BCC Minutes 02/08/2000 RFebruary 8, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in a REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
James D. Carter
Mike McNees, Assistant County Administrator
David Wiegel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 8, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND
WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY .PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
1
February 8, 2000
=
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION - Reverend Maryann Dorner, Church of the Resurrection
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 11,2000 - Regular meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 21-27, 2000 as National
Patriotism Week. To be accepted by Ms. Joanne Newby, Chairman of
Americanism Committee, Naples Elks Lodge #2010
2)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 14-18, 2000 as National
School Counseling Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Ms. Kathy
Thomson, Center Director, Sylvan Learning Center
3)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 13-19, 2000 as Friends of
the Library Week. To be accepted by Mr. Richard Benson, President,
Friends of the Library.
B. SERVlCE AWARDS
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Henry Bickford, Road and Bridge - 25 Years
Mary Jo Thurston, Revenue Services - 20 Years
Donald Eckert, Sr., EMS - 15 Years
Giiberto Garcia, Road and Bridge - 10 Years
Jerry Tharp, Wastewater - 5 Years
C. PRESENTATIONS
2
February 8, 2000
1)
Recommendation to recognize Jerry Tharp, Operator II, Safety
Coordinator, Wastewater Department, as Employee of the Month for
February 2000.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. Petition ST-99-03
Paula Davis, Keystone Custom Homes, represented by their agent David
Farmer, P.E., of Coastal Engineering, Inc., requesting a Special
Treatment Development Permit to allow construction of residential single
family lots, streets and associated infrastructure on a portion of the
property with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay located within the
proposed Little Palm Island Subdivision in Section 23, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (COMPANION TO
PETITION CU-99-27).
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1)
Consider Petition TM 95-02 for Neighborhood Traffic Management for
Estey Avenue and Shadowlawn Drive.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Presentation of the Workforce Assessment Report Conducted by Florida
Gulf Coast University.
E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
3
February 8, 2000
11.
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
B.
C.
D.
E.
Appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council.
Approval of support letter for Florida Kidcare Program. (Commissioner Berry)
Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Appointment of members to the Disaster Recovery Task Force.
Road Capital Plan (Commissioner Constantine).
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the
COPS Universal Hiring Program additional officer request.
2)
Authorize emergency expenditure of funds for the purchase of fiber optics
cable from Building "J" to Buildings "F", "C1" and "C2".
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition PUD-86-12(4), Blair A. Foley of Coastal Engineering Consultants,
Inc., representing Transeastern Properties, Inc., Arthur Falcone,
President, requesting an amendment to the "Bretonne Park" Planned Unit
Development (PUD), for the purpose of increasing the building height of
the multi-family buildings from three (3) stories to four (4) stories in Tract
"J" of the Bretonne Park PUD that is located on the north side of Davis
Boulevard (SR-84) and south side of Radio Road (CR-856) in Section 5,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
4
February 8, 2000
2)
3)
4)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-92-04(1), Rich Yovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman & Johnson, representing Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., requesting
an amendment to the Golden Gate Health Park PUD having the effect of
changing the name to Golden Gate Commerce Park, eliminating hospital
and some medical center uses, adding retail commercial, office, hotel,
assisted living facilities (ALF) and residential uses for property located on
the northwest corner of C.R. 951 and access road #2 in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 11~ 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-98-20, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover
Planning, representing Gulf Sun Corporation, requesting a rezone from
"A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Whippoorwill Lakes PUD for a mixed use residential development not to
exceed 628 dwelling units located ¼ mile south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R.
896), north of Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Lane and 1-75, in
Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 76.85 + acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 11~ 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-99-15 Michael Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Dean Huff, Trustee, requesting a rezone
from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Alexandria PUD for a maximum of 72 dwelling units for property
located on the east side of the future Livingston Road Extension, south of
Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) and north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R.
886) in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 19.58 +/- acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 11~ 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 14, 2000
MEETING. PUD-99-14, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Marian H. Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis,
Jr., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Livingston Village for a maximum of 540
residential dwelling units for property located east of the proposed
Livingston Road, north of Wyndemere PUD, in Section 19, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 148.98 +/-
acres.
5
February 8, 2000
13.
6)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 11, 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 14T 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc., requesting a rezone from
"A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 154 residential dwelling units for property
located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden
Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in
Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 39.58 +/- acres.
7)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-99-16, Kevin McVicker, P.E. of Phoenix
Planning and Engineering, Inc., representing Gulf Sun Development
Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Whippoorwill Pines PUD for a
maximum of 210 residential units for property located on the south side of
Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Pines PUD for a maximum of 210
residential units for property located on the south side of Night Hawk Drive
between Whippoorwill Lane and Dog Ranch Road, ¼ mile south of Pine
Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 29.54 +/- acres.
C. OTHER
1)
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 1999-00
Adopted Budget.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
Petition V-99-26, James M. Boswell II representing 19 property owners
requesting a 7.5 foot variance from the required 7.5 foot side yard
setbacks established for boat docks on lots less than 60 foot wide to zero
feet for boat docks on 19 different lots for properties located on 3rd Street
West in Bonita Beach and are further described as Lots 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and
10, Block H and Lots 4,5,9,10,11,12,14,17,18,19, and 20, Block G, Little
Hickory Shores, Unit 3/Replat, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Petition CU-99-22, David Carter of Downing-Frye Realty, Inc. representing
William J. Fognini, requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A/MHO" zoning
6
February 8, 2000
district for earthmining per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located on Platt
Road in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 20+ acres.
3)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. Petition CU-99-27,
David H. Farmer of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing
Keystone Custom Homes, requesting Conditional Use "5" of the "RSF-3"
zoning district for 157 cjuster housing units per Section 2.2.4.3 for
property located approximately ½ mile north of Immokalee Road and one
mile east of U.S. 41, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 86.67 _+ acres. (COMPANION TO
PETITION ST-99-03)
4) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED.
