we compromising the ability to
deliver the essential medical and some of those? And I don't think we
Page 26
July 28, 1998
are. I think we're still picking up all of those.
But I think they have done a good job at marketing and going
towards trying to do exactly what Commissioner Mac'Kie was saying, and
that is reach out to more of those people and deliver a better
service. And for each of those priorities we've listed, try to get
two people and three people and four people on that bus in the western
parts of the County as opposed to just a single rider or no rider.
So I think we've seen an increase in a number of those other
categories in the priorities, but I think that's a good thing. I
think that's one of the goals we had set out at the beginning of this
contract.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: One other point. As you recall, we were
directed to undertake a transit development plan and have contracted
with the Center of Urban Transportation Research. The first technical
memo will be out sometime in July and going to the Transit Review
Advisory Committee.
That is our process in evolving the five-year plan. It's
providing us some information, again, on socioeconomic needs and how
we might be able to marry this para-transit system into other transit
and, again, access other Federal dollars through the Federal Transit
Administration in the future.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing -- and, Ken, I'm going to give
you a lot of credit for this. One thing I'm pleased about is -- you
know, you crawl before you walk and walk before you run. And it seems
like the mass transit in the past the suggestion has always been let's
go from crawling to sprinting.
And the question of -- we do know there's a need out there, but
the question of what is the best system to match that need and is
cost-effective without being an overly burdensome approach to the
taxpayer is something Mr. Heatherington has done systematically piece
by piece and has built something that has now a tremendous value to a
great number of people who need the service and who use the service.
And I think it is a very logical, systematic approach to
providing the proper, you know, medicine, if you will, to the proper
ailment as opposed to assuming we're supposed to have 47 passenger
buses running up and down every street in Collier County with two
people on them, which is exactly what would happen under the past
proposals.
So to Mr. Heatherington, to the MPO and this Board's policies on
that, I think are starting to work and working in a systematic way. I
think you deserve credit for that, Ken.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: I appreciate the acknowledgment. Again,
credit really goes to staff, the local coordinating board and to Good
Wheels in building this system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. Thank you.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Any other questions or anything
from the Commissioners?
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 98-259 SETTING SEPTEMBER 2, 1998, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Page 27
July 28, 1998
FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN
THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR
MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, AND MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE
FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, U.S.
BEHMS, STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS AND
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES, ALL WITH THE PELICAN BAY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED
At this point in time I think we'll take a short break so we can
give our reporter a bit of a break here so her fingers don't fall off
her hand. We'll be back in about ten. (A recess was held from 10:20
a.m. until 10:41 a.m.) (Commissioners Constantine and Hancock were not
present.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The two Tims are missing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ward is here today for his annual
visit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next item on the agenda is 8 (B) (1),
which is the adoption of a resolution fixing the date, time and place
for the public hearing for approving the special assessment non-ad
valorem assessment to be levied against the properties within Pelican
Bay Municipal Taxing and Benefit Unit.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson is the boss on this scheduling
here. So we need to get her to tell us when is the best day for this.
MR. WARD: Well, we had four dates in your resolution. Wednesday
and Thursday, September 2nd and 3rd and Wednesday and Thursday,
September 9th and 10th.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you are?
MR. WARD: I apologize. Jim Ward, Pelican Bay Services. Either
-- any one of those four dates will work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No preference for me. Should we just pick
one? September 3rd, Thursday.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson usually does this for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe if Ms. Filson is going to do it, she
could do it prior to the meeting next time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. September 2.
MR. WARD: The budget director recommends the 2nd.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: September 2nd is what is recommended?
MR. WARD: Right. (Commissioners Constantine and Hancock entered
the boardroom.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So then, I assume, Ms. Filson, that you will
check everyone's calendar? September 2nd is a Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It works for me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That would tell me that that is the day after
the election; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is an election?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know. They're running for something
around here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only for some of us. Not for all of us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: September 2nd is fine with me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: September 2nd; does that work for everybody,
Page 28
July 28, 1998
Timothy?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
September 2nd.
That's just great. I'm looking forward to
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve September 2nd.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: September 2nd and that's at 6:00 p.m.?
MR. WARD: 6:00 p.m., yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this will be at the foundation center on
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hammock Oak Drive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 8962 Hammock Oak Drive?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right behind the fire station.
MR. WARD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Just wanting to let everybody
know what we're doing here.
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we need to do anything
else on this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What the heck, let's vote.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's vote. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Page 29
July 28, 1998
Item #8B2
REVIEW FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION FOR THE RETREAT - APPROVED
Item 8 (B) (2) to review the hearing for alternative water and
wastewater system impact fee calculation for The Retreat.
MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. Edward Finn, Public Works Operations
Director. This is an alternate fee request for The Retreat of Naples,
a congregate care living facility.
Staff has reviewed three of these requests in the past 12 months.
And essentially the request is to provide a pro rata water and sewer
impact fee based on actual water utilization as provided for in
studies submitted by the consultant for The Retreat of Naples.
In the past staff has recommended approval of these alternates
and that is the case here. The alternate fee would be assessed on a
per bed basis and would amount to 62,092.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is consistent with the other two
we've done?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir. I will also mention that in all likelihood
this is the last time the Board will see this particular type of
alternate. We have an ordinance that will be before the Board next
week dealing with this. And, hopefully, it will resolve this matter
for good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I had was under item
seven, for example. It says 115 gallons per bed per day is a
reasonable level of expected usage by adult congregate/nursing home
facilities.
On the front page it talks about a pro shop. And I'm wondering
do most nursing homes have a pro shop?
MR. FINN: No. Actually, the project has several different types
of buildings. I don't know what they're pros at. It must be
something.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wheelchair gloves or --
MR. FINN: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was picturing my Mom's place. It's
not that active.
MR. FINN: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, maybe you ought to take a visit out
here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These might be a whole -- I may have
to transfer Mom over.
Do we know -- do we know what that is; what the pro shop is?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have golf there, don't they?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have a little par three course.
MR. FINN: I don't know. The building we're talking about is an
ACLF. We're talking about an impact fee for one building only.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. You've answered
the question I need.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right answer, Mr. Finn.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I've looked over this data
and I don't happen to agree with the findings of the consultant or the
staff and I'm not going to support it.
Page 30
July 28, 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm consistent with also my votes on past
ones. I think the consultant and staff has done a good job on this. I
will make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this
calculation. If there's no further questions -- do we have any
speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four to one.
MR. FINN: Thank you.
Item #8D1
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, ARTHUR ANDERSEN,
AUDITING SERVICES AGREEMENT (RFP 98-2794) - TERMINATED.
NEGOTIATE WITH SECOND BIDDER, KPMG PEAT MARWICK
FOR ANNUAL
STAFF TO
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving then to item 8 (D) (1), the
termination of negotiations with the top-ranked firm for annual
auditing services agreement. Mr. Carnell.
MR. CARNELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Steve Carnell,
Purchasing/General Services Director. The recommendation before the
Board this morning, as the Chairman has read the title, is to
terminate further negotiations with Arthur Andersen, the firm
originally selected by the Board at the end of May, for contracting
with the County to perform the external audit and also some other
related services.
If you'll remember, the Board short-listed three firms. Arthur
Andersen being short-listed number one. A joint venture between KPMG
and Schultz, Chaipel was ranked second and Purvis Gray was ranked
third. That took place at the end of May.
We have since been in several weeks of what I would call
strenuous negotiations with Arthur Andersen over a number of different
issues. Many of them have been resolved, but unfortunately we have
not been able to come closure -- to closure on the issue of
indemnification and liability of the County.
And as there are -- I would say at least three outstanding issues
on that topic alone at this point. And at this point in time we've
reached the point where they have been several interchanges of both
verbal discussions and written proposals on trying to resolve this
issue and we have -- our last offer to Arthur Andersen was made last
week and we received correspondence on July 23rd, of which I believe
each of the five of you were copied on, indicating that Arthur
Andersen was not agreeable to our most recent offer.
We're at a point in time, in terms of schedule, where this --
Page 31
July 28, 1998
these services need to be contracted for and the contract executed and
underway so that the audit can be completed on a timely basis per the
Florida statutes. With that, the staff has considered its options
here and feels that really there are two at this point in time.
The first option would be for the Board to direct the staff -- to
give the staff more direction as to what it's looking for in the area
of indemnification and send us back to the table with Arthur Andersen.
The second option is to terminate negotiations with Arthur Andersen
and to move forward with negotiating with Peat Marwick, the second
ranked firm.
Before you deliberate and take action on this you should
understand a couple of things as a Board. We're doing this whole
procurement process pursuant to Section 11 of the Florida statutes
which requires us to negotiate in sequence, which means if we opt to
terminate negotiations with Arthur Andersen we are not able to return
to Andersen in this negotiation window. So we would then move forward
to Peat Marwick.
Peat Marwick and Chaipel, in their submittal, did not take
exception to the indemnification language. We are prohibited from
negotiating with them until the first firm's negotiations have been
terminated, but we did make brief contact with them to verify the fact
that in their proposal -- to clarify the fact that their proposal had
not taken exceptions to the indemnification.
We then, subsequent to that, received an unsolicited fax from
them in which they showed us some indemnification language from a
contract in Dade County, which -- while it is not verbatim word for
word what we were seeking in the RFP, it is much closer to the type of
provisions we are looking for in the way of indemnity and protection.
With that, what the staff is proposing that you do is to formally
terminate the negotiations this morning and then for us to open the
envelope submitted by Peat Marwick and to publicly announce the figure
that was tendered -- the fee that was tendered by Peat Marwick and
then to direct the staff to immediately commence negotiations with
Peat Marwick.
Given the Board's absences throughout the month of August, we
would further appreciate direction from the Board to add this item on
to next week's agenda with the ambitious goal of attempting to come
back with an agreement in concept at least and a document we can show
the Board for signature by the Chairman. I will entertain your
questions at this point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Carnell, the language we are seeking I
assume is different than what was in the contract last year in which
Arthur Andersen performed its work under? MR. CARNELL: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What stimulated the need for -- what
caused the need for this additional language?
I assume Mr. Walker is just doing his normal good job. But if we
didn't have it last year as an assurance, why did we realize that we
needed it this year; what was the nexus?
MR. CARNELL: Well, this all started with the RFP process because
the RFP had a substantially different indemnification clause than the
contract of three years ago. The contract of three years ago had a
Page 32
July 28, 1998
limitation of liability in the amount of the fee paid to the auditor.
In this case in 1998 dollars that would be $216,000.
That previous contract was solicited and entered into at the time
based on negotiations with Arthur Andersen that my office was not
party to. And what has happened this time around is we issued an RFP
that set forth a much --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. I think you really have
answered my question.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because in a professional service -- I'm
an architect and there's a $10 million building and my services were
$600,000, to say I'm only liable for $600,000 -- that doesn't make a
heck of a lot of sense when you're delivering professional services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to get that deal with some of my
legal work. I'll take that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I understand the issue. If KPMG
has -- we're even more comfortable that they're closer than Arthur
Andersen, I think staff recommendation to terminate makes sense.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was my same question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item for staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to go to the
second firm for the auditing services. If there is no further
question, I'll call for the question --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the termination of negotiations with
Arthur Andersen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, Mr. Carnell also asked to
be on next week's agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I assume the motion would have to
include that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It does. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So what we're agreeing to today is to
terminate the current negotiation and go to the next ranked firm.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
MR. CARNELL: If I can, before I leave, let me go ahead and open
the envelope from Peat Marwick so we at least know where our starting
point is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the exciting part.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It could be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was the Arthur Andersen fee that they
proposed?
MR. CARNELL: $216,000 for the audit itself, which is what we
asked for at the time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
Page 33
July 28, 1998
MR. CARNELL: Ail right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The audience is riveted.
MR. CARNELL: I love the spotlight.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Riveted, glazed over.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. The total all-inclusive maximum price for
the 1998 audit is $215,500.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're even saving money.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Save 500 bucks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wow. Don't go out and spend it all in one
place.
MR. CARNELL: So we just pocketed $1,200 in savings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least.
MR. CARNELL: And, hopefully, a much more favorable liability
obviously.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least 1,200, Mr. Carnell.
MR. CARNELL: At least.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We still have negotiations to do.
MR. CARNELL: That's the spirit. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good luck.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See you next week.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #8E1
RESOLUTION 98-260 SETTING THE MILLAGE RATE OF 3.6015 AND SEETING THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FY 99 COLLIER COUNTY BUDGET FOR
SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 23~ 1998 ADOPTED
Ail right. Moving on then to item 8 (E), adopt the proposed
millage rates and to establish public hearing dates for adoption of
the fiscal year '99 Collier County budget.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael Smykowski,
OMB Director. Yes, the item before you today is to adopt the proposed
millage rates. These must be provided under Florida law to the
property appraiser by August 24th. He then utilizes that information
to prepare the notice of proposed taxes, which must be mailed by
August 24th under the Florida TRIM law.
You should also note that during the September public hearings
the Board has the latitude to maintain or lower the millage rates
within each taxing unit at the level that would be adopted today. You
cannot raise the millage rate subsequent to the adoption today without
meeting a whole host of additional public notice and advertising
requirements.
There is an escape clause, so to speak, in the statute, but you
have to send certified mail to each property owner in the County, et
cetera, et cetera. So it's an onerous process at best.
The proposed tax rates, general fund, 3.5602 above the rollback
rate represents a tax increase of 1.6. County-wide millage of 3.6015
is 1.5 percent above the rollback rate.
The unincorporated area general fund is .5887 mills. That's 13.1
percent below the rollback rate. This -- again, the budget for
purposes of the record assumes that we would receive a $1,053,100
Page 34
July 28, 1998
payment from the City of Marco Island for Sheriff's road patrols
within the Marco City limits.
This issue is unresolved at this point. Obviously we would have
to make a budgetary reduction in the event that that money would not
be received. But again --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, do you have suggested
dates for our September hearings?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Wednesday, September 9th and
Wednesday, September 23rd.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to
approve staff recommendation of the proposed millage rates and the
hearings of 9-9 and 9-23.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one question. I had heard that there
were speakers.
Okay. There are speakers. Because there are some Isle of Capri
issues that I wanted to hear about.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Do we have speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. You have one speaker. Matt
Crowder.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Before the speaker, so you're clear as well.