5)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 22,
2000 MEETING. Petition A-99-04, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing Kensington Park Master
Association and the Yorktown Neighborhood Association, requesting an
appeal of the determination of the Collier County Planning Commission on
November 21, 1999, that the changes to the Carillon PUD Master Plan by
adding new commercial building footprints were insubstantial.
6)
Petition CU-99-32, Gloria Godard representing Mike Walczuk requesting
approval of a Conditional Use for a child care center to be located at 853
and 857 101st Avenue North in Naples Park.
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
7
February 8, 2000
1)
Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by
Jorge Z. Fuentes, 5346 Texas Avenue, Naples Manor Lakes, Collier
County, Florida.
2)
Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by
Denise E. Rivers at 5200 19th Avenue S.W. in Golden Gate, Collier
County, Florida.
3)
Authorization of 100% waiver of impact fees for eight very Iow income
single family houses to be built in Naples Manor, Collier County, by
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
4) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Coral Falls Resort"
5) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Strand Replat 4A"
6)
Authorization of 100% waiver of impact fees for one very Iow income
single family house to be built in the Seminole Subdivision in Immokalee,
Collier County, by Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
7)
Authorization of 100% waiver of impact fees for two very Iow income
single family houses to be built in Naples Manor, Collier County, by
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
8) This item has been deleted.
9)
Approval of a budget amendment to appropriate carry-forward funds to
pay for professional services in the development of the Interim
Government Services Fees Ordinance.
lO)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's Creek Phase
2A, Unit 2" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance
security.
PUBLIC WORKS
1) This item has been deleted.
2)
Approve a temporary street closure on Bluebill Avenue for the Cub Scout
"Cubmobile" Derby.
8
February 8, 2000
3)
Approve Amendments to Professional Service Agreements to update our
Water and Wastewater Master Plans, Projects 70005 and 73036.
4)
Approve A Budget Amendment to provide for repairs to the agricultural
plastic burial cells at Immokalee Landfill.
5)
Request for speed limit reduction from fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) to
forty-five miles per hour (45 MPH) on Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) Trade
Center Way northerly to Pelican Marsh Elementary School, a total
distance of approximately 2.2 miles.
6)
Recommendation to approve Amendment to Professional Services
Agreement for Master Pump Station 1.02, Contract 89-1506, Project
73924.
7) Award Bid #99-3011 - "SCRWFT Berm Maintenance."
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Direct staff to develop an ordinance amendment regarding the use of
Tourist Development Taxes by area public museums.
2)
Approval of the Reciprocal Borrowing Agreement and authorization for the
Library Director to sign the agreement, enabling Collier County Public
Library to participate in reciprocal borrowing with members of Southwest
Florida Library Network (SWFLN).
3)
Approve a Limited Use License Agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
approving use of specified County-owned property for conducting a July
th
4 Fireworks Festival.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approve the Form of a Standard Form Agreement for Special Services
Between the Collier County Sheriff's Office and the Respective
Department that may Request such Services.
2)
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with Florida 1st Health
Plans, Inc. for the Administration of Group Health Run-Off Claims
9
February 8, 2000
Processing.
3)
Approval of a Lease Agreement between Collier County and
Congressman Porter Goss.
4)
Recommendation to Declare Certain County-Owned Property as Surplus
and Authorize a Sale of the Surplus Property.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-120,
#00- 128, #00-129, #00-130.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Purchase of one (1) medium duty advanced life support ambulance from
American LaFrance Medicmaster Corporation using City of Jacksonville
Bid SC-0384-98.
2)
Request approval to waive the special event EMS stand-by services fee
for the LPGA Subaru Memorial of Naples Golf Tournament.
3)
Approve a budget amendment to allow for an expenditure of $14,400 from
the GAC Land Trust to complete the design of an EMS and future Sheriff's
Office Substation to be located within Golden Gate Estates.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.:
93-01924-MMA, 99-0236MMA, 98-8648MMA, 98-9723MMA, 98-
10256MMA, 99-4172MMA, 99-7577MMA, 99-1416MMA,99-0531MMA,98-
10963MMA, 99-0431MMA, 98-10939MMA, 98-6291MMA, 82-1003CJ-A-
21-CTC, 84-923C J-A-21,84-925C J-A-21,99-2019MMA, 93-0122MI, 99-
5163MMA, 99-953MMA, 99-3626MMA, 99-3479MMA, 99-4248MMA, 98-
11213MMA, 99-0128MMA, 88-3769-MMA and 90-1130-TM
10
February 8, 2000
2) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
I. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
J. COUNTY ATTORNEY
K. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA -THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 22~ 2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-99-33, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning representing
Richard and Jean Yahl and Teresa Yahl Fillmore, requesting Conditional Use "2"
of the "A" zoning district for a sawmill, per Section 2.2.2.3., for property located
on the south side of Washburn Avenue SW in Section 31, Township 49 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGESTOTHEBOARD'SAGENDASHOULD BE MADETO
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
11
February 8, 2000
February 8, 2000
Item #3
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there. Good morning.
Welcome to the February 8, 2000 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners. I invite you to join me in standing -- I've lost my
agenda. We have Reverend Mary Ann Dorner from the Church of
Restoration. Let us pray.
REVEREND DORNER: Almighty God, we thank you for this day
and this beautiful and good land of plenty where we live. We ask
your blessings and guidance on the Collier County
Commissioners.
May they make wise decisions and right judgments and use
their power rightly and fairly for all.
We also ask that we may share our needs and concerns in the
spirit of respect remembering the needs of others as well as our
own agenda.
Help us to work together for the common good for all those
who work and live and play and visit our wonderful county. For all this we give thanks. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, we've got a change
sheet here.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, we do. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. I'll go through the list first and I believe we may
have a petitioner here who may want an additional continuance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll be willing to accept those.
MR. MCNEES: I thought you would be.
And I think we already have this one.
Okay. We have some additional items. We have a
proclamation under item 5-A-4 that's being added regarding
career and technical education week.
We have an item that is being added by the attorney's office,
item 9-A, some direction regarding an expert to prepare a revised
noise ordinance. That will be item 9-A.