We'll have the second quarter revenue report on the agenda next week.
At this point sales tax in all likelihood will exceed the amounts that
are -- are currently forecast. And the Board would have some latitude
with some additional money.
At this point any policy recommendations or decisions regarding
any additional money we would recommend holding off until September.
We'll have a few more months of additional data and we'll have those
numbers locked down a little better.
In addition, at that point in time we'll also have the June
revenue sharing figures, which is the closeout of the State fiscal
year and is the, so to speak, make or break month for the year for
revenue sharing. So we'll have a much better estimate of the actual
receipts to be received at that point in time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Crowder.
MR. CROWDER: Madam Chairman, members of the Board, good morning.
For the record, my name is Matt Crowder. I am a volunteer fire
fighter with the Isle of Capri fire department. I'm also president of
the Isle of Capri volunteer fire fighters association. And I'm a
member of the fire advisory board down there.
However, today I'm speaking to you just as an individual on the
subject of the millage rate for the Isle of Capri Fire Control
District. If I could, just for the record, give you just a brief
history of what has gone on down there and then state my request.
During the budget meetings earlier this year County emergency
services staff, Chief Flagg included, recommended an increase in our
millage to be collected to be put towards personnel costs for the
purpose of expanding coverage within our district. That increase has,
in fact, already been approved by the voters by way of referendum.
And I think it's fair to say -- I don't mean to put words into
Page 35
July 28, 1998
the mouth of the County Administrator, but I think it's fair to say
that despite the recommendations of the County emergency service
professionals and despite the fact that money had already, as I said,
been approved by referendum, County Administration did not approve
that increase because our fire advisory board had not explicitly
indicated its desire for this increase and the amount elected.
That brings me to the present. It's my belief that if given a
chance to explicitly indicate its desire in this matter that there is
a good chance that our fire advisory board would indeed approve of
this increase.
But I, for one, was under the mistaken impression that we had
until sometime in September to resolve this issue. I was taken by
surprise when I found out that today was the deadline. I only found
out late last week.
In fact, in our last fire advisory board meeting we entered into
discussions regarding this issue of expanded coverage, which included
an additional fire fighter to be paid for by this available money. And
this idea was, in my view, well received both by the other members of
the fire advisory board, as well as the citizens who were in
attendance at the meeting.
But because I was unaware of today's deadline, I personally
recommended at that meeting that we continue that item until our
August meeting to give all of our board members time to vote on the
issue. We did not have 100 percent attendance at our last meeting.
Now, it is my understanding, like Mr. Smykowski said, that the
millage cannot be increased after today, but it can, in fact, be
lowered in the upcoming weeks. So I would request that in order to
leave this option open to our fire advisory board that you approve an
increase in our millage to the one mill cap that has been previously
established, like I said, by the voters; thereby, giving the community
and our fire advisory board a chance to finish the discussions that we
were in the middle of.
We know we can always lower the rate if we decide not to go ahead
with an expanded coverage plan. But, of course, if the increase is
not approved today, our hands would be tied if we should decide to go
with this plan at our next meeting.
So that is the gist of my request. I would be glad to entertain
any questions, if you have any.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Smykowski, what are the implications with
this request?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It would just change the Isle of Capri millage
rate from .7921 to the maximum on the operating side to 1 mill. Again,
the Board would then have the latitude in September to decrease that
if -- if an alternative --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could red flag this and -- for that
September hearing --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if it hadn't been approved, put
it right back where it is now?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep the option open.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, is that your recommendation?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I based my recommendation at the
Page 36
July 28, 1998
time I presented the budget on the recommendation of the fire advisory
board. If, in fact, the board wants to reconsider that, this would
give them the opportunity to do that.
If we set the millage rate higher with the understanding that if
they did not change their recommendation, we could always go back to
the lower millage rate.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there is really nothing -- if we do set
it, there's really nothing detrimental in doing that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It gives you that flexibility.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, do we not also assess .21
mill for capital debt service?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How does that not meet the millage cap?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The ordinance that Ms. Flagg provided to me
indicates that -- it actually had reflected one mill on the operations
side and I believe .3 mills on the debt service for capital -- for
capital outlay. That's the existing debt on the station.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have some way of confirming that
today, Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Flagg is in the room. Maybe that's
her -- there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the Board.
For the record, Leo Ochs, Support Services Administrator.
You have, in fact, two different ordinances, Commissioner. One
ordinance 78-49 that creates the Isle of Capri Municipal fire services
and taxing district. As part of that ordinance there is a provision
that provides -- I will just read it in part. "Upon adoption of the
district budget by the Board, it shall cause to the budget to be
recorded in the Board minutes and shall cause to be levied on all
property within the district a millage sufficient to fund the budget,
not exceeding one mill in any one year to be assessed and collected as
County taxes." That, again, is the operating millage cap established
in your ordinance 78-49.
There is another ordinance, County ordinance number 92-55, which
is an emergency ordinance creating the Isle of Capri municipal rescue
and fire service capital improvement district. And that reads, again,
in part -- I won't read the whole ordinance. But with respect to your
question, "Funding and levy of taxes, section five. The funding for
the construction and renovation of the Isle of Capri fire station
facility shall be provided from taxes within the district pursuant to
the authority of Chapter 200, Florida statutes. The governing body of
the district is authorized to levy in excess of the rollback millage
rate computed pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida statutes, provided
such levy has been approved by the majority vote of the qualified
electors in the district voting in an election for such purpose. The
levy not to exceed three-tenths, .3 mill, for a period not to exceed
seven years."
So it would be used to fund payment for the construction and
renovation improvements to the Isle of Capri fire station facility. I
might add, Madam Chairman, parenthetically, I believe we're on the
sixth year or perhaps the seventh year coming up this fiscal year of
Page 37
July 28, 1998
that three-tenths of a mill. And that particular payment will be
completed for the station improvements.
So you have an operating millage cap of one and a station
renovation capital millage cap of .3 of a mill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Does that answer --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, when we worked through the
budget and everything and had reduced the property tax rate, I picked
up the newspaper the next day and the headline writers said property
tax increase of 1.5 percent. And you also said in your comments
property increase of 1.5 percent and that's based on the rollback,
which to the average person rollback doesn't mean a thing to them.
So let me ask a couple of questions here since I field the
questions regularly and deal with questions regularly and I know my
colleagues do, too. If your home value is the same for '98 as it was
for '97 you're seeing a reduction of about three percent in property
taxes under the general fund?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. On $100,000 of value a year ago you would
have paid $368.13.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Proposed would be 356.02 so you'd save $12.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three percent reduction?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that means your home value can
go up three percent and you're going to pay the same in taxes. If I'm
not mistaken, we have an initiative in Florida called Save Our Homes,
which says your assessed value can only go up three percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Homestead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Homesteaded property.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is homestead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you have a homestead property in
Collier County, under Save Our Homes and the work this Board has done
you're not going to see a property tax increase.
Now, I have a tough time seeing how a headline can say that's an
increase in taxes. As a matter of fact, if you're like me and your
home value stayed the same, you're going to pay a little less.
So I just wanted to get that on the record because this is the
season for misinterpretation. And I wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Misinformation would be a better way of
characterizing it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to make sure that my understanding
of our tax system in this County was correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think I've got a pretty good handle
on it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. Unfortunately, the TRIM law
requires us to express things as a function of the rollback rate. And
the advertisement for our budget hearing, which will be between our
first and second hearing, would -- based on these millages reflect a
tax increase.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But in the real world when you
write that check for your general fund tax rate or even your total
Page 38
July 28, 1998
County-wide millage rate --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's going to be less.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's going to be less than it was last
year, unless you've added property or made an addition or improvement
to your home.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a bad deal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going back to the item at hand, I
don't have any objection to adding that on and just kind of red
flagging it for our September hearings. And if the advisory board
doesn't address it or doesn't alter their opinion, we can back it out
again. But at least we'll make that opportunity available.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We do have a motion and a second. If
there is no further questions or -- do we have any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
MR. CROWDER: Thank you very much.
Page 39
July 28, 1998
Item #9A
WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR REFERENDUM
INFORMATION SERVICES - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 9 (A), recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners enter into a written agreement
with the Florida Association of Counties for referendum information
services. The companion item is 12 (C) (3).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I met -- there you are,
Ramiro. I was looking for you and you're at the podium.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman. Ramiro
Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney. I would request -- this
item is a companion to 10 (F) and 12 (C) (3) advertised public
hearing. There has come up a minor issue having to do with the
contract, which is item 9 (A).
We're on the phones right now with the parties involved trying to
resolve that. We hope we might be able to do so by the time 12 (C)
(3) comes up. We'd ask that you defer it to that time all as
companion items.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's precisely what I was going to ask.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine with me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To defer?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to hear them both at the time 12 (C)
(3) comes up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming we have resolution by that time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't we make a motion to that effect,
please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a motion to table, right; that would
be correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, technically, yes, it is a motion
to table.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To table this item to be heard at a later
time in the meeting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Today, yes.
MR. MANALICH: As companion to the advertised public hearing,
which is an ordinance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Okay. We have a motion and a second
to table to hear today at a later time.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
Item #10A
Page 40
July 28, 1998
RESOLUTION 98-261 REAPPOINTING VIVIENNE JOHNSON NIEHAUS AND ERIC BAIRD
TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is the appointment of members to
the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two and two. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we not have -- is this the one that we
have to approve -- we have to readvertise for the third position?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have done that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And you will do that, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good.
So the appointment then would be the two people who are Eric
Baird and Vivienne Johnson -- is that Niehaus?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Those are both reappointments. We have a
motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Page 41
July 28, 1998
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-262 APPOINTING BRIAN JONES TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - ADOPTED
Next is the appointment of member to the Board of Building
Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, one of these came in
late. If we're going to stick to our rules, we probably ought to
appoint the one who had their application in on time. I will make a
motion we approve Brian E. Jones.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. And just to let you know -- in
case somebody doesn't know him, outstanding applicant. He will be a
great service to the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have anything negative against Mr.
Jones. Do we know the -- I have to ask do we know the reason Mr.
Allen's application was late?
MS. FILSON: He did not indicate in his letter. It's in the
backup material. There is no reason.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's already on two boards anyway,
isn't he?
MS. FILSON: He's on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which
is this board, and Code Enforcement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So he'll still be on Code Enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. His resume and services have been
good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Brian Jones is an outstanding applicant.
I'm confident that he --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not trying to take anything away from
him. Not at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Then I second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second for the
appointment of Brian Jones to the Board of Building Adjustments and
Appeals.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Page 42
Item #10C
July 28, 1998
RESOLUTION 98-263 APPOINTING ROBERTA DUSEK AND RESOLUTION 98-264
APPOINTING LEWIS OXLEY AS A REGULAR MEMBER AND WILLIAM LEWIS AND JACK
STIRLING AS ALTERNATES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDS, NORTH AND SOUTH
- ADOPTED
The next one is the appointment of members to the Code
Enforcement Boards, North and South.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The North has one and one?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The South has one vacancy with three
applicants.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have an alternate position that
will have to be readvertised for the North Board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe it would be clearer to move them
separately, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will go ahead and move Roberta Dusek for
the North Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to
appoint Roberta Dusek to the North Code Enforcement Board.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
The South Code Enforcement Board.
MS. FILSON: This board actually has two alternates on it who are
requesting appointment as a regular member. And if you appoint one of
the alternates as a regular member, then you'll have to appoint
another alternate member.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask what is the role of the
alternate?
Do we go through this exercise or do they just sit in -- on a
given day they can sit in?
MR. WEIGEL: The goal of the alternate is to assure a quorum when
we had significant quorum problems in the past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've always said that I thought there may
come a time when we could go back to the consolidation of a single
Code Enforcement Board. I'm not ready to make that decision today,
but that is something over the next few years we may want to look at.
Of these two alternates, Ms. Filson, have either of them spent
time as an alternate longer than the other or were they both appointed
at the same time?
MS. FILSON: I believe we -- you elected to appoint alternates at
the same time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have personal knowledge of either
one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That being the case, let me suggest that we
go ahead and move Lewis Oxley from alternate to full member and then
Page 43
July 28, 1998
Jack StirlinH becomes an alternate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lewis then is --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We will need a new alternate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Mr. Lewis then is no lonHer an
alternate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's still an alternate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He remains as an alternate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need two alternates. I'm sorry.
you. I understand now.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So Mr. Oxley would become a permanent
member of the Code Enforcement Board South. Mr. Lewis would continue
to be an alternate and Mr. StirlinH would also attain the alternate
position.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, for the record, you havinH taken two
votes, I'd appreciate that the clerk and the minutes reflect two
resolutions when you prepare those.
Thank
Page 44
July 28, 1998
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 98-265 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And the next one is a recommendation
to declare a vacancy on the Collier County Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move acceptance of committee
recommendation to declare a vacancy. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for a vacancy
on the Productivity Committee.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Page 45
Item #10E
July 28, 1998
RESOLUTION 98-266 APPOINTING ROBERT CAHNERS, CHARLES MOSS, JR. AND
WOLFGANG SCHULZ TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners declaring its
intent upon approval by voters Statewide of an amendment to Article V
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we have one more.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we missed one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which one did I miss?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 5 (E}.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 5 (E), appointment of members to the County
Government Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to move the staff's
recommendation -- I'm sorry -- the committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to ask that we not do that.
I have -- Wolfgang Schulz I know very well. And, again, not taking
anything away from anybody else, but just knowing the Productivity
Committee that virtually all of us have participated at some level at
this point. His background and also his -- he has a burning desire to
do some work and I would like to plug that in, if we could.
MS. FILSON: And if I could just make one note. Robert Bennett
who has applied is currently serving on two boards, but he has agreed
to resign from one of those two if he's appointed to this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I don't have any personal
knowledge, outside of Mr. Bennett dealing with him, but we have
difficulty sometimes filling positions on the Black Affairs Advisory
Board. I would like to see Mr. Bennett complete his term there, if
possible. I think he's doing good work there.
And if another Commissioner feels strongly about what is then the
next recommended candidate in order, I would like -- if that person is
going to replace someone, I think Mr. Bennett is a logical
replacement. And then when he concludes his term or resigns for other
reasons, we certainly could consider him in the future. I think
that's a logical way of approaching it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will accept that and amend my motion to
recommend Cahners, Moss and Schulz. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have the nomination of Cahners,
Moss and Schulz to fill the three positions on the Productivity
Committee.
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
Now, moving on to the resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the one that's the companion
to the others that we're going to hear?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. It is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12 (C} .
Page 46
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
July 28, 1998
So this one goes --
We'll wait until then, as well.
Page 47
July 28, 1998
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 98-267 APPOINTING GARY DANTINI AND JOHN KIRCHNER TO THE
IM/4OKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
Next appointment is members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two and two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Committee recommendations Dantini and
Kirchner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Was that a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion to approve the appointment
of Gary Dantini and John Kirchner to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency to fill two positions.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, in my continuing to
operate totally out of order, while we're talking about -- while we're
talking about committee appointments, I just wanted to get to say to
all of you publicly that if my former opponent, Mr. Baron (phonetic),
has an interest in continuing to serve or going back to serve on the
Airport Authority, I would certainly welcome that. And I just wanted
to get to say publicly if he's interested in doing that, I support
that application.
COMMISSIONER HD/~COCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
money.
That's very big of you.
Well, he's made a big contribution.
To your campaign?
Well, maybe. I may have raised more
Page 48
July 28, 1998
Item #10H
DISCUSSION RELATING TO MARCO ISLAND PARES AND MARCO ISLAND CABLE
FRANCHISE FEES - NO ACTION
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving right along. Next is the
discussion relating to Marco Island parks and Marco Island cable
franchise fees.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I believe that
you should have been supplied with this little memo from the City of
Marco Island. This is what they voted on a week ago on Monday in
their meeting concerning the parks.
As you know, we have not budgeted to operate the community parks
down on Marco. So what I have been trying to propose and, hopefully,
get in front of you today is that we lease the neighborhood and
community parks to the City of Marco Island on a long-term basis for a
buck a year and let them take over the operations under certain
conditions.
If you will look at this memo, some of the things -- and I seem
to have been -- seem to be new in the discussion, particularly item 1
(3) where it says all equipment, vehicles and rolling stock currently
assigned to Marco Island facilities be transferred to the City. I
don't believe --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a question mark by that one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that I ever discussed that. Put a
little question mark by that one because I don't believe I've ever
talked about that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was this their proposal, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is what they voted on, but we
certainly have the option today of saying we agree to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certain things.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- certain conditions, sure. And that's
what we're here to discuss on this point today.
I think really what -- the important points were that if we're
going to turn over Mackle Park, which presumably we're going to
because we did not budget to operate it, what we want to make sure is
that we don't end up with some sort of a variable rate scale that
would discriminate against County residents versus City residents. And
they've agreed to that. You will see that under item 6 -- 1 (6).
And there are a couple of little parks, the Jane Hitler Park. If
you're familiar with that, that was paid for -- for those improvements
were paid for out of the beautification committee anyway. So I don't
see any reason why we should not give that clear title to them.
And the Leihigh Plummer Park, I don't know if you're familiar
with that. That's on North Barfield. And that is simply a little
neighborhood walk-around type park that has a little pond in it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All passive park.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just a small, little passive park.
And, again, I don't know why we would object to turning that over to
the City of Marco.
The other parks in question, of course, are Mackle. And there is
a little ball field called the Tommy Barfield Little League Field. And
Page 49
July 28, 1998
the one that would be somewhat in question -- and I hope we can make a
decision on today -- is the South Beach parking lot.
If you'll recall several years ago, that was given to the County
and built by a developer that was building some buildings on the south
end of the Island there. The County has no money into it, other than
our little parking meter.
Of course, we've always said that we were going to keep Caxambas
boat ramp and Tigertail under County operation.
The only one that really to me is a question and here for
discussion would be that South Beach parking lot. And Mr. Olliff, if
you have a question, might be able to answer it for you.
I -- personally I would think that we could put that into the
package and put that in the lease to Marco Island for a long-term
period. The reason for going to a lease is they have in the past --
let me just give you a little bit of a history on this discussion.
They have in the past discussed some interest -- shown some
interest in purchasing these parks or somehow ending up with
ownership. To try to determine a value of Mackle Park, for example,
where Deltona donated the land and the improvements were paid for
through the GO bond of several years ago -- to try to determine what
would be a fair value is going to take some time and certainly won't
be done by October 1st, which is when we need to -- we need to have
the discussion settled one way or the other for budget purposes.
So rather than try to do that now, my suggestion is that we enter
into a lease with interlocal agreements and sometime in the future, at
their leisure, if the City of Marco decides they want to buy those
parks, we'll have plenty of time to discuss the parameters of any
purchase at that point, rather than have the time pressure now. And
that's the purpose of why I am suggesting a long-term lease at this
stage.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Just a minute.
Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need a couple things. One is for Mr.
Olliff. And that's a list of park properties what would be leased if
we leased them everything, except for Caxambas and Tigertail.
And then another question that I had already asked of the County
Attorney was: How can we lease for $1 a year instead of fair market
value?
And then I will just go ahead and put on the table that if we're
going to lease for 99 years at $1 a year, what is the point? Deed it
to them. Because I don't know if there is liability that comes with
ownership that we might get rid of. I mean, if we're going to lease
it for 99 years for a buck, I don't see why we wouldn't transfer
title.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We will be in a Hong Kong scenario a
hundred years from now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. That's right. We're
finally going to turn over title.
But I'm not sure that -- if there is any possibility that they
might be willing to purchase any of the park property, we need to be
very careful that we haven't leased it for 99 years because we've lost
all possible incentive for them to consider purchasing the property if
they've got a 99 year lease.
Page 50
July 28, 1998
So first of all, if we could just have a list and then if Mr.
Weigel could tell us if we can lease for a buck. And if we can, what
is the advantage of that over just deeding it?
MR. OLLIFF: The list of park properties on Marco that exclude
Tigertail and Caxambas -- I'm sorry. For the record, Tom Olliff,
Public Services Administrator before you catch me.
Leihigh Plummer Park would be one. South Marco Beach parking
lot, which is what we're talking about now. The Winterberry ball
field, which is simply a small softball field. It stands isolated and
alone.
Tommy Barfield School is actually a recreational area that we
maintain and in turn it's open to the public. Frank Mackle Community
Park. And, lastly, would be Marco Island Racquet Center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And South Marco is the beach parking?
MR. OLLIFF: Beach parking lot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much parking spaces there?
MR. OLLIFF: Seventy beach parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how did that fall into the category of
neighborhood, instead of community; because they're designated only
for Marco Island use or something? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
MR. OLLIFF: No, it's not actually. We consider that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I remember the fight. I didn't remember
the outcome. It seems to me that that's one I would not want to lease
to them and I would want us to continue to control.
MR. OLLIFF: We actually consider that a regional parking lot.
All of our beach parking lots we consider having a County-wide draw,
if you will. That is still in what we call regional park inventory.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So your recommendation would be that
Caxambas, Tigertail and the South Beach parking lot be retained by the
County park system?
MR. OLLIFF: That was the original proposal to the City. I'll
tell you just for your consideration, in terms of numbers, it's not
the heavily used beach parking lot that maybe some of the others are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, today.
MR. OLLIFF: It currently generates about $27,000 in revenue a
year. It costs us roughly $13,000 a year to just maintain the
landscaping and the watering and the electricity there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many parking spaces; 70?
MR. OLLIFF: Seventy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to give up 70 parking spaces
for the general public.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you're not actually because they'll
still be open for the general public under the terms of the lease. And
the other thing that is interesting to note about it is that even in
the season it gets very little use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, maybe we need to advertise better
that it's available.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But if your concern, once again, is that it
won't be open to the general public, that will be a condition of the
lease or it will not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as far as Commissioner Mac'Kie's
Page 51
July 28, 1998
question as to what the advantage of a lease is, I would assume -- and
Mr. Weigel is the attorney, but I would assume number six under here
where the City will allow County residents to use the facilities and
programs at the same time, it would just be easier to enforce. We
could make that a restriction on sale, but I think it's easier to
enforce if it is part of a lease.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I'm a lot more confident of the
ability to enforce it -- and, I guess, this -- you're going to take
your legal advice from this lawyer, not from this one. If there is a
deed restriction it can't be changed and lease terms can be changed
from time to time by mutual consent. But a restriction in the deed
would be the strongest restriction you can place.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple other things. I agree with
you wholeheartedly. I don't really have any interest in giving away
the parking lot or leasing the parking lot. There were a number of
questions over accessibility and what those issues would be. It took
a long time to settle those. I'd just as soon leave that be. We
struggle with parking and beach access all over the County.
I think the other parks -- what you've laid out is a good idea.
That particular one I'm uncomfortable with. And I say this somewhat
jokingly, but I'm wondering have you worked out what percentage of the
profits from the parks Collier will be sharing in?
Because I remember Councilman Day stating that we actually made
money on operating those parks on Marco Island. I've got to tease Ed
a little bit about that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to chime in on the South Beach
parking lot. While we're struggling to find additional beach parking
elsewhere in the County, I'm not in any way, shape or form wanting to
enter into a relationship that takes the County out of the
decision-making loop on that parcel.
I understand we could have a relationship with Marco that would
allow for the use of County residents, but why enter into a
contractual relationship similar to that with the City when we don't
have to?
I don't think it provides -- other than a potential revenue
source for the City of $17,000, plus or minus, or $15,000. I just --
I'm not comfortable with that at all.
A couple questions. The Winterberry ball field that you
mentioned, does that have leagues utilizing it; kid leagues, softball,
baseball, whatnot?
MR. OLLIFF: It has very, very limited league use. We, several
years ago, were restricted in terms of the number of days of the week.
And I believe we're down to two days a week there we're actually
allowed to use lights on that field.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the proximity to neighborhoods?
MR. OLLIFF: It is in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who imposed that restriction? I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: County Commission.
MR. OLLIFF: County Commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And Tommy Barfield, is there league
play on those fields?
Page 52
July 28, 1998
MR. OLLIFF: Again, the leagues that are on there are primarily
Marco related league participants. So they may be County-wide
leagues, but they're primarily teams that are generated from Marco
Island.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But with the growth of the 951 corridor --
I think even though it's not predominantly family-oriented at this
point, I think we're going to see some of that occur over time. The
nearest facilities when you get about halfway to Marco Island becomes
Marco Island. The north half of 951 to 41, the new south -- South
Naples Park is going to be the nearest facility.
I guess I don't have as much an issue leasing those two -- you
know, whether it's leasing or deeding, whatever. We need to have that
discussion. I don't have such an issue, as long as County residents
are insured the exact same rate structure on those. That's not a
problem.
Mr. Olliff, when did -- this letter is dated July 24th. So I
take it you didn't have a lot of lead time to prepare anything on
this?
MR. OLLIFF: I just got it actually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I guess before we make any
decision, I would like Mr. Olliff and the parks and rec staff to have
the time to review this in its entirety and come up with a
recommendation on the best operation of these facilities for both the
people on Marco and the general public that -- outside of Marco that
may be using the facilities. Give us an idea of usage mix, which is
something I think we need to pay very close attention to.
From what I hear, Jane Hitler and Leihigh Plummer Parks -- I
don't see any reason to keep those in County inventory or for us to
maintain them or whatnot. They're strictly local.
Mackle, you know, I don't know. I need some more information.
MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you the philosophy that we were using
when we were talking to the City staff. As you know, there are three
categories that we consider our parks to fall into. One is
neighborhood, the other is community and the other is regional.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: The philosophy underlying both neighborhood and
community parks is that they are serving a fairly small area of
population. And in both of those cases, Marco Island constitutes the
full area that those parks were designed to service.
So we were negotiating with the understanding that the City would
probably be in a better position to operate those parks that were
designed to serve their residents. And then those regional parks were
the ones that we probably ought to retain because they service
County-wide population.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last item is the rolling stock being
given to the City of Marco.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to agree to that.
MR. OLLIFF: We already responded negatively to that last week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Beyond that, I guess before I make
a decision I would like to hear from Mr. Olliff and his staff after
reviewing this proposal and hearing from the County Attorney on the
Page 53
July 28, 1998
issue of leasing versus deeding versus -- you know, what is in our
best interest.
If we have no intent of long-term ownership, then maybe there is
a buy-out program over time that the City Council can partake. You
know, I just need to know which is the best selection.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me go back to what I said earlier. It
addresses Commissioner Mac'Kie's question of why we would want to
lease, rather than just deed it over to them.
Once again, to try to determine what is the accurate and fair
value for Mackle Park is going to be an involved discussion. And
we're not going to have that done by September or October 1st by any
stretch of the imagination I would think. I think that's going to
take a detailed analysis.
But if an extremely long-term lease is not appropriate at this
time, that's a decision the Board could make. You could go with a
shorter term lease that would have to be renegotiated at some point in
time. And at that point the decision could be made to purchase or
not. And it gives everyone plenty of time, instead of making
everybody rush to do some sort of analysis that may not be correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can arrive at that mix.
Mr. Olliff, if you can provide a matrix of the parks of their --
the types of use, the activities and kind of a mix of non-Marco and
Marco use. I know that's tough to do, but your -- your people that
work in the parks know.
MR. OLLIFF: It will be a best guess, but we'll provide that for
you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need to count on those field people
that deal with the people every day to give us a sense of that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the idea of Mr. Olliff and his
staff just reviewing this. My compliments to Commissioner Norris,
with the exception of item three.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I didn't -- remember, that's the
first time I have seen that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we're on the right track here.
Obviously, we want to make sure that we still serve the community of
Marco as best we can and the neighborhood parks and those things. If
they can operate those more efficiently than we can, that's great.
I particularly appreciate the part under item six where you make
sure County residents still have appropriate access and so forth. This
looks like a very fair plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the same time as Mr. Olliff's staff is
doing that matrix, maybe if we could give Mr. Weigel, instead of on
the spot, the chance to also review lease and lease options, those
possibilities.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. But one thing we do need to keep in
mind is that we are now facing a time constraint here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We did not budget to operate this coming
October 1.