Page 2
February 8, 2000
Under the Board of County Commissioners, we have two
additions; an item which will become 10-F regarding the King's
Way closure requested by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
We have item 10-G that is a discussion item regarding naming
policies and the reconsideration of the courthouse naming
requested by Commissioner Carter that is an item that he has
requested be formally reconsidered at your next meeting. He's
given me written notice of that as of yesterday evening and had
placed it on for discussion this morning I think to inform you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, I
understand you had something you wanted to get on the record
today, but really the full discussion is for two weeks from now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's correct. I can do it at this
point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is a press release that I sent.
I also copied the Board of County Commissioners. And it's in
regards to a request for reconsideration of renaming the Collier
County Courthouse.
Reading this into the record I am saying: Upon reflection, I
believe the Board's action on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 to
rename the Collier County Courthouse was hasty.
We did not receive options as to the most appropriate way in
which to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, nor did we follow due
process to get input from the broad range of constituents.
Therefore, I will be bringing this back to the Board to
reconsider this matter and to place it on a future agenda for
discussion which was just mentioned by the chair.
I am recommending that we establish and follow a specific
process for the naming of any government facility. After a more
thoughtful and deliberate review of options that are presented by
the citizens of Collier County, I would be willing to support an
appropriate memorial for Dr. King.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that on the record, we don't
need to add 10-G, but we'll have that back in two weeks. MR. MCNEES: Very good.
We have two continuances. 12-B-2 is continued at the
Page 3
February 8, 2000
petitioner's request.
Again, Petition 12-B-4 is also continued at the petitioner's
request.
We have one agenda note, a request that item 10-B be heard
first on your agenda following your proclamations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, any other changes?
MR. WEIGEL: None, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only thing I had I think would
come under 10-H, I guess. And this we can -- it's to have
something brought back in a couple weeks for clarification.
Two weeks ago we talked about the AUIR report, and there
seemed to be some misunderstanding about exactly what that
report is. I know what I supported and voted on doesn't appear
to be the same thing that was conveyed to the public and I would
just like to have a clarification. So if either I can give that
direction now or we can just put it under H under Board of
County Commissioners and give the direction at that time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Whatever is your preference.
MR. MCNEES: I'll take direction right now that you want to
know in two weeks precisely what that report meant and what it
didn't with relation to how it was related perhaps in the
newspaper.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly, yes.
MR. MCNEES: I have received that direction and will be back
in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Then we do not need to
put anything under H. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, anything?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I'd just second what
Commissioner Berry said. I really would like to get that report
clarified so that we can clear up the misconceptions that are out
there in the public's mind about what's going on with that type of
report.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Page 4
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing to add, just that I have a
proposal that may lend some assistance in clarifying the
confusion about the AUIR that I think will come up perhaps in the
discussion of Commissioner Constantine's item today which I
will work alongside with his proposal. But nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have no other changes either.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve agenda, consent
agenda and summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As amended?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As amended.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion?
Seeing none, any objection?
(No response)
Seeing none, the motion carries five oh.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGE LIST
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
FEBRUARY & 2000
ADD: ITEM 5(A)(4)- PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF
FEBRUARY 12 - 19TM AS CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION WEEK.
(COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE).
ADD: ITEM 9(A) - RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT NOT TO EXCEED
$12,000 TO PAY FOR AN EXPERT TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION AND
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. (COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S REQUEST).
ADD: ITEM lO(F) - DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL "FRAUD IN THE
INDUCEMENT" RE: KINGS WA Y CLOSURE (COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE).
ADD: ITEM lO(G) - DISCUSSION OF HONORARY NAMING POLICIES AND
RECONSIDERATION OF COURTHOUSE NAMING (COMMISSIONER CARTER).
CONTINUE TO 2/22/00 MEETING: ITEM 12(B)(2)- PETITION PUD 92-04(1) -
AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE HEALTH PARK PUD (PETITIONER'S
REQUEST).
CONTINUE TO 2/22/00 MEETING: ITEM 12(B)(4) - PETITION PUD-99-15
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS
ALEXANDRIA PUD - SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND NORTH OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
NOTE: REQUEST ITEM lO(B) BE HEARD FIRST- APPROVAL OF SUPPORT
LETTER FOR FLORIDA KIDCARE PROGRAM.
February 8, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2000 REGULAR MEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Approval of minutes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Approval of minutes from the
January 11, 2000 meeting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? Seeing none, any objection? (No response)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five oh.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 21-27,
2000 AS NATIONAL PATRIOTISM WEEK - ADOPTED
Proclamations and Service Awards
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Proclamations and service
awards.
Commissioner Norris, you have a proclamation proclaiming
the week of February 21 to 27 National Patriotism Week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is Joann Newby here? Okay, Ms. Newby, if you would come
right up front and face the cameras, I will read this for you. Right
up here. See those cameras out there? This one here is CNN.
That's ABC over there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, dear.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're caught.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whereas, the benevolent and
protective order of Elks Naples Lodge 2010 through its
constitution is a patriotic order; and whereas, the order
promotes the ideas of the citizens of this nation live in freedom
Page 6
February 8, 2000
won through the great sacrifice and many tribulations which
have provided the foundation for a free, prosperous and
independent life; and whereas, we realize that each generation
must work to maintain this freedom. Otherwise, through
carelessness or indifference the rights and liberties enjoyed may
vanish; and whereas, it is fitting and proper to recognize this
freedom and to honor the nation which provides it.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
February 21st to 27th, 2000 be designated as National Patriotism
Week.
And they urge all citizens to join with the benevolent and
protective order of the Elks Naples Lodge 2010 in expressing
gratitude for the privilege of American citizenship with
appropriate celebrations and observances.
Done and ordered this 8th day of February, 2000 by the Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
Constantine, Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and second.
Discussion? Objection?
(No response.)
Motion carries five oh.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 14-18,
2000 AS NATIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY - ADOPTED
And to Barbara Berry. Commissioner Berry has a National
School Counseling Week proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. Is Ms. Cathy Thompson here
with Silvan -- there she is. Silvan Learning Center.