MR. OLLIFF: In that regard, I would even suggest, if you would
allow, that we do the best we can and come back next Tuesday with
something for you to consider. Because I think -- at this point, I
Page 54
July 28, 1998
don't believe I can get it on the printed agenda index, but I think if
we at least announce that we will go ahead and have that discussion
next Tuesday. I think it provides the City of Marco at least some
information early enough that they can plan for their budgeting as
well before they get to their public hearing dates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's be clear. I mean, we've adopted our
millage. We're not going to be -- there is nothing that's going to
happen that will cause us to be adding more millage to be funding
those park operations in the next year. MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's don't confuse anybody about that.
That's a done deal.
MR. OLLIFF: I guess all I'm suggesting is what Commissioner
Norris has put together is so close that it doesn't take much to get
it from there to where you need to make some decisions about it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate what you're saying, John. But
let's also remember that our staff issued their position months ago.
So the creation of the crisis doesn't rest solely with us.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to state that.
Because I'm looking at a date of a letter, thinking, "My, God. If I
was doing a budget in the City of Marco Island, this letter would have
come a couple months ago, if at all possible."
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that. But we are -- as the
great sage Ken Cuyler said, "We are where we are."
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: "Because that's where we are."
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: "Because that's where we are."
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The parks and rec stuff I'm pretty
comfortable with. I am going to have a number of questions on the
cable TV. I'm not nearly as comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the next item.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the next part of this is the cable TV
franchise agreement. They have asked us in the past or requested our
staff to simply write them a check for the fees that have been
collected since last November or August, I guess, whenever they
incorporated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
the air number.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
while I was talking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
sentence and you blurt in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
And that number was just a pulled out of
I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you
Sorry, John. I forget you're sensitive.
Well, I'm just right in the middle of a
I mean, please don't do that.
I was just helping you I thought.
You're not helping me at all.
I won't help you anymore.
Okay. Thanks.
But the point is we need a legal basis if we're going to let them
collect the fees on Marco, which makes sense. The fees that are
collected on Marco should go to the City of Marco.
But they're going to have to pass their own cable TV franchise
ordinance and they're going to have to have an agreement with the
Page 55
July 28, 1998
cable companies. And once they do that, then fine. They can collect
the fees, as far as I'm concerned.
That's where this is headed. And it's open-ended for the Board
to discuss.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I look at it a little
differently in that -- first and foremost, as I have said several
times, cable television isn't electricity or isn't water. This isn't
an absolute service that must be provided. I want to keep it in
perspective that way.
Cable television is a service that you try to have delivered
fairly and at a reasonable price to residents. And because there is a
new governmental entity, I don't know that that should interfere with
the existing franchise. There is a franchise that delivers it at,
frankly, a very good -- we did a very good job on the deal this last
time -- at a very good rate, very good service level, very good
requirements.
And why we would want to re-invent that or have Marco re-invent
that or give any of that away, I don't fully comprehend. It seems
like there's a service that's not an essential service, but a service
that the County has spent a great deal of time and effort in making
sure the residents of Marco, whom are residents of Collier County,
receive in a fair, cost-effective and efficient manner. And they are
right now.
And I just don't see a reason for tinkering with that. I don't
see a reason to hand that off to some other governmental agency and
say, "Well, you guys give it your best shot and do it on your own."
It just seems like it's working now. The service is being
provided now. It's all going the way it should now for those
residents. And perhaps when this term expires, that's the appropriate
time for a different governmental entity to -- a different
governmental entity to look at it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I agree with
you. I think what we did when we negotiated that contract -- whether
Marco Island is a City or not, its service hasn't changed. Its rates
haven't changed. The provider hasn't changed, nor has the cost of
administration of that changed.
So everything remains the same. And, I guess, I have a question
for Mr. Weigel. And it may or may not be possible for you to answer
this without specific review of the charter. Does the City of Marco
Island have the authority to assume cable regulation and, in essence,
tell the County, "No, at this date we're going to assume it"?
Do they have that authority under either statute or charter or
whatever elements may come into play?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think they clearly have the authority under
their charter to adopt any ordinances that they wish to, which if are
in conflict with a general County ordinance would supersede the
ordinance for the jurisdiction of Marco.
It's my understanding they haven't done that yet. So the County
ordinance continues to prevail. And I think that that is an important
part of the order of these things concerning any change in the cable
regulation, which is by ordinance and the contracts which dovetail
into the ordinance that the County has.
Page 56
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unlike the City of Naples, it has to do
with the fact, I'm sure, that the ordinance was in place prior to the
creation of the City of Marco Island as opposed to -- you know, we
can't pass an ordinance for cable in the City of Naples because
they've assumed that responsibility themselves. Is that a distinction
that's important in that regard?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's correct. The County can, even in other
subject areas, adopt ordinances that may apply to incorporated areas.
However, if the incorporated area already has an ordinance of that
subject matter or it adopts an ordinance subsequent to the County, it
essentially preempts the County's ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a great example of why we
don't -- why the public doesn't need more government. There is
currently a government office administering the cable television and
its services. Why would you create a duplicative office on another
level of government to do the exact same thing?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the office can be a revenue
producer is the answer would be my guess.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But, I mean, it's not an efficient
thing to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may finish up, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
real quick.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay. I'm not as sensitive as John
is.
I am just -- in a nutshell, when we get to about 12 months out
from the expiration of the current contracts, I think we have a
responsibility to notify Marco Island that it's that -- the time for
discussions is commencing and if you want to take this over, now is
the time to tell us. And that notice should occur probably 12 months
out from the expiration of the current contract. Beyond that, I see
no reason to tinker with it until then.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is 13 years from now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other point that -- I think the reason
why we have the trump card here is -- in addition to what Mr. Weigel
was saying about the ordinances, I think it's a Federal law, isn't it,
Mr. Weigel, that a cable franchise company can't enter into an
agreement that overlaps?
So they can't separately go and contract with Marco Island
because we have already contracted and covered that territory. So
while our contract is out there, they can't -- they can't contract,
whether they adopt an ordinance or not, unless we release that
territory from our cable franchise agreement.
MR. WEIGEL: That's a correct statement.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I've already stated that I'm in favor
of doing this. The only other thing I can mention to you is that we
have tried in our dealings with the new City of Marco to adhere to the
principle that we will try to treat them similarly to how we treat or
Page 57
July 28, 1998
our how we deal with the City of Naples. And this would be certainly
in line with that principle.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd respectfully disagree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kudos on your plan. Poo-poos on your
franchise plan.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It will be interesting to read that one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll take that back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Too late.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then after that item to -- I
guess there is no action to be taken on that. That was merely
discussion.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENT - JOHN DE BAUN REGARDING JUSTICE
Baun.
Do we have any public speakers under public comment?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. You have one speaker. Mr. John De
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
Just to be clear on that last item,
Mr. Olliff will be coming back -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Along with Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. DE BAUN: Well, good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. DE BAUN: Ladies and gentlemen, I am John De Baun. I live in
the City. And you just mentioned your local government office.
I am here about law and order. I want justice in Collier County.
A drunken woman forced her way into my house December 2nd, 1992. I
was a bachelor at the time. I am now happily married.
I ordered her to leave. She refused. I called 9-1-1. The City
Police Department put me in jail. All kind of charges were pressed
against me. Ten policemen went through my house looking for
something. I found out later on she was telling them, "He's got a
gun. He's got a gun." Well, they didn't find any guns.
This has gotten to the point where her lawyer, Michael McDonnell,
and Judge Blackwell ganged up on me. She claims -- this woman claims
she was a psychiatrist. Well, thanks to my third lawyer and all my
funds, he found out she was a phony, this woman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, may I interrupt you for a moment?
MR. DE BAUN: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just interrupt you to ask how the
County Commission might be able to have some role in this?
MR. DE BAUN: I would like to know, too. You're a County --
you're a County government body. The problem I have right now is one
Page 58
July 28, 1998
lawyer, one judge, the City police -- the ex-City police who resigned
after my case. I won the criminal case. However, I got a $125,000
bill over my head that I am supposed to pay that is illegal.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. De Baun --
MR. DE BAUN: I don't know what to do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. Mr. De Baun --
MR. DE BAUN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The groups -- the three individuals that you
mentioned, I don't believe we have jurisdiction over any of those
individuals.
MR. DE BAUN: I live in Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, sir, you do. But you also live in the
City of Naples.
MR. DE BAUN: They have nothing to do about it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You just indicated --
MR. DE BAUN: The lawyer --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have no control -- we have no control over
your attorney. We have no control over the Judge.
MR. DE BAD-N: I had to get an attorney out of town.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sir, listen to what I'm saying. We have no
control over the City police. We have no control over the attorneys.
We don't control them. And we don't control the Judge. Those are not
under our jurisdiction.
MR. DE BAUN: Your Collier County Sheriff's Department is the
overseer of the City Police Department.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not true, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is not true.
MR. DE BAUN: I'm sorry. But the gentleman before the one we
have right now came to me privately and said, "If you have any
problems with the police, John, come and see me."
This is several years ago. I have lived in Collier County. I
have lived here since 1969.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand that, Mr. De Baun. I know
exactly who you are and where you live and what you do. I understand
that. But I'm also --
MR. DE BAUN: I'm retired.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand that. I know that. But I'm
also telling you that we have no jurisdiction over your concern. I
appreciate your concern. And, obviously, you're upset over what has
transpired, rightfully so. But I'm telling you that this is the wrong
body for this particular complaint.
MR. DE BAUN: Well, where should I go; to the State?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The laws in which the officers used were
not County laws. They were State laws in all likelihood in these
types of cases. So, sir, you have attorneys that --
MR. DE BAUN: No. I don't have attorneys. He resigned. He gave
up.
COMMISSIONER FJ~NCOCK: Okay. Well, I don't doubt that. But the
problem here is that legislative bodies, such as the County
Commission, have certain things we can address. And if they're not
listed, we can't touch them.
If there are -- if the State handles something, we cannot preempt
the State. And one of those is the judiciary and one of those are
Page 59
July 28, 1998
criminal charges. And we just -- we cannot do anything for you in
those areas.
We have two options today. We can let you continue and have your
five minutes and say what you want and then tell you we can do nothing
or we can tell you now we can do nothing. But in the end there is
just nothing in the scenario you present to us that we can do to help
you, no matter how much we want to.
MR. DE BAD-N: All right. You have a District Attorney in your --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, we don't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, we do not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do not control the District Attorney.
That is the State of Florida.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is the State.
MR. DE BAUN: Do you know that it was proven that there was
perjury on this case and the District Attorney --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just let him go at this time.
MR. DE BAUN: -- In Collier County will not take my case. They
will not press charges. What do we do? What should I do?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need to appeal to the State in some
fashion, sir, because we don't make laws on perjury.
MR. DE BAUN: I should go to the State; is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
MR. DE BAUN: That would be the Florida -- what is the name?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may want to start with the State
Attorney's Office.
MR. DE BAD-N: What is that the Florida Law Enforcement, FDEL
(sic) or something like that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: FDLE, yes.
MR. DE BAUN: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: FDLE is a Department of Law Enforcement,
yes. But if you have question about State law, I would recommend the
State Attorney's Office as a starting point.
MR. DE BAD-N: Okay. Thanks very much for your time. But I would
like to inform you between McDonnell and the Judge and the D.A.'s
office there is something wrong.
I would like to live in Collier County and enjoy living here. You
can't live this way by having -- and having a City Police Department
put me in jail when I called 9-1-1. You know, I've already written a
letter to the Sheriff's Department and asked them to take over the
City department. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other public speakers?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That puts us right up to lunchtime,
strangely enough.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Strangely enough. It is ten minutes to
twelve. I don't believe that we have time to start in on the public
hearings at this point in time.
Mr. Neale, I just want to give you a lunch break. I think that
you need that, okay? So I think at this point in time, rather than
get started and stop in ten minutes, we will break for lunch now and
resume at one o'clock.
Page 60
July 28, 1998
(A recess was taken.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-64 RE PETITION PUD 98-1, WILLIAM J. HOOVER, AICP, OF
HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL
TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF UP TO 536 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN WHIPPOORWILL
LANE EXTENSION AND INTERSTATE 75~ SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would like to reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting. We are now to the public hearing section of
our agenda. Our first item is petition number PUD-98-1. Mr. Hoover --
or whatever. This is a rezone from rural agricultural to PUD for
mixed residential development of up to 536 dwelling units on
Whippoorwill Lane extension.
Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, planning director.
Prior to Mr. Nino coming up to make his presentation, I need to
put on the record that I did not provide any oversight or review
comments to this petition. As you'll note, I didn't sign the
executive summary, and that is because I have a relative by marriage
who is a beneficiary of the land trust. And after speaking with David
Weigel, we felt it was best if we put that on the public record in an
overabundance of caution. With that, I'll turn it over to Ron.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Caution noted.
MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, planning services
department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not crash.
MR. NINO: Good way to start. Whipporwood -- Whippoorwill Woods
PUD.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Say that real fast.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just step away -- step away and start
all over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whippoorwill Woods.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did you have for lunch, Ron?
MR. NINO: Just fruit, just fruit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's perfect for Whippoorwill. That's
great.
MR. NINO: The proposed Whippoorwill Woods PUD is located on
Whippoorwill Lane, which is located three-quarters of a mile south of
Pine Ridge Road and to the south -- to the south of the Southerland
PUD, which houses a new -- a hotel that's under construction, Chevron
Gas Station, and a Shell Station and a pizza factory, or at least used
to be the pizza factory.
The land area is approximately 84 acres in size, and it lies east
of Whippoorwill, if it were extended south. Because Whippoorwill does
not physical -- in any physical sense extend all the way to this
property. And the property extends east from Whippoorwill to 1-75.
It's located in an area that's designated urban residential and,
therefore, one might expect is zoned agricultural, and one might
expect that they are entitled to request a rezoning to the residential
Page 61
July 28, 1998
classifications that would authorize a certain number of dwelling
units.
This land is located within a density band emanating from the
1-75/Pine Ridge activity center. And by virtue of that fact, it
qualifies it for your consideration for a density of up to seven
dwelling units per acre.
The petitioner has requested a density of 6.4 dwelling units per
acre, and the Planning Commission, in their recommendation of five to
zero, recommended that the density be limited to six dwelling units
per acre.
This petition, by virtue of what it requests, is consistent with
the future land use element. Staff has reviewed the project for
consistency with other related elements of the growth management plan,
and finds that the petition is consistent with all applicable elements
of the growth management plan.