Page 7
February 8, 2000
The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, we
acknowledge the potential and importance of every student in
Collier County, Florida; and whereas, we recognize the vital role
of school counselors in providing students with the educational
and social skills necessary to succeed in the classroom and
throughout a lifetime of learning; and whereas, these
accomplished and dedicated professionals seek to nurture the
talents and accomplishments of each student by the their
insightful and persevering efforts each day in the schools of
Collier County; whereas, the Silvan Learning Center and the
College of Education and Florida Gulf Coast University are jointly
sponsoring activities to honor school counselors on behalf of the
parents and the citizens of Collier County.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
February 14 through the 18th, 2000 be designated as National
School Counseling Week in Collier County and urge the citizens,
school officials, teachers, parent associations and students to
join in the event to express our mutual gratitude and hopes for
the school counselors of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 8th day of February, 2000. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move approval of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and second.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries five oh.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 13-19,
2000 AS FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK - ADOPTED
Page 8
February 8, 2000
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a proclamation for Friends
of the Library.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Yes.
Expressing our sincere gratitude to the Friends of the Library,
we have Mr. Richard Benson who is their president here to
accept this proclamation. Good morning.
MR. BENSON: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whereas, the Friends of the Library
are an important part of the public library service to our
community; and whereas, during the past six years the friends
organization has donated in excess of $500,000 to our public
library; and whereas, this money has been distributed to all
library locations for all types of projects, including new lighting
for the Immokalee library, auditorium chairs for the Marco
library, the funding for the Festival of the Humanities and many
others; whereas, the Friends have established the West Wing Art
Gallery, written and published a cook book and constantly
established numerous other fund raising activities; and whereas,
the Friends have pledged $100,000 for the purchase of new
books for the new headquarters building; and whereas, the
Friends organization now contains 1900 members; and whereas,
the quality of life in Collier County would be greatly reduced
without their presence.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that extreme gratitude
and appreciation is extended to the membership of the Friends of
the Library for this successful partnership between the public
and private sectors of our community.
It is accepted by both that an investment in our public
libraries is not only an investment in our future, but in our
present as well.
We, the Board of County Commissioners, do reaffirm our
commitment to a high quality public library by proclaiming the
week of February 13 through 19, 2000 as Friends of the Library
Week, honoring those citizens who have given so much to Collier
County.
Page 9
February 8, 2000
Done and ordered this 8th day of February, 2000. Board of
County Commissioners, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman.
I'm honored to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? Objection? (No response.)
Seeing none, the motion carries five oh.
Thank you, sir.
MR. BENSON: I don't have much, but I do want to thank you,
thank the Board of County Commissioners and administration of
the County on behalf of the Friends of the Library, the over
100,000 patrons of the library who are borrowing almost two
million books and other materials each year. Thank you very
much.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 12-19,
2000 AS CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Benson.
Commissioner Berry, you have another proclamation having to
do with Career and Technical Education Week.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do and this is certainly near and
dear to my heart. Ms. Dusic, would you please come up?
Whereas, February 12 through the 19th, 2000 has been
designated career and technical education week by the
Association for Career and Technical Education; and whereas,
profound economic and technological changes in our society are
being rapidly reflected in the structure and nature of work,
whereby placing new and additional responsibilities on our
educational system; and whereas, career and technical
education provides Americans with a school to careers
connection and is the backbone of a strong well educated work
force which fosters productivity and business in industry and
contributes to American leadership in the international
Page 10
February 8, 2000
marketplace; and whereas, career and technical education gives
high school students experience in practical, meaningful
applications of basic skills such as reading, writing and
mathematics, thus improving the quality of their education,
motivating potential dropouts and giving all students leadership
opportunities in their fields and in their community; and whereas,
career and technical education offers individuals life-long
opportunities to learn new skills which provide them with career
choices and personal satisfaction; and whereas, the ever
increasing cooperative efforts of technical educators, business
and industry stimulate the growth and vitality of our local
economy and that of our entire nation by preparing workers for
the occupations forecast to experience the largest and fastest
growth in the next decade.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
February 12 through 19, 2000 be designated as Career and
Technical Education Week in Collier County and we urge all
citizens to become familiar with the services and benefits
offered by the career and technical education programs in this
community and to support and participate in these programs to
enhance your individual work skills and productivity.
Done and ordered this 8th day of February, 2000. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
It is indeed my pleasure to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and second. Discussion?
Objection?
(No response.)
Motion carries five oh.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
And, Commissioner Carter, you have some service awards
Page 11
February 8, 2000
this morning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. We have three this morning.
One gentleman is not going to be able to join us.
But starting with five years, we have Mr. Jerry Tharp who is in
Wastewater, Jerry. Congratulations, Jerry.
And in Road and Bridge, Mr. Gilberto Garcia, t0 years.
Congratulations.
And today's big winner, Mary Jo Thurston, 20 years of service
in Revenue Services Department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She started when she was 12.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. That will conclude this
morning because Mr. Eckert was unable to join us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: After 25 years he said I just don't
have time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right. Twenty-five years, he
can't do it.
Item #5C
RECOGNIZED JERRY THARP, OPERATOR II, SAFETY
COORDINATOR, WASTWATER DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now if we can ask Jerry Tharp to
come back up. Not a bad way to celebrate your fifth anniversary
with the County.
Jerry is a safety coordinator with our Wastewater Department
and employee of the month.
Turn around to TV land and we'll tell them your story.
Jerry Tharp has been employed with Collier County since
1995. His position has been made a full-time safety coordinator
due to the complexity of the job and the never-ending aspects of
safety as they apply to the facility.
Jerry has worked closely with the Risk Management
Department to keep the facility in compliance with safety.
Jerry has participated with the development of the risk
management plan for hazardous chemical releases, primarily
Page 12
February 8, 2000
chlorine kept you busy this year I guess, as recently mandated
by the United States EPA.