The petition would have a development agenda of mixed
residential. And what I mean there is that it permits both single
family and all of the ranges of the various marketing words used for
multiple family.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dog houses.
MR. NINO: This petition would also allow assisted living
facilities. And to the extent that assisted living facilities take up
a portion of the land, there would be a commensurate reduction, based
on the density that you determine to be appropriate today, from the
number of dwelling units authorized by the mathematical result of
multiplying the area times whatever that density number you determine
is appropriate.
The petition has been reviewed -- the petition has been reviewed
by the environmental advisory board. Their recommendations are
included within the PUD. All recommendations of staff are also
included in the PUD under development stipulations. And as I
indicated, there was one objection verbally expressed at the Plannin§
Commission, but the Planning Commission recommended an approval five
to zero with a density of six dwelling units per acre.
I understand that the petitioner is going to ask you to modify
the master plan. That was submitted to us too late to address it in
your executive summary packet. But we have had an opportunity to
review the amended master plan and conclude that there are no
substantive changes, there's no diminution of open space, no
diminution of conservation areas. Essentially the petition provides
for two access points off Whippoorwill, whereas the current one
provided one, and some minor adjustment of the jurisdictional lines,
but nevertheless maintaining, and the aggregate was required.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had contact on this from outside
people, but I will base my decision on what we hear in this hearing
today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I have also had outside contact from
the petitioner, but I will base my decision according to law.
Commissioner Constantine?
Page 62
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Me, too.
MR. NINO: Commissioner, Madam Chairman, I neglected to advise
that we need to swear in, because this is a quasi judicial proceeding.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do.
Would all persons wishing to speak to this issue rise and be
sworn in by our court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. NINO: And I apologize for that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. We got it done.
MR. MULHERE: Perhaps that was my fault, since I jumped up to the
podium to declare that I had no review capacity in this petition.
I'll withdraw that statement. No, I'm just kidding, it still stands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now that you know it's under oath.
MR. NEALE: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Patrick
Neale, and I'm the attorney for the contract purchasers of this
property, the Whippoorwill Land Trust.
Primarily my role here today is to show you my fancy slide show
and to answer any questions that the board may have. Since I spent
hours working on this, we can take a look at it.
It's -- essentially what we're doing is covering a great deal of
what the staff has already covered in their presentation. We'd just
like to reiterate a couple of other matters that staff didn't cover.
As you can see, this project is approximately 84 acres. It's in
the density band. It's adjacent to 1-75. It's near the population
centers of the growing North Naples area, shopping, community
services. And we had requested a density of 6.39 units per acre.
The petitioner voluntarily, at the Planning Commission meeting,
did accept the density of 6.0 units per acre, and we feel that's an
appropriate density.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're comfortable -- just being
clear, you had had 6.4 originally. You're comfortable at the 6.0?
MR. NEALE: 6.0 would be a very comfortable level. We feel it's
an appropriate transitional density from projects such as Wyndemere,
which is just across the tomato field from this project. Possibly I
can iljustrate that a little better with a drawing here on the video
visualizer, if we can get that up on the screen. Everybody in the
background's asleep?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to press the button.
MR. NEALE: There we go.
As you can see there, this project -- let me -- is right in the
center of the screen now, and down a little bit further. Here are the
tomato fields that I'm referring to. Here's Wyndemere, Grey Oaks,
Kensington Park, La Costa.
(At which time, Commissioner Hancock enters the board room.)
MR. NEALE: La Costa is at seven units per acre, 6.99. The rest
of these range at a net density of about three units per acre.
This is inside the density band. Most of those are outside the
density band, with the exception of La Costa. And so we feel that as
a transitional zone from the approximately three units -- net units
per acre at Wyndemere to the six units per acre here is a reasonable
transition for the project.
If we can go back to the slide show now. There we go. As I say,
the density rating system would have permitted it up to seven. The
Page 63
July 28, 1998
petitioner has voluntarily taken a reduction of approximately 15
percent in density, versus what the maximum allowable would have been.
I've already covered the adjacent nearby uses and the intervening
property, so that's an area that we feel is quite acceptable and does
promote and help to support the request for six units per acre.
The developer in this project will extend Whippoorwill Lane as a
county road built to county standards with in-grade bike and sidewalk
lanes on each side. That will be at the developer's expense, and it
will be for the developer's maintenance until such time as the county
accepts that road.
Water and sewer will also be extended to the project by the
developer. And that's a development commitment that they're making.
There are residents along Whippoorwill now that are not served
either by a paved road or by water and sewer, so there would be --
homeowners would benefit by this just by the simple fact of building
the project.
The project also, in the PUD document, has some very significant
design restrictions on the kind of project that can be built. We've
got the permitted uses that include multi-family, two-family, single
family, as Mr. Nino described.
Limited accessory uses, really just a clubhouse facility, pool,
those kind of things, and a boat dock for the lake there, so that
people can take scenic tours around the lake.
That's -- some of us have a little -- there's a little humor in
there. Not -- very little, as a matter of fact.
Nonetheless, moving right along --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those scenic tours are going to be less
interesting in the future.
MR. NEALE: In the future, yeah, the scenic tours will become
less interesting.
The maximum height permitted in the project is 40 feet or three
stories; however, if any --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I finally got it.
MR. NEALE: -- buildings were going to be 40 feet or three
stories, they would be required to be set back 150 feet from the
project boundaries.
There are also buffering standards, architectural standards,
lighting and signage standards, all of which are shown in the packet
that we provided to you.
And one of the things is roof coverings and things like that are
being restricted to shake roofs and things like that, so we don't get
a -- this sort of massive look of all one color roofs stretching out
to infinity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Very important. We learned
that one the hard way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice to know people are listening out
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because as you go through a lot of these
standards, there are things that we have had to kind of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- try and plug into other PUD's, and it
seems like you've picked up on most, if not all, of them.
Page 64
July 28, 1998
MR. NEALE: Yeah, Mr. Hoover, of course, has done the planning on
this and tried to look at all the previous projects that had gone by
and make it as acceptable -- muted colors on the buildings are
required. Very nice lighting, signs. Entrance sign only will be on
the property at the end of Whippoorwill. It will be a muted sign and
so forth and so on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So as much as we're enjoying this slide
presentation --
MR. NEALE: We're ready whenever you are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris --
MR. NEALE: If the commissioners have any --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- do you have any questions?
MR. NEALE: -- questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Neale, do the owners of this property
intend to be the developers, or is this speculative zoning?
MR. NEALE: This currently is a speculative project, but of
course if the board adopts the PUD ordinance, all of the PUD
requirements in the document, we go forward with the project. So
whoever would buy this buys what you approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Something that I see in the
executive summary that we were furnished that I don't see in your
presentation is a notation that intended uses may also include
assisted living facilities. MR. NEALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, since I've been on the board, I've
really asked people to tell us what they're going to do. And what
you're really saying here is we're either going to build some
multi-family or maybe some single family or maybe assisted living. I
would really prefer to nail it down further than that.
MR. NEALE: Well, the maximum amount of assisted living that
would be permitted under the PUD document is 10 acres. There can be
no more than 10 acres of this project developed as assisted living
facility. So it would be restricted to a fairly small area. And as
Mr. Nino described, is it would be subtracted out at this current
density from the other density that would be permitted.
So it's an unlikely use, but there was one interest, as the
project was being developed, in a potential small area for assisted
living, to provide sort of -- I think it was almost a -- correct me if
I'm wrong, Bill, but almost a Bentley Village kind of concept where
you'd have condominiums for 55 plus transitioning into an assisted
living facility transitioning in. So that's -- that would be the only
possibility. But as I say, out of 80 acres, the maximum could be 10
acres.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there would be commensurate reduction,
if --
MR. NEALE: And commensurate reduction in total density, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying then that you're unwilling
to commit that it will be either one or the other and not an
alternative choice?
MR. NEALE: I defer to Mr. Hoover.
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover, of Hoover Planning.
Page 65
July 28, 1998
We don't have a problem if the ALF -- that was in there, put in
the PUD probably five months ago after we submitted the thing
originally in January. If any of the commissioners have a problem
with that, we do not have a problem with taking out the ALF, or we
could restrict it to the area in the west side of the lake, for
instance, where the project gets split by an FPL easement, and we
have, oh, maybe four or five acres west of the lake. And that was the
area that I was thinking might be appropriate for an ALF.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner, as far as I'm concerned,
there's going to be some flexibility on villas versus condos versus
townhouses versus ALF. As long as the density is set in stone, that's
what matters the most to me, not how the particular use is laid out.
For my vote, anyway.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, that's helpful, but for my
vote, I'd prefer to have something set firmly.
MR. NEALE: Well, we -- as Mr. Hoover says, we'll make the
commitment that if there were to be any ALF development, it would be
restricted to that area next to the lake up in the north --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. NEALE: -- east area, I guess.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to agree with Commissioner
Mac'Kie in that all of them are variants of residential activity, and
if there is some cap then to the number of people that can be residing
there, regardless of what form that appears in, I'm comfortable.
I think -- I share your concern when some of these come forward
and have -- maybe we'll have commercial, maybe we'll have this level
of commercial, maybe we'll have -- I get very concerned when that's
the unknown. Virtually all of these are residential of one nature or
another, so if we know residential and there's a cap on the number of
people that are going to be there per acre, or residences that will be
there per acre, I'm comfortable with it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Neale, I need to ask this as a -- I
guess on the same issue. If you set 10 acres aside for ALF, and let's
assume you were approved at six units an acre, okay, for the purpose
of mathematics at this point, are you telling me that on that 10 acres
you'd only build 60 ALF units?
MR. NEALE: What they would be built at is the current ratio
that's permitted for ALF, which is, I believe, a floor area ratio of
.45.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, this is where I don't think there is
an equity here. And that is if you're doing total ALF, we have a
ratio of .45 because generally the external impacts of ALF are less
than residential, okay? What you just said is that in the end we have
the same number of people, and that's not the case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps I misunderstood what Mr.
Nino had said at the beginning when you had said we'd back that out
pro rata wise, or do that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on the ratio.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My impression then, we'd have the same
number. So that may be my misunderstanding.
Page 66
July 28, 1998
MR. NINO: What I meant to say is if they develop 10 acres of ALF
facilities, they would develop those ALF facilities at the current
requirement that's developed for ALF facilities, but they would exempt
-- they would delete or take away or deduct six -- if you approve six
times then -- 60 dwelling units from the otherwise authorized --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. NINO: -- total number of dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me ask, Mr. Nino, because my
memory's not that good: On the ALF floor area ratio, when we talk
about 10 acres at a 40 foot height, whether it's 20 foot height or 40
foot height, all of a sudden we're talking about a different number of
units here. Do we know really how many ALF units we're talking about
under that floor area ratio? MR. NINO: It depends.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How big the units are.
MR. NINO: The floor area ratio would apply.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. NINO: The number of actual ALF facilities, however, units,
would be a function of the design of the project. How much of it is
in common facilities, how much of it is relatively independent versus
dependent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is where --
MR. NINO: And our experience is that you will not get more than
the 26 units that used to be the criteria.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't disagree with you. The problem is
that -- the question Commissioner Norris brought up is basically as we
have seen ALF applications and we've gone to a floor area ratio, one
of the things we see with that application are things such as common
facilities, building heights, how big the rooms are, and we get a
total picture of what the impact of that particular ALF is going to be
in that particular area.
The unknown here is that the unit size can change, the building
height is set, and we're really being asked to approve a use that we
don't really know the number of ALF units or the mix or the
orientation. And so I think it is an unknown in the PUD that I would
want you to commit to more than what we have here.
I understand our standards, Mr. Nino, I think they're good ones,
but we usually get more information on the ALF than we're getting with
this.
MR. NEALE: Commissioners, what we'd be willing to do is keep the
restriction at 10 acres and make it a conditional use within the PUD
so that any ALF or nursing home that was going to come forward would
have to come back to this board for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's perfect.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to see that. It would give
me a little -- a greater degree of comfort.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would help me a little bit, because
what Mr. Nino really just told us is that we could potentially get 26
units an acre, if I'm following you correctly, which means we would be
giving up 60 but taking back 260. So --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we were told this is a nursing home
Page 67
July 28, 1998
with beds, 26 units an acre makes sense. But if this is assisted
living in the sense that there's a doorman, 26 units an acre doesn't
make sense. And those are the things we've asked on ALF applications
in the past, and we just don't have that information.
MR. NEALE: As I say, I can appreciate the commissioners' desire
to have the detail and certainly will be happy to make an amendment to
the PUD document that it would be a conditional use.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And so by making an ALF use or an ALF type
use, or any other use other than residential, conditional use means
you'd have to come back for further approval.
MR. NEALE: That would have to come back to the board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With a specific proposal.
MR. NEALE: With a specific proposal, correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, are you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- clear on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's perfect.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're limited to 10 acres.
MR. NEALE: And limit that to 10 acres, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any further questions of the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if I may.
And I apologize, Mr. Neale, I was on the phone. But the tomato
fields to the south can request up to a maximum of four units per acre
because they're outside the density band; is that correct? MR. NEALE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We have talked to activity centers
in the past about making sure the transition is smooth from outside
the activity center to right up at the activity center, and in the
density band it's a maximum of seven. So we have a range of four to
seven. My concern here is if we jump to six on this land, we're more
or less agreeing to six or more between there and the intersection.
Because of -- again, as we look at compatibilities, you get closer to
the intersection of 1-75 and Pine Ridge Road, because of the external
impacts, you're going to want to buffer more for them, so, you know,
we tend to see a gradation as we move through these things. And
that's commonsense planning.
I'm afraid if we go straight to six, we're setting a benchmark
that is going to all but, you know, allow seven. Even though we'd
have to look at it, I think a compatibility argument can be made
between there and that corner for seven units an acre. And we've
really been issuing about six right in the activity center, has kind
of been our pattern.
I'd like a little more wiggle room and like to go at about five
and a half units an acre on this instead of six for the simple reason
that it gives us more flexibility on the land between this project and
the activity center, the physical activity center, to look at density
than does six. I think from a compatibility standpoint, a jump from
four to six is not necessarily something we would look at and agree
with all the time, and I wonder if anyone on the rest of the board has
a concern about that. If so, I think maybe four to five and a half
Page 68
July 28, 1998
units an acre makes a little more sense.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I kind of went with the six, Commissioner,
because they were -- they could have been at 6.4.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they could have requested seven.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, they could have requested seven.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they didn't. And I think that's a
tremendous recognition on your part that -- trying not to get
everything you can and --
MR. NEALE: And we're willing to concede to the six, you know, a
roughly 15 percent reduction in density.