Jerry has also assisted in the North Naples Fire Department in
reviewing with them the emergency action plan as it pertains to
the Wastewater Department.
He is a member of the American Society of Safety Engineers
and attends their monthly meetings to keep on top of the newest
trends in the area of safety.
He's a certified wastewater operator and always available to
lend a hand when needed for the operation of the treatment
facility.
Always willing to go that extra mile, he's been selected as
February's employee of the month.
Jerry, we've got a couple things for you. We have the plaque
for the employee of the month and equally as important a little
check. Thank you.
Item #10B
SUPPORT LETTER FOR FLORIDA KIDCARE PROGRAM -
APPROVED
Item lO-B, was asked if we could hear that first thing.
Commissioner Berry brought this to our attention from the
Florida Association of Counties. So nobody wonders why, there
is a letter that has been forwarded to the Florida Association of
Counties that is being held until we take action today. If we give
them the green light, they'll release it. If we don°t give them the
green light, they won't. But so nobody wonders why, that letter
went out last week in order for this week's agenda, that's
because the hearing is actually today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think just a brief explanation, what
this is was formerly known as the Healthy Kids' Program, which
has now become Kid Care.
And the proposal in this program is that they're not going to
require -- what they're trying to get through is that they will not
Page 13
February 8, 2000
require the local match, which has been the big problem as many
of us have objected to here in Collier County.
So I think it was in our best interest to go ahead and support
this and they are hearing it this afternoon. So that letter will be
faxed to them followed by the hard copy.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion. Do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a pair of seconds.
Any public speakers on this item, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion,
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
Motion to carries five oh.
item #8B1
PETITION TM 95-02 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT FOR ESTEY AVE. AND SHADOWLAWN DRIVE -
STAFF DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE ESTABLISHING
SOUTHBOUND DOUBLE RIGHT TURN LANES AT AIRPORT RD.
AND DAVIS BLVD. AND ELIMINATING THE RIGHT TURN LANE AT
ESTEY AVE. AND AIRPORT RD. AND RETURN WITH A REPORT IN
APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS (CONSENSUS}
That takes us to item 8-B-t, consideration of petition
TM-95-012 for neighborhood management of Estey Avenue and
Shadowlawn.
Jerry, how are you this morning?
MR. MORRIS: Fine, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good.
MR. MORRIS: For the record, my name is Gerald Morris. I'm
project manager for the neighborhood traffic program.
A petition was received by the neighborhood of Estey in
Page 14
February 8, 2000
March of '97. The neighborhood traffic program followed through
with all the requirements of the program.
We found that 78 percent of the vehicles that were traveling
that roadway were cut-through and the volumes exceeded 9,500
vehicles a day.
The workshops were held and a consensus was reached. And
Workshop Number II, 100 percent of the neighborhood consensus
agreed.
We sent out letters of objection to the emergency services
personnel and had a special meeting for them to put their input
to the neighborhood. And a consensus was reached at that
meeting on a traversable barrier. I have it here. This device will
allow emergency service vehicles to penetrate it but will cut off
the traffic through the neighborhood, thus returning the
neighborhood to its natural function.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does this actually look like?
Is this a berm on two sides? What's that in the middle?
MR. MORRIS: Basically, it will be a concrete structure around
the exterior with plantings in the center.
The median island will be straddled by emergency services
vehicles. This is a lot similar to a speed bump by design that
allows emergency services vehicles to pass through it and it will
be landscaped and made as neighborhood friendly as possible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What -- last week you and I had a
meeting with a group of folks. Not in this area, but another and
you had mentioned another type of not necessarily a barrier, but
something that would calm traffic. I assume, are they concerned
about the number of cars or are they concerned about the speed
of cars on Estey?
MR. MORRIS: It's the volume of cut-through traffic and the
volume of vehicles in general. 9,500 vehicles a day is far
exceeding what we consider appropriate for a local-access
street.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will motorcycles be able to get
through this?
MR. MORRIS: Yes, Commissioner, motorcycles will be able to
Page 15
February 8, 2000
get through this, as would a bicycle.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you -- one of the options that
I've seen that seems to be more positive, I'll say it slows me
down and keeps me off the roads, makes me not want to use
these cut-throughs, are those speed humps. They're not the little
bumps, but they're kind of like little hills, that if you go over them
more than 25 miles an hour you're going to bump your head on
the top of the car, at least I am, and I'm not very tall. Is that --
have you considered that as a possibility in this neighborhood?
MR. MORRIS: That was considered by staff originally, but a
speed hump project typically won't divert traffic. It will divert it
for about a month or so, but once the traveling public realizes
that they simply have to drive the speed limit, they'll return to
that location and the volume -- speed humps really don't affect
volume. A traffic circle affects volume to a certain extent. But
in this case the issue was so huge that we were simply left
without a great deal of options.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the things, one of the
lessons I've learned from Foxfire, frankly, is that I felt pretty
stupid for not having known it before. Peter VanArsdale says it
all the time. He says you don't solve a traffic problem. You
move a traffic problem. I'm afraid if we do this, we're going to
move this problem somewhere else and we're going to end up
with a Donna Street discussion. Where are we going to move
this?
I know you guys told us not to close Foxfire. If we had
listened to you, we wouldn't have had the Donna and those
problems. But if -- where will this traffic move?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director. I
believe that most of the traffic will be diverted south to both
Terrace and Davis Boulevards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the first one?
MR. KANT: Terrace. It's a short street that parallels Davis
Boulevard, approximately 400 feet north of Davis Boulevard.
Page 16
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to see a map of that. Is that
a residential street?
MR. KANT: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know where that old
ratty-looking gas station is that really doesn't pump gas anymore
on the corner of Davis?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Used to be a labor pool. Calling a
spade a spade there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Actually, thank you for being clear.
Because actually now I know what you're talking about.
So any residential --
MR. KANT: There is one house on the corner of Terrace and
Shadowlawn, but it faces Shadowlawn. There are, to the best of
my recollection, no houses facing Terrace. It's either backyards
of commercial businesses facing Davis or other commercial
businesses which face Terrace.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Mr. Kant, if you were designing, I
don't know if that's your function because I'm confused about
who does what in transportation, but if you were designing the
road network for this area, is this how you would have designed
it?