The issues that may swing it toward the six here is the fact that
as we know, this project or parcel has a 200-foot Florida Power and
Light easement running through it which makes it a difficult project
to develop. Further, it's adjacent to 1-75 for quite a bit of its
length. So certainly those things make it somewhat more difficult to
develop than some of the other relatively easier projects as you move
closer to the activity center.
Further, a project that's somewhat similarly situated, which is
La Costa -- if I could have the video visualizer back again here for a
second? Hello? There we go -- which is La Costa right here, that
project is at 6.99.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. NEALE: And it's roughly at the same spot in the density band
and so forth as this project, so we're really giving -- for lack of a
better term, giving up a full unit, almost, for a similarly situated
kind of property, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that has been done as a high quality
project. But we were dealing really with the developer at that
application time.
So if I were you, Mr. Neale, I'd be asking for six or more also.
I don't disagree with that. I think an argument can be made. My
concern is the jump from four to six across one property line. I
think maybe that could be less. I don't think I feel that strongly
that I would vote against the project at six, but it's still a concern
for me. I'd like to see it at five and a half, if we can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would -- if I may?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- would have joined in that concern,
Commissioner, except for adjacent to the 1-75. That's what swings it
for me that six is the right way. And I frankly hadn't even factored
in the FP&L easement. That's sort of their problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was factored in the purchase price,
too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, they bought it that way, so I'm not
going too far on that one. But --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to express it as a concern, and I
don't want it to dominate the conversation, but I did want to express
that.
MR. NEALE: This photo shows -- it's glarey, but over in the one
corner, you can see here, this is the Florida Power and Light
easement, so it really sort of isolates and strands that one piece of
property, plus you've got all of this along 1-75, so it's a fair --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your points, Mr. Neale.
Page 69
July 28, 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? Ail right, I'll close
the public hearing.
Do we have any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing and
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the six unit planning --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- recommendation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Planning Commission
recommendation, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. With the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a commitment to be made, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct, with the commitment made on
the --
MR. NEALE: Conditional use for the ALF.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Conditional use for ALF and maximum 10
acres for ALF, with a commensurate reduction in residential density.
I haven't been able to talk you into 5.5,
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
huh?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
would prefer to see 5.5.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Well, I think you've talked me into it. I
I'm not going to second the motion.
I think it's been seconded, but it's going
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It hasn't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to need four votes, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's been seconded.
MR. HOOVER: Pam, also, if you would include in the motion that
the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion's not going to count, Bill,
because we're not going to have four votes --
MR. NEALE: We're not going to have four votes --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for six, so I'll withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I feel far more -- I understand
all your -- and Mr. Neale, you made a good argument. I don't disagree
with it entirely. I just -- making that jump from four to six, I
can't find comfort in it. I'm going to ask that we go to 5.5 units an
acre.
Is your motion still on the floor --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion we approve PUD-98-1
with Planning Commission recommendations and following changes: The
overall project density be limited to 5.5 units per acre and the ACLF
be listed as a conditional use requiring board approval with a maximum
of 10 acres.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Mr. Hoover had something he --
MR. HOOVER: Yes. Excuse me. Before you came in, we had a new
Page 70
July 28, 1998
PUD master plan we brought to staff last week, and Ron Nino mentioned
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HOOVER: It was a very minor change, but we -- I think your
motion, it needs to be including the --
MR. NEALE: And it's the amended PUD master plan.
MR. HOOVER: -- PUD master plan.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I'll revise the motion to
state that it include the amended master plan.
And I also want to say thanks for putting pictures in our packet
in the PUD. They really help a lot in seeing what you're trying to
do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. NEALE: Our pleasure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And second amends.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So we're at what now as far as
density?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Five-five.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 5.5.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 5.5.
Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. NEALE: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 98-268 RE PETITION AV 97-017 VACATING A PORTION OF THE LAKE
MAINTENANCE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LYING WITHIN TRACT F, OF THE PLAT OF
KETCH CAY AT WINDSTAR~ UNIT TWO - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to the next item, petition
AV-97-017. This has to do with a vacation of a portion of lake
maintenance and drainage easement within tract F, having to do with
Ketch Cay at Windstar.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problems of technology, the
disassembly period.
MR. NEALE: It's easy to put it together, it's tough to take it
apart.
MR. GRIGG: Good afternoon, Rick Grigg, planning services.
This easement -- this petition is to vacate a lake maintenance
and drainage easement, just a small portion of it, so that the
proposed houses can be built and not be encroaching any easement.
There won't be any modification of the lake or the lake bank, but
I have received two letters of objection from the people that live
there in that subdivision.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What was the basis of the objection?
MR. GRIGG: Mr. Craugh (phonetic) said that when he first built
in there, there was a lot of restrictions on what type of house, what
type of roof, what colors, et cetera, and he's saying that the
developer now is changing that a little bit.
Page 71
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe that's a discussion he needs to
hold with the developer and not the County Commission.
MR. GRIGG: And Mr. Sabella (phonetic) said that with the larger
homes, it might block his view of the lake. But I don't believe
that's the case.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't believe that again is a discussion
for the County Commission, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does -- I'm sorry, if I may. Does this
vacation still leave an adequate maintenance easement around the lake
to make sure the lake is maintained properly?
MR. GRIGG: Yes, it does. John Boldt has a letter of no
objection, and it gives us at least 20 feet from the water.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other further questions from the
commissioners?
Do we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers? All right, then I'll
close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, since the two objections
don't seem to relate to the vacation specifically, then I'll move
approval of the vacation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
this petition.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Thank you very much.
Second.
We have a motion and a second for approval of
Motion carries five-zero.
Page 72
July 28, 1998
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 98-269 RE CCSL-98-4, BRETT D. MOORE, OF HUMISTON & MOORE
ENGINEERS, REPRESENTING A.C. AND DOROTHY C. SCHEPPNER, REQUESTING A
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT LOT 33, BLOCK A,
REPLAT OF UNIT 1~ CONNOR'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED
Next item is petition CCSL-98-4. This is requesting a coastal
construction setback line variance in Connor's area of Vanderbilt
Beach Estates.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
services director.
This is really a standard CCSL variance request. The property
owners will be removing the existing structures and reconstructing.
And based on that fact, they're required to come back through the
process, because the original coastal construction control line
variance was very site specific. However, there is no intent to
further encroach upon the coastal construction control line setback
variance and, therefore, staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're expanding the footprint, Mr.
Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: They -- they are building a larger home, but
they're not going any further seaward than the existing structure did.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any letters of objection on this?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir, no letters or phone calls in objection.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this
item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no questions, I'll close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'll move petition CCLS-98-4
with staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. NINO: May I have the visualizer, please?
Page 73
July 28, 1998
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 98-65 RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION OF COUNTY FUNDS REGARDING
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ADDRESSING THE BURDEN
OF PAYMENT FOR THE STATE COURT SYSTEM ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 12(C) (3), recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners consider approval of an ordinance
relating to the appropriation of county funds, et cetera. This also
relates back to companion items that were on the earlier agenda, items
9(A) and 10(F), I believe.
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, good afternoon. Robert Zachary, for the
County Attorney's Office.
Good start, I didn't trip on the way up here saying State
Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So far, so good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're destined for success, Mr. Zachary.
MR. ZACHARY: This agenda item relates to, as you said, the three
items: The ordinance, a contract as a companion to that ordinance,
and resolution that I'll defer to Mr. Hancock to explain to the board.
A quick background. The board authorized back in March for staff
to bring back an ordinance with respect to the Florida Association of
Counties campaign to support the revision, revision seven to the
Florida constitution dealing with court funding.
Along toward the end of April or May, the attorney general was
asked for an opinion as to whether county funds could be expended for
that purpose. The attorney general basically said yes, the county
could expend funds to support a political committee, and would
authorize the county to support an opinion as to that campaign, the
referendum campaign at that time.
The committee was formed, and at that time the constitutional
revision committee had not approved the revision. So the Floridians
for Fairness in Court Funding was formed, a political committee by the
FAC, the Florida Association of Counties, to initiate a referendum
campaign. It came out of the CRC that they had -- they were going to
put that revision seven on the ballot. So the Floridians for Fairness
in Court Funding, their mission became one to support and encourage
voter approval of this amendment, this revision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Zachary, obviously if we were to have
an explanation that indicated all the work you've put on this, we'd be
here at 12:00 --
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, let me give you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- midnight, because you've done a lot of
work. So I think since the board has already voted to participate in
this, you probably want to kind of go to the nuts and bolts of your
discussions with the clerk and FAC. Do we have something that
everyone's valid and agreed upon?
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, we do. Specifically, since the Floridians for
Fairness, the committee, is going to receive the money, initially we
thought the money would go to the Florida Association of Counties.
Now we've -- it's clear that the Floridians for Fairness in Court
Funding needs the money, the political committee. So we're going to
revise -- the ordinance needs to be revised because of the initial
Page 74
July 28, 1998
belief that it was going to go to the Association of Counties. We'll
contract directly with the Floridians for Fairness in Court Funding,
the political committee. So those minute changes need to be made in
both the ordinance and the contract, that it's not -- the FAC doesn't
have anything to do with it, it's the political committee.
There were some changes that the clerk insisted on in order to
protect the public's money. It's centered around several paragraphs
in the contract. This morning we had a conference call and the
counsel for the committee, the clerk and our office, are all in
agreement on specific language to the contract at this point. So
everybody's on the same page as far as the ordinance and contract.
I think what needs to be done is for the commission to approve in
concept both things: Both the ordinance and the contract for
signature later by you, Madam Chairman. And our office will change
those things that need to be changed in both documents. But other than that, we're all in agreement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, this has been
your baby. You're comfortable this does what we need it to do?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. This is in essence saying that we
believe it's worth $52,000 to save seven million dollars of taxpayer
money in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Annually.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Annually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think we have two obligations, and
the third I can explain to you after we get through the first two, or
two duties today: One is to -- is to approve item 12(C) (3) with
specific wording to be placed, as indicated by the county attorney,
that the clerk and FAC agreed upon for the chairman's signature, and
the second is to approve the contract, which is 9(A). But if you have
any questions, please, let me know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only question I have, Commissioner, is I
don't know necessarily for you or for Mr. Zachary or for whom, but
after we do all this, at what point in time is the check cut and when
is it sent? Because I'm the one that's getting the phone calls about
where's the money. So I need to know what the time frame is here on
what we're doing.
MR. ZACHARY: We had set up that the -- all the money would be
paid to the committee by, I think, September 30th. It's around that
time. But in installments as decided on by the county, or as up to
the county administrator, I believe is the way we worded it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I thought they were expecting the
money in a lump sum.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what I thought, too, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can financially provide it in a lump
sum, we're still dealing with the same fiscal year, why not just go
ahead and do it? Maybe we need to include in the motion that we make
the request for the funds to be supplied as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If the hearing was closed, then we could
make that motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we will, as soon as we get some of
these questions answered.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are more than 50 counties out of 67
Page 75
July 28, 1998
financially participating in this. We are certainly not alone or
leaders. We are in fact part of a larger group fighting for the same
issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you -- have other counties experienced the
same kind of a problem?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Only one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pinellas County has some things to iron
out. I don't know of any other counties that have had any road -- you
know, any speed bumps. That's -- to me that's not important. What's
important --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that our clerk has worked with us to
find language that is acceptable, and he feels he can perform his
duties adequately, and we arrived at that today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. ZACHARY: As far as that goes, the money's in the bank. The
budget amendment to authorize this was 98-191, and it was approved,
previously approved.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr.
Zachary.
Do we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I'll close the public hearing, if there
are no further questions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm going to move approval of
item 12(C) (3) with the caveat that the specific wording that was
agreed upon by the clerk, the county attorney's office and FAC be
included in the contract for your signature. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we have a motion and a second.
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very
much.
Item #gA
WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR
REFERENDUM INFORMATION SERVICES - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm going to ask that
we untable item 9(A) .
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to untable item
9 (A).
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, my next motion will be to
approve item 9(A), the contract with FA -- with Floridians for
Page 76
July 28, 1998
Fairness in Court Funding, I believe is the contract. It's not
necessarily with FAC; is that correct?
MR. ZACHARY: It's no longer with FAC. Everybody's in agreement
on the language. The clerk is satisfied that he will have sufficient
oversight of county funds. Basically everybody's on board. And we
need to revise our contract to reflect those changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion includes those revisions from
the county attorney's office, as stated. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
or concerns?
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Any questions
Page 77
July 28, 1998
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 98-270 DECLARING ITS INTENT, UPON APPROVAL BY VOTERS
STATEWIDE OF AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 14 OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION, TO LOWER PROPERTY TAX RATES IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if you'll allow me, item
10(F) was not officially tabled. It was deemed a companion item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Item 10(F) is a resolution that I have
proposed that basically says -- and we understand these resolutions
are in essence nonbinding, but it clearly shows the intent of the
board that should the electors in the State of Florida, the voters in
the State of Florida approve amendment seven, resulting in --
somewhere in the area of seven million dollars annually that the local
taxpayers do not have to fund the state court system with, that we as
a board will complete that cycle by returning the money to the
taxpayer, making sure that we see a tax rate reduction in Collier
County. That's simply what the resolution says.
I have avoided putting amounts in there, because we really don't
know the exact amounts of what a lot of these things are. We have
round numbers in the area of seven million dollars. But the bottom
line is, this whole campaign is about putting money back in the local
taxpayer's pocket and stop funding a state responsibility. And I
think it's incumbent upon us to state that that would be also our
intent, is to give the taxpayer a break if they in fact approve
amendment number seven.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Instead of just spending it because it's
found money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of absorbing it in the budget and
it disappearing, as governments tend to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a concept.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may have projects out in the future, we
may need additional funding, but there is no way we need seven million
dollars in funding in that year to make something happen. If we do,
we're not doing our job right today. So I just think we have a
responsibility to tell the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- public, you know, if you approve it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
resolution.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to thank Mr. Zachary and Mr.
Manalich for doing a fantastic job on this, right up to the last
minute. It's not an easy subject, but I do appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
Page 78
Item #12C4
July 28, 1998
RESOLUTION 98-271 REDUCING THE REGULATORY ASSESSMENT FEE FROM THREE
PERCENT TO ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUES FOR NONEXEMPT
PRIVATELY OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS - ADOPTED
Item four was an item moved from 17(A), which was the summary
agenda, I believe.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This item I will be moving approval on
momentarily, but I wanted to kind of highlight. This is a great
success story for the board.
Prior to any of us being on the board in 1989, again in 1990 and
1992, Golden Gate and Florida Cities' private utility had huge
increases on the rates it charged its payers. I know SSU had a
similar situation on Marco Island.
And so we undertook, once this board was in the -- the current
board was in its place, we undertook the opportunity to retake control
over that, instead of having the PSC control those rates at the state
level. Not only has the number of increases dropped dramatically and
actually been some drop in rates in some of those, but the
administrative charges, when the state was doing it, were at four and
a half percent. It went down to three percent last year. This item
will take it down to one and a half percent, saving the ratepayer, in
just a little four square miles of Golden Gate, and a handful of other
small utilities, almost a half million dollars a year.
So this is one of those where what we had set out to do, we have
achieved. And sometimes we don't give us -- ourselves enough credit
for a job well done. This is one where we said we could save money by
doing it this way, and we really have. It's panned out very, very
well for the ratepayer.
With that, motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and an item (sic) to
approve item 17(A).
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Motion carries five-zero.
Page 79
July 28, 1998
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 98-272 RE PETITION V-98-6 MR. TERRANCE KEPPLE, REPRESENTING
JOHN MAGOCS, REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 15 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
SETBACK WHEN ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO 10 FEET, A 5 FOOT
VARIANCE FORM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET AND 5.5
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT TO
4.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 96TH AVENUE NORTH,
LOT 47f BLOCK 60~ NAPLES PARKf UNIT 5 - ADOPTED
Moving on then to petition V-98-6.
MR. NINO: The viewfinder, please.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This has to do with a variance concerning a
setback.
Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we need to swear people in?
MR. NINO: -- for the record, planning services. We need to be
sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, anyone wishing to speak to this item,
please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. NINO: The petition that's before you is a petition to vary
-- is -- first of all, it's located on the south side of 96th Avenue
North, west of Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41. It's the last lot, most
westerly lot, in a series of lots that are zoned C3.
As a C3 zoning district, the setbacks and side yards that are
required is 15 feet on each side; however, under the condition where
the property is adjacent to residential, then a 25-foot setback kicks
in.
The bottom line is that the application of all the setback
requirements virtually render the lot unbuildable, unless it is
consolidated with other property adjacent to it. And for that reason,
the petitioner has requested a variance from 25 feet to 10.6, from 15
feet to 10, and a reduction in the buffer requirements in order to
make this lot reasonably buildable.
The Planning Commission, in hearing this petition, by a vote of
four to one recommended that the variances be granted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other option would be to build a
one-lane bowling alley?
MR. NINO: I guess you're right.
There were no objections from any area residents to the granting
of the variances.
I'd be able -- I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, do we know the intended use of
the building?
MR. NINO: I believe the petitioner intends to build an office
building. We might ask Mr. Kepple.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is I remember one in
Naples Park was asking for a variance, and they were asking for a use
that had a parking generator that was higher than other acceptable
Page 80
July 28, 1998
uses in the zoning district. As a result, that particular use was
creating a hard -- it was creating the problem. In other words, it
wasn't a what I call a minimum use, it was a moderate to high
intensity use for that zoning district. Because the parking
generation was shoving the building so far back, it was infringing
upon the setbacks.
As I look at this, not that 1,500 feet is a big building, but
basically that's bigger than most of the houses on these 50 -- any of
these 50-foot lots. I see five parking spaces.
I start to wonder how much of a mix of reduction in building
size, creating a reduction in parking, reduces the impact on the
setback, and what is an appropriate mix of that.
I'm not sure with five parking spaces -- when you talk about
office and general office or whatnot, I guess I want to hear from the
petitioner or the petitioner's representative about what specific uses
are intended for the building. Because my reaction is that there's
going to be some encroachment that we're going to have to make an
allowance for, because you're right, it's a little unreasonable for a
25 foot setback on a 50-foot lot. But that 25-foot setback is in the
depth, not just the width, okay? The width, I believe, is a five foot
-- or 15-foot requirement because the height of the building, of which
they're asking for five. So the width is less of a problem for me.
I think the depth setback could be met or could be close to being
met, depending on the types of uses and the building, so I'd like to
hear something about that so we can make an informed decision.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we can get a commitment out of
real estate magnate Magocs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming up, Mr. Weigel, could
you be finding out, are we supposed to have a copy of the trust when
there's a trustee owner/applicant for a variance, or is that
irrelevant for voting conflict questions?
MR. WEIGEL: If I heard you, the copy of the trust or the
identification of the trustee ownership?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least just some representation of the
beneficiaries of the trust.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's been the policy of the board to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we do need that --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for variances? It's not in my packet.
MR. NINO: I can't speak to it. It wasn't my petition to begin
with. I didn't know --
MR. KEPPLE: If I may, Terrance Kepple, for the record, Kepple
Engineering.
To answer your question, I do not believe it was included. It was
not requested and we did not include it. Mr. Magocs is the
beneficiary of the trust, I believe. Upon his death, his family
members are the remainder -~
MR. MAGOCS: Brother of the family.
MR. KEPPLE: -- of the trust.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I mean, I don't know this
gentleman. I'm confident if it's all him, I don't have a conflict.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's sufficient.
MR. KEPPLE: It is.
Page 81
July 28, 1998
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Great.
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. We are requesting a variance, and
as I believe Mr. Constantine stated, we could build a bowling alley on
here.
The little exhibit I put up on the wall, under current codes,
without asking for any variances, we can build two parking spaces and
a 735 square foot building, which is basically 14 feet wide and
whatever the length is, 40 feet long.
The parking restricts the size of that building more than
anything. Without any variances, we can only put two parking spaces
on that lot. Because once you turn the parking spaces sideways in the
lot, there is not enough width on a 50-foot lot to put any parking
spaces. They do not meet code. By code we're required 10 foot side
yard buffers in the parking aisle and parking space will take up 42
feet of a 50-foot lot. So we're restricted by the parking to start
with.
And the setback, building setback, is the other criteria. We are
asking for a building setback from the side yard, side yards only.
We're not asking for front or rear side -- front or rear building
setback variances. And we're asking for a buffer reduction for the
parking area from the required 10 feet to five on one side and 4.5
feet on the other side.
As far as the use of the building, it's being designed as an
office building with the required parking for an office building.
However, the petitioner does have someone that's interested in running
a day care out of it, which would also be required to meet the same
parking criteria. They could not have more children or staff than
would be permitted by the maximum number of parking spaces that they
have on the site.
Staff has commented through the process that they would like to
see these smaller lots combined with other lots. And agreeably that's
the preferred way to do it. However, the three lots to the east that
are also zoned commercial are under single ownership, not currently
available for combining with this lot, leaving this lot -- at this
time either we can build a very small building with two parking spaces
or we can ask for a variance and build a better looking building and
help try to spruce up the neighborhood a little bit, if we can.
That's basically what we're asking for. What we've come up with
is a site plan. Those are the minimum variances that we need to build
a decent sized building, 1,500 square feet, more or less, and the
required parking for that building.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Kepple?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think the request is
unreasonable. I think we want to make sure we protect the neighboring
properties. And I don't know if -- on that -- the side nearest the
neighboring property where we're going to have the variance for
parking, whether we dress that up a little bit just to --
MR. KEPPLE: We have proposed a six foot high hedge along that
entire west property line to separate the two properties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that maybe makes it a little
more livable. But I don't think anything you're asking for here is
unreasonable at all.
Page 82
July 28, 1998
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think with the idea of the hedge, I think
that that takes care of the neighbors over on the one side. And the
other side's vacant; is that correct? MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And commercial.
MR. MAGOCS: And commercial.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And commercial.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, Mr. Magocs, you have a
reputation for doing good projects in the Golden Gate area. And that
means a lot. Because if I didn't know anything about you, I tend not
to look at these very favorably in Naples Park. Neither do the
residents there.
My -- you know, my first inkling is to cut the building site down
a little bit and get rid of one parking space. Sounds like I may be
going solo on that. So with a six foot hedge on that property line.
What is planned on the rear property line? Is there residential
behind this building?
MR. KEPPLE: Behind this property is currently a day care. That
property is also owned by the same -- by the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kepple, the six foot hedge, would that
run the entirety of the property line on that side?
MR. KEPPLE: The entire length up to about 10 feet back from the
front property line so we don't obstruct sight distance coming out of
the driveway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that obscures the parking area
also?
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the 80 percent opacity within
one year --
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- all of the landscape requirements we
have?
MR. KEPPLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, if there's no further questions, I'll
close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve
petition V-98-6.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
The next item has been continued indefinitely.
Page 83
July 28, 1998
Item #14A
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK CONTRACT REGARDING RETAINING LARRY
PIVACEK FOR CERTAIN LITIGATION
And now we are down to any communications from our staff.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I do have one. Just to let you
know that the board had asked for an item to be brought back at this
meeting regarding the CBIA's request for waiver of impact fees. I've
been informed that that request has been withdrawn, and that's why it
did not appear on your agenda today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. As you may be aware, our primary
litigation attorney, Larry Pivacek, has tendered a letter of
resignation to be effective August 14th, Friday, two weeks from this
Friday. And also, another of our litigation attorneys, Ms. Vasquez,
has left this afternoon for maternity leave and will be out for a
period of time.
I think that it's in the best interest of the county, and some of
the significant litigation and claims that our office is working on in
behalf of the county, to continue a relationship with Larry Pivacek
while we look to replace the litigation attorney in our office.
I've spoken both with Leo Ochs and Jeff Walker in this regard.
As you may be aware, some of the cases are recovery cases. It's
important for both reasons of continuity and the best process of
avoiding spending a lot of time bringing other attorneys in who have
not spent hundreds of hours on the cases as Larry has, and for the
relationship of the outside insurance carriers, to maintain Mr.
Pivacek for a period of time to assist on certain cases and claims
until we can do all of the -- essentially all of the case
representation in-house.
With next week's board meeting, the last meeting before another
hiatus, I would request, with the assistance of Mr. Fernandez, to
bring back a conceptual approval, if not an outright contract approval
on next week's board meeting, for Mr. Pivacek, similar to what we have
done a couple of times in the past where we've had an attorney leave
with consummate knowledge and prior to discovery work on some of these
cases.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Pivacek going to a firm?
MR. WEIGEL: He's going to be in private practice in the
community, apparently practicing on his own at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
with that firm, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
firm, but --
him.
I was just questioning about conflicts
Opening unknown doors.
-- good for him.
I was going to ask the same thing, what
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pivacek.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pivacek, Pivacek and Pivacek.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Good for him. Bad for us, good for
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do whatever you have to do.
Page 84
July 28, 1998
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I will. And again, my intent is to continue
the relationship with him so that nothing is lost with the discovery
and case preparation that we have right now. At the same time, Larry
has assured me -- we've had fine conversation in regard to his
assisting our own attorneys that we have right now and any other
attorney that we should hire hopefully in the near future, so that the
county can bounce back and be fully responsible for these matters.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #15A
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO CHECK ON CABLE SITUATION ON MARCO ISLAND
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right, Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I look forward to another four years.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, you do.
Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do have one more thing. I hope the
commission will indulge me just for a moment. Back when we were
having our discussion relative to the television franchise fees for
Marco Island, I neglected to point out to the commission that our
ordinance references the unincorporated area of Collier County, for
one thing.
And for the other, the purpose of the franchise fee is really the
leasing or rental of the right-of-way of the roads or so forth where
the television cables are placed. So since Marco Island now owns
those right-of-ways, it seems to me that a case can be made quite
succinctly that Marco Island should get those fees.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if they don't own the bridges.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they own those bridges. They own the
bridges.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Point --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So I would ask -- we never did vote on
that, so I would like to ask the commission perhaps to reconsider it
next week or vote on it right now, for that matter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't share your opinion. I know
you'll be shocked, but I don't share your opinion on that. And maybe
Mr. Weigel can do a little homework during the upcoming week. But I'm
still not comfortable with -- I'm certainly not prepared right now to
say let's give that away.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there's some reason, some legal reason
why we should, I'd certainly want to know about it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can tell you right now, the charter -- it's,
you know, interesting how the charter works for Marco, but it provides
that the county ordinances apply until they develop their own
ordinances generally.
And that was my comment earlier during the discussion of the
item, that typically that is the case, and that seems to be the case
specifically with their charter, and, therefore, I think it would
behoove them to develop an ordinance, put it in place, and then the
Page 85
July 28, 1998
pieces are perhaps in place for the next steps to occur.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirteen years from now.
MR. WEIGEL: Period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whenever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- commissioners, I don't think
this is a burning issue that has to be done, as some other issues,
right away. I would rather have a thorough legal review and
understand where we stand than to make a hasty decision on this. So
if Mr. Weigel can provide us something next Tuesday that answers all
those questions so we can make a decision, great. If he cannot do so
fully by Tuesday, then let's table it for a later meeting.
But I don't mind discussing it again, because I want to be fair
to the folks on Marco Island, I want to be fair to the folks down
there that we negotiated in good faith for cable rates and for cable
service on their behalf. But, you know, I -- after Commissioner
Constantine's comments about, you know, more government, it still kind
of rings with me a little bit, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and just let me see if I understand
the issue, because I can see the theory behind your renting from the
government the right to lay the cable along the sides of the road, and
that's persuasive.
The other -- the flip side is we hired some top-notch people who
spent what, two years negotiating this deal, that now we're just going
to say here, photocopy it, it's yours, you know, glad we could be of
service. I wonder if we're giving away something that belongs to the
citizens in general of Collier County. That's my hesitancy with that.
But I want to know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I feel like this needs a further
review, and I don't think we're ready at this point in time,
particularly today, to make a decision on this. But I think whatever
is the appropriate time when you have researched this issue, Mr.