MR. KANT: If the question that you just asked was would we
design this to not permit through traffic, the answer would
probably be yes, we would try to discourage it wherever possible.
That's a difficult question to ask because we're basically back in
retrofitting disparate neighborhoods which were not, frankly,
planned cohesively in the beginning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' The question too is, I have trouble
with how this merges with our interconnection of neighborhoods
instruction to staff. It seems like we're going contradictory.
MR. KANT: That's possible that to some extent we are.
However, what we have is a very limited roadway grid to get
people from one place to another in terms of ma]or mobility. And
as a result traffic tends to find as many outlets as it can, Estey
and Shadowlawn and Brookside being one of the ma]or ones in
East Naples.
Page 17
February 8, 2000
Were there other east/west roadways, this problem might not
exist or might not exist to the extent that it does exist today.
Frankly, I think that about 10 years ago when the design for
the six-laning of Airport Road was put together and that
southbound right-turn lane was put on Airport at Estey, that at
that time I don't think anybody could have envisioned that that
would have become such a major cut-through.
Based on the research that we did as part of working with the
neighborhood residents, it appears that that was put there as
opposed to being put down at Airport and Davis. It was at that
intersection because of at the time and even today the enormous
cost of acquiring that gas station and the Combs Oil Company.
There are some significant right-of-way issues there.
So the answer, unfortunately, that's kind of a long-winded
answer to that question. But there are no easy answers to these
neighborhood issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm clear on that.
Two other, that's probably for Jerry and that is who's
included, who is polled here? Who is asked the question, do you
like this proposal? Is it everybody, for example, in the Gateway
Triangle? Is it everybody in -- how far does your inquiry go?
MR. MORRIS: The inquiry at this point goes the length of the
project street. Typically, we found that if we do a license plate
study when we meet the enemy it is vague. Consequently, the
people farther off the street typically are the ones creating 90
percent of the problem. Thus, we only the poll the people who
are actually affected on the roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's another concern I have
is that we only -- I think they're the most affected, the people
whose houses front the road that's being used. But it's not true
to say that they're the only affected people because the people
who are using it to get to their houses as a shortcut or to cut
through are also affected and we're not asking them.
MR. MORRIS: That's correct, Commissioner, and right now
the way our ordinance is written, we have a fairly well defined
way of determining the, quote, affected neighborhood.
One of the things that we are going to be doing for the
Page 18
February 8, 2000
balance of this budget year and might bring up for next budget
year is to go back and review this ordinance, the Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program, which was adopted in 1995. It's
been five years. We've got some experience with it. We've
looked at 30-some-odd situations of which we've eliminated
about half a dozen neighborhoods. Some of which were
obviously just not a problem. It was either the kid down the
street that had a problem or it was a perception issue.
So I think that this is an appropriate time for to us do this and
to make sure that when we are doing something like this that
we're not adversely affecting it or, as you've quoted Councilman
VanArsdale, just moving the problem to somebody else's street.
It would be much easier if we had a different roadway grid, but
we have to play the hand we're dealt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. Last question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, you said there were
only two left and you've used them up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that two?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is whether or not -- you know, of
course, that we're in the midst of the Gateway redevelopment
design. And it's my recollection that this is not a part of the
recommendation that came from that planner. I know that there
was one recommended closure in that plan, but I think it was --
MR. KANT: That was Linwood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to get that out here.
I don't guess it's a question. It's just for confirmation. This was
not what the planner for the Gateway redevelopment has
proposed.
MR. KANT: It may be and, again, I would stand corrected by
the comprehensive planning staff if I'm incorrect. But I believe
that this particular portion of this neighborhood is north of the
major area that is under consideration for that redevelopment. I
don't see anybody here from comp. planning, but we can check
on that and get back to you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, that raises
several questions then.
Page 19
February 8, 2000
What is the integration of that plan with everything we're
trying to do in the area, and Mr. Kant, you also said we're going
to go back and need to restudy our whole policy in these areas.
It seems to me that every two weeks or every month what I'm
going to do is sit here and get somebody coming and saying I
want to divert something away from my neighborhood.
We have to have, think we really need to think this through
before we begin to do any more of this. And I read that the
sheriff's department opposes it, EMS opposes it and the fire
department opposes it. That raises some concerns to me.
MR. KANT: I find it interesting that these letters of opposition
crop up for neighborhood traffic management programs and
they've been uncharacteristically silent when we talk about the
separation between entrances to gated communities and things
like that, but I see similar problems there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers on
this, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: You have two.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from them.
MR. MCNEES: Your first would be Jack Dixon followed by
Norman Reinertsten.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, while they're coming
to the podium, I think this brings up another issue and another
case for the second bridge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I think what's happening is
a lot of people come down Airport Road and they're wanting to
go in on Davis Boulevard or they want to go west and get into the
City of Naples.
If we could cut them off before they get to that point and send
them over a bridge into another area, it would divert some of the
traffic. Not all of it, but it would divide it between the two areas.
I think it makes a good case for the second bridge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you'd identify yourself for the
record, please.
MR. DIXON: I am Jack Dixon. I'll apologize to my very good
friend Norm Reinertsten, but I am on the other side of the fence
Page 20
February 8, 2000
on this one. Norm, bear with me.
How many of you folks have to back into your driveway when
you go home every day because it's too dangerous to back out of
your driveway into the roadway? How many of you folks have,
when you're trying to get out of your driveway, had somebody
curse you and call you names that were not nice?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, that happens all the time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have to back out of the
driveway and that happens.
MR. DIXON: Well, that's because you're commissioners and
they know where you live.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm afraid that's the truth.
MR. DIXON: I won't follow up with the one-finger hand salute
because I'm sure you get that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We get that.
MR. DIXON: Mr. Carter, you talk about somebody coming up
every two weeks and saying, let's close my neighborhood. We've
been working on this for three years. Back when George
Archibald started the traffic calming process, probably even
more than three years ago, at least five years ago, I met with him
and his men. And I'm ashamed to say that I dropped the ball at
that juncture.
However, having lived on this street for the past 26 years, I
feel that I can voice my opinion and know a little bit more about
what I'm talking about than some people who have presented
their opinion, even Mike says, "Well, I haven't really noticed it's a
problem." Well, no, it's not. He's kind of tucked down on
Harbour Lane down there where he doesn't get involved in any of
the traffic.
What we have today is a real problem. It's Jerry's problem. It
was created many years ago for the person that gave the okay to
put the right-hand turn lane on to Estey Avenue. That was like a
big welcome sign into a street that was not arranged, not
originally equipped to handle that magnitude of traffic.
Folks, we've talked about the F word, Foxfire, and we've
talked about Donna Street, but both of these streets put together
do not have the amount of traffic that we have on a daily basis
Page 21
February 8, 2000
transversing a neighborhood street. We are not a collector
street. We are a neighborhood street.
The neighbor's cat that's laying on the side of Estey Avenue
today dead, probably because somebody that didn't belong there
ran over it. The litter that's thrown in my driveway, the beer
cans, the whatever, the McDonald's cups that we have to put up
with that normal residential streets do not have to put up with,
kind of disgusts us all.
I applaud you in your efforts for what you're trying to do for
the citizens of Collier County in helping them with their striving
situations in their streets.
What will we do with the traffic that does not go down Estey
Avenue? Ma'am, it will keep them out on the four-lane roads,
where they belong, not off on the two-way streets where kids
traverse this road every day to and from school. Two different
schools, these kids are using these.
We don't have adequate -- I'm not going to get into the bike
path issue, but I do not believe we have adequate facilities there
for our children, for our senior citizens.
Yes, it's a short cut, Mrs. Berry, to the City of Naples. I
understand what that's all about. And I'm going to be
inconvenienced if this goes through because I'm going to have to
go out to that four-lane road and go to Airport Road and go
around it. But that's just a price I'll have to pay.
At least I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that my streets
are safe and that it's not a dangerous place for me to work or to
live.
This is not a short cut. We affectionately who live on that
street have renamed it the East Naples Bypass because that's
exactly what it's doing, it's bypassing the lights at Airport Road
and Shadowlawn and Davis Boulevard.
This is not a problem these men created. Unfortunately, it's
their problem and they, as well as you and us, have to work with
that problem and have to come to some kind of agreement that
will make everybody happy.
The bottom line is everybody is saying, and I know Norm is
going to come up and say, We're closing all the roads, we have
Page 22
February 8, 2000
no place to go. But Norm, I know where he's tucked away too in
Royal Harbor and he has no problem with traffic on his road
because it's a cul-de-sac road and nobody is going to go down
there that doesn't belong there. But there is a lot of people using
Estey Avenue that don't belong there. Thank you for listening to
me. I hope you'll consider what I've had to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Our final speaker is?
MR. MCNEES: Norman Reinertsten.
MR. REINERTSTEN: My name is Norman Reinertsten. I'm not
accustomed to speaking in public and I live on Mabry Drive in
Crown Point East. I did live in Royal Harbor for almost 33 years
and moved away.
But what I'm driving at is I understand about Estey Avenue.
I've known Jack Dixon for years, but I understand one thing, all
these streets are public streets. We pay taxes for them. It's not
just for the people that live there. They're public streets. And I
sort of object to having them blocked off.
Now, I didn't fuss too much about Foxfire, but I agree it
shouldn't have been done, but I wasn't too upset about that.
But now we have Donna Street, I usually go through there a
lot of times because I go to the Suncoast Credit Union and I can
stay on the back streets. Now that's going to be changed.
I rode the other day on Lakewood Boulevard going south. And
there are traffic problems. That's all right, but people should not
speed in these subdivisions. I understand that.
And so I went out to the Trail to Sir Speedy and came back
and pulled into Lakewood Boulevard off the Trail, and I took the
first street and went around the back roads through Queens Lake
and Kings Lake and over to Davis Boulevard. But I notice there
are people following me now.
Now that's going to be the next ones that are going to
complain. They're going to want something done. They'll be
right here.
I just feel that I understand that there is a lot of traffic. I lived
on Francis Avenue back in 1958 to '66. I've lived in Naples for
going on 43 years now.
And they used to go up that little short street and I wouldn't
Page 23
February 8, 2000
allow our -- we had three little boys -- I wouldn't allow them out
on the street because they'd go through there 60 miles an hour.
And I lived there for a number of years.
And I figured the only alternative was to find another place to
live, so I understand about that.
But it's getting to be too much. I mean, the next thing will be
wanting to block off Davis Boulevard for some reason and that
would be a catastrophe. So that's my complaint.
And I only have one other thing that I want to say. It will only
take me a minute and that concerns Caloosa and Pine Ridge
Road -- or not Pine Ridge. Goodlette Road extension.
There is two things that would solve that problem. Like they
say, part of the right of way has to be changed there. It's to have
the South Florida Water Management District, have them move
that berm over and put it in the lake. Fill the lake up and that
would satisfy the City. Three wells means a lot. I worked with
the City for 30 years, and I've maintained all the City wells for
over 25 years, so I know all the City wells and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Norm, we really need to stick to
the agenda item.
MR. REINERTSTEN: Okay. Well, at least I got that much out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
What's the pleasure of the Board?
Ms. Filson?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to ask a couple of questions.
This seems like a fairly drastic first step. Have we already
thought about eliminating the right turn lane on Airport Road and
perhaps speed humps before we come to a drastic measure like
that?
MR. KANT: Well, let me address the issue of the right turn
lane. About a year, year and a half ago as we were in the midst
of trying to work out a solution with the residents, we had looked
into the potential for picking up that gas station and a piece of
the Combs Oil Company. Based on the information I got back for
the real property, frankly, at that point, I made the executive
decision that it probably was not going to be a good use of public
funds at this point to try to acquire those properties and
Page 24
February 8, 2000
remediate any underground potential environmental issues.