Weigel, then it would be appropriate to come back.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I mean, we could in fact make it an
item of discussion or action even for next week, if you'd like, or if
you prefer, you know, when you come back at the first of September.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If my memory serves me right, we've loaded
your plate for next week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not sure that this is an item that is
requiring, you know, midnight oil type thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's say early September for next review.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate the commission's
willingness to at least keep it open for discussion and review it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You'll find that we're pretty congenial,
John.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. Some of us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, some of us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, what words of
wisdom do you have for us today?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I must say that -- and this happens
every June. At the end of June when we prepare to go on our break
after four board meetings and three or four or five budget hearings
Page 86
July 28, 1998
every year and two Land Development Code hearings, we've usually all
seen enough of each other and are ready for our break, but I must say
with all sincerity, it's good to be back. Good to see you guys.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, thanks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He said it to me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know he's talking to me. Four more
years.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, it's really getting deep in here.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly have my pant legs
rolled up, because it's very deep.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just waiting for the next thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I did have one other item. No, I
don't, I don't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was sucking up for some reason.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, genuinely good to be back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted you to know, I was not going
to jump on what you said at all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, you're very kind.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I too am looking for four more years,
so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm just looking. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're looking to leave.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And congratulations to Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You won by a margin of one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It certainly is nice to not have a campaign
to have to worry about, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know how that works, you won by a
margin of one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A hundred percent of one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A hundred percent.
Anyway, if there's nothing further -- Ms. Filson, do you have
anything for us?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than a new haircut.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The meeting is adjourned.
Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 98-237, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PHASE OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT
ONE, REPLAT, BLOCK A"
Page 87
July 28, 1998
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 98-238, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT
ONE~ REPLAT OF BLOCK C~ FIRST ADDITION"
Page 88
July 28, 1998
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 98-239 AND 98-240 RE CASE NUMBERS 70623-012 AND 70804-021,
RECORD OWNERS WALLACE L. JOYCE, LAWARENCE JOYCE, JOAN H. HUBBARD,
BARBARA SHOWALTER, PATRICIA HAROSKEWICZ, JUDITH J. CORSO AND LAUREN
BOWERS
Page 89
July 28, 1998
Item #16A4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM FUND 113 RESERVES FOR THE COST
OF REFURBISHING THE PARKING LOT AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING,
RELATED LANDSCAPING UPGRADES AND THE ADDITION OF A CUSTOMER SERVICE
COUNTER IN THE FRONT LOBBY
Item #16A5
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER ENTERPRISES REALTY
GROUP, INC. FOR PARKING SPACE FOR COUNTY AND EMPLOYEE VEHICLES AT THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUILDING
Page 90
July 28, 1998
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF "TROON LAKES" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 91
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "MONT CLAIRE AT PELICAN MARSH"
July 28, 1998
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF .WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT FOUR,, - WITH STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE S~RY
Page 92
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT THREE"
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
July 28, 1998
WITH STIPULATIONS AS
Page 93
July 28, 1998
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 98-241, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWRE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT
ONE, REPLAT, BLOCK B" -
Page 94
July 28, 1998
Item #16All
FINAL PLAT OF "KENSINGTON PARK PHASE FOUR" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 95
July 28, 1998
Item #16A12
FINAL PLAT OF "WESTVIEW PLAZA REPLAT" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "CARDINAL COVE AT FIDDLER'S CREEK" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY
Page 96
July 28, 1998
Item #16A14 - Continued to 8/4/98
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PARK PLACE WEST"
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "LELY GOLF VILLAS"
Item #16A16
FINAL PLAT OF VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUHMARY
Page 97
July 28, 1998
Item
FINAL PLAT OF .P~LICAN MARSH D-NIT
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIV~
Page 98
July 28, 1998
Item #16A18
FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 99
July 28, 1998
Item #16A19
FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT TWELVE,, - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUM/4ARY
Page 100
July 28, 1998
Item #16A20
PARTICIPATING PARY AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH WILLIAM T. HIGGS (DEVELOPER)
AND SHAW AERO DEVICES, INC. (COMPANY GENERATING NEW JOBS) AS A
REQUIREMENT FOR RECEIVING A $750,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT G~ANT
Page 101
Item #16B1
July 28, 1998
RESOLUTION 98-242, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WHEREIN COLLIER
COUNTY AGREES TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO
S.R. 45 (U.S. 41 NORTH) FROM GULF PARK DRIVE TO IMMOKALEE ROAD
Page 102
Item #16B2
July 28, 1998
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT FUND AND REDEEMING THE 1981 MARCO ISLAND WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS
Item #16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT CORRECTING APPROPRIATION OF DOLLARS IN FUND 102 MSTD
ROAD DISTRICT i
Item #16B4
FINAL RANKING OF CONSULTANTS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GREELEY AND HANSEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,541 FOR DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF 30-INCH PARALLEL SEWER FORCE MAIN ON IHMOKALEE ROAD,
RFP #98-2790~ PROJECT NO. 73943
Item #16B5
WORE ORDER #CDM-FT-98-7 FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (USEPA) ACCIDENTAL EMISSION RELEASE RISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PHASE I STUDY AT COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES,
PROJECT NO. 70027 WITH CAMP, DRESSER MCEEE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$68~700
Page 103
July 28, 1998
Item #16B6
STAFF SELECTION OF PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FIRMS
AND AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENTS TO A. GAIL BOORMAN; BOTNER LAND
DESIGN; MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES; AND WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC.
FOR FIXED-TERM PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE SERVICES (RFP-98-2777)
Item #16B7
CONSENT AGREEMENT #98-33 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT FOR THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL WIDENING PROJECT - IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $100,000
Page 104
July 28, 1998
Item #16B8
TWO BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECONCILE UTILITY COST OBLIGATIONS FOR THE
RECENTLY COMPLETED RATTLESNAKE HAHMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT (CIE
NO. 017) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000
Item #16B9
GRANT APPLICATION FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" FUNDING TO
MONITOR COUNTY AND CITY BEACHES FOR SEA TURTLE ACTIVITIES DURING THE
1999 NESTING/HATCHING SEASON IN THE AMOUNT OF $131~451.00
Item #16B10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 (FINAL) TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2629, SOUTH CHANNEL AND
WATER TURKEY BAY MAINTENANCE DREDGING - TO ENERGY RESOURCES, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $29,040.00
Page 105
Item #16Bll
July 28, 1998
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY (SCRWWTF) CONTRACT II, BID NO. 96-2551, PROJECT NO. 73053 - TO
PROJECT INTEGRATION~ INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $32~143.00
Page 106
July 28, 1998
Item #16B12
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MANATEE ROAD ASR POTABLE WATER UPGRADES,
BID #98-2813, PROJECT 70860 - AWARDED TO HAUSINER & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $498,000.00
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 98-243, RE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
TASK FORCE FOR THE HOMELESS, ALLOWING THE USE OF TWENTY (20) PARKING
SPACES AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX
Page 107
July 28, 1998
Item #16C2
STAFF TO AMEND CHAPTER 89-449, LAWS OF FLORIDA, A SPECIAL ACT RELATING
TO COLLIER COUNTY PARKS, AND BRING BACK A PROPOSED BILL FOR THE BOARD
TO PRESENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PLAYGROUND AT GOLDEN
GATE COMMUNITY PARK - IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000.00
Item #16C4
FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (F.R.D.A.P) GRANT
AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH NAPLES COM/41~NITY PARK
Page 108
July 28, 1998
Item #16C5
TERMINATION OF CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH COOL CONCESSIONS, INC. FOR
SERVICES AT BAREFOOT BEACH
Page 109
July 28, 1998
Item #16C6
RFP #97-2733, FITNESS CENTER EQUIPMENT - AWARDED TO BERRY'S BARBELL AND
EQUIPMENT AND ADVANCED FITNESS EQUIPMENT
Item #16C7
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE GULFCOAST SKIMMERS WATER SKI
SHOW, INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SUGDEN REIONAL PARK GRANDSTAND
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
Page 110
July 28, 1998
Item #16C8
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FUNDS FOR THE MARCO ISALDN FLOTILLA
BUILDING
Item #16C9
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TRANSFERRING $6,200.00 FROM THE LIBRARY AND PARKS
CAPITAL FUNDS TO THE MUSEUM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TO COMPLETE THE
MUSEUM OF THE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROJECT
Item #16C10
COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY CONTINUATION GRANT BETWEEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COM/4ISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
FLORIDAf INC.
Page 111
July 28, 1998
Item #16Cll
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE CONTINUATION GRANT AND CONTRACT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA~ INC.
Page 112
July 28, 1998
Item
HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY CONTINUATION GRANT AND RATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
Page 113
July 28, 1998
Item #16C13
RESOLUTION 98-244, REQUESTING THE COLLIER COUNTY COURT TO ISSUE ORDERS
TO SHOW CAUSE TO PERSONS WITH OUTSTANDING CITATIONS WRITTEN BY COLLIER
COUNTY A/~TMAn CONTROL OFFICERS
Page 114
July 28, 1998
Item
RENEWAL OF RFP #96-2521, ,,INDOOR AIR QUALITY CONTRACTOR FOR HVAC" - TO
PURE AIR INC. FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS
Item #16D2
RFP #97-2755 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER
SYSTEM AWARDED TO CADD DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $62~500.00
Item #16D3
APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,100.00 FROM RESERVES IN FUND 408,
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT OPERATING FUND TO PAY FOR PRIOR YEAR BANK
CHARGES
Item #16D4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Page 115
July 28, 1998
Item #16D5
BUDGET A/~NDMENTS FOR UNANTICIPATED BUILDING MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Item #16D6
CONTRACT MODIFICATION TO THE LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY (LMS) EXTENDING
THE FIRST CONTRACT DELIVERABLES FROM JUNE 30, 1998 TO OCTOBER 31, 1998;
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITIES OF EVERGLADES CITY, MARCO
ISLAND AND NAPLES; AND APPROVAL OF ATTACHMENT B TO THE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT WHICH PROHIBITS FEDERAL LOBBYING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY
Page 116
July 28, 1998
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS AND SETLEMENT COSTS FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR
1998
Item #16D8
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER ENTERPRISES REALTY
GROUP, INC. FOR STORAGE SPACE TO BE USED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
OFFICE
Page 117
July 28, 1998
Item #16D9 - Moved to Item #8D1
Item #16D10
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ROGER CARAVALLO FOR
ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR THE CLERK OF COURTS AT COURT PLAZA III
Page 118
July 28, 1998
Item #16Dll
RESOLUTION 98-245, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT
HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 119
July 28, 1998
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 98-246, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT
HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECITON AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 120
July 28, 1998
Item #16D13
RESOLUTION 98-247, RE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT
HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 121
July 28, 1998
Item #16D14
RESOLUTION 98-248, RE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT
HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 122
July 28, 1998
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-330, 98-336 AND 98-352
Item #16E2 - Deleted
Item #16E3
RATIFICATION OF CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE
Item #16E3A
SALARY TRANSFER OF PARKS AND RECREATION POSITIONS
Item #16E3B
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE REVENUES FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES
Item #16E3C
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-272, 98-294, 98-296 98-308, 98-312, 98-320 AND
98-321
Item #16E3D
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-324 AND 98-328
Item #16E3E
RESOLUTIONS 98-249 THROUGH 98-253, RE THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70512-032, MIMON BARON, OWNER OF RECORD;
CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70529-028, ANTONIO & FLOR MARULANDA, OWNERS
OF RECORD; CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70717-033, BRUCE T. & ELSYE K.
WHITMER, OWNERS OF RECORD; CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70718-096, EDWARD
R. & SYLVIA H. ASHER, OWNERS OF RECORD; AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
70917-045~ MIMON BARON, OWNER OF RECORD
Page 123
July 28, 1998
Item #16E3F
RESOLUTIONS 98-254 THROUGH 98-258, RE THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61114-010, J.P. & W.F. FOX, OWNER OF
RECORD; CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70210-023, ROBERT J. & LESLIE
FREDRICKSON, AKA LESLIE KAREN BECK, OWNERS OF RECORD; CODE ENFORCEMENT
CASE NO. 70418-065, JULIO DOMINQUEZ ESTATE, JOHN R. DOMINQUEZ, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE, OWNER OF RECORD; CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70505-088,
THOMAS & LORRAINE SANZALONE, OWNERS OF RECORD; AND 70522-030, MARLENE &
CASIMIRO EGUUIZABAL~ OWNERS OF RECORD
Page 124
July 28, 1998
Item #16E4
PROPOSAL RECEIVED UNDER RFP #98-2797, IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR LIBRARY, EMS
AND TRANSPORTATION - REJECTED! STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE RFP
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated~
Page 125
July 28, 1998
Item #16H1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL
EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENT AND THE FEDERAL ANNUAL CERTIFICATION REPORT
FORMS
Page 126
July 28, 1998
Item #16H2
PURCHASE OF TELEPHONE SWITCH UPGRADES FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAIN
FACILITY AT 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL AND TWO (2) SUBSTATIONS AND PURCHASE
OF ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FOR SAID TELEPHONE SWITCHES
Item #16H3
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ARNOLD PROPERTIES, INC. FOR
STORAGE SPACE TO BE UTILIZED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Page 127
July 28, 1998
Item #16H4
BOARD OF COUNTY COM/4ISSIONERS TO SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT
OF GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS FOR THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1998 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM
Page 128
July 28, 1998
Item #16H5
TRANSFER OF $9,000.00 FROM CIRCUIT COURT COSTS TO THE PUBLIC
GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM TRUST FUND
Item #17A Moved to Item #12C4
Item #17B - Continued to August 4, 1998
PETITION PUD-81-4(5), QUARLES AND BRADY REPRESENTING THE WYNDEMERE
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THYE WYNDEMERE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING
PERMANENT OFFICES FOR THE WYNDEMERE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND TO
AMEND THE MASTER PLAN TO INDICATE THE LOCATION FOR SAID OFFICES IN THE
WYNDEMERE PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST END OF THE PLANNED LIVINGSTON ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IN SECTION
10~ TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
SERVICE, INC., BY KELLEY BLECHA, RPR, AND CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY
Page 129
PUBLIC
July 28, 1998
Page 130