That's still on the table and if the Board directs us to continue
to examine that, we'll be happy to do so, but at this point, we can
take that turn lane out, but it's simply going to affect the traffic
on Airport Road drastically at this point regardless.
There has to be some way of moving that traffic from the
south, the desired line that goes from south to west and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, Mr. Kant, but if
you go ahead with this traffic diverter here, you have essentially,
for all practical purposes, eliminated that right-turn lane because
then only the local traffic is going to use that turn~ so you're still
going to stack them up down at Davis Boulevard. MR. KANT: It won't be pleasant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, wait. Make me understand
that. What won't be pleasant?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the traffic that is now using
Estey as a cutoff will be trying to turn right at Davis Boulevard
now instead and there is no right-turn lane and they'll stack.
MR. KANT: But there is no right-turn lane.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They'll stack up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there is no right-turn lane, so
they'll stack because not everybody wants to go right. Some of
them want to go straight.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think my concern goes back
closer to what Commissioner Berry had said. And, clearly, the
folks who have lived there and have participated in this process,
and I know our process calls for specific steps along the way,
and you've complied with every step.
My worry is if we only deal with those houses that happen to
front it and not some of the other folks in the neighborhood, a
week ago when we did the, two weeks ago when we did the
question about Donna Street and a deviator around. We sent a
letter literally to every home in that general vicinity, Flamingo,
Coconut and so in an attempt to get that feedback. And we may
very well have that support here, but it's hard to gauge that.
As Mr. Kant said, policy limits us on how many people we're
required to go and inquire with, and that's the folks who are
Page 25
February 8, 2000
directly impacted. My worry, I think, is the same as yours, what
about all those folks who are impacted, but maybe a half a block
off.
MR. KANT: Commissioner, if I may make a comment. I think
at some point, short, medium or long-term, at some point we're
going to have to go back and bite that bullet at Airport and Davis.
And it is going to be a costly endeavor for an intersection
improvement. But at some point we are going to have to address
it because we cannot, as has been pointed out here, merely shift
the traffic around, because no matter what we do, somebody is
going to be affected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys have made me see the
real answer to my question. To where would we be moving the
problem? The answer is to Davis, where it would stack up. So
we can't keep moving the problem.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Kant, what would it take to fix
the intersection down there at Davis and Airport? MR. KANT: I'm sorry, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What would it take to fix that
intersection?
MR. KANT: The last estimate on the real property taking that
we got from our property department for that corner was over
$700,000, I believe. It was significant.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that to acquire that property to
make a stack lane?
MR. KANT: Because of the configuration of those properties,
if we just took 12 or 15 feet, we'd have an uneconomic
remainder. We'd be better off taking the whole property rather
than paying the business damages. Again, this is a little far out
of my field. I'm not in the real estate business, but that was my
understanding.
Then add to that the actual construction costs of the
improvements, which would probably be several hundred
thousand dollars by the time we did the remediation. And if
there -- I won't say if. That's been a gas station and an oil
company for a long time. And I'm predicting there will be
remediation required. So I think it's going -- I think that corner is
Page 26
February 8, 2000
not going to be an easy fix. It's not a $100,000 corner. It's
probably closer to a million dollar corner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant, would not the value of the
real estate be reduced by the cost of the cleanup?
MR. KANT: To some extent, yes. But, again, I'm only going by
my recollection of the values that were given by the real property
department.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask another question.
Would it be feasible to put a double right-turn lane in at that
intersection if we took that property?
MR. KANT: Yes. Again, we've got double right-turn lanes in
two locations right now. And typically the criteria for that is --
depends on peak hour traffic. Off the top of my head, I don't
know what those numbers are. It's probably a very good chance
that that would be warranted, yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to see some numbers come
back on that, Ed. I don't mind calming traffic, but we've made
some gross errors, I think. Not that you guys have recommended
it to us because we did our own thing. We went out on the limb.
But I really think before we take another step that we need to
look into something like this intersection.
And before, this is where I think we erred on the Foxfire issue,
before we had something else in place, we jumped and did that.
And if we'd had something else in place first, I know
Commissioner Constantine has spoken about this. We need to do
the same thing here. Let's get something else in place first
before we close off an area because I think we're just asking for
more headaches.
MR. KANT: I would take that as direction then to --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I don't know. The rest of the
Board better concur with it. I'm not giving direction to anybody.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I think Commissioner Berry is
right. I don't need another crow up here. I would really like us to
have a master plan for that area and to begin to see what our
options are, and if we can find out if this is a more effective way
to do it, then let's do it. Let's get a plan instead of piecemealing
situations. Even though they've worked on this a long time. I'm
Page 27
February 8, 2000
very concerned, as I've said earlier, it won't be long until
somebody else is going to say, I've been working on this. They
want to close this. They want to do that. We've got to stop
doing this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I think I would be more
supportive of looking at the feasibility of going with the double
right-turn lane on Airport and the elimination of the right turn at
Estey. I think that's what I would be more supportive of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. That sounds like
direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection in giving that
direction to staff? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. KANT: I believe I understand the direction we've been
given, which is to investigate the southbound double right turn at
Davis and Airport and to eliminate the right-turn lane at Estey.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's a reasonable time that you
could get back to us? I don't want to drag this out, Ed, for six
months. I don't know if we need to get more staff or get
someone. Whatever we need to do. I just don't want to drag it
out.
MR. KANT: Not six months, but I would ask for your
indulgence for 90 days, three months. Because I'm going to have
to get some help with this because we're going to have to not
only get some prices for property and the layout, but I'm going to
have to get some traffic information on it too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, maybe the Board ought
to hire a realtor because we could --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's a joke.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a joke.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Ask the school board about doing
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As long as it's not a friend you're
all right.
Page 28
February 8, 2000
MR. KANT: What I don't want to do is tell you you'll have it in
two weeks and you're still waiting for it three months from now.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Just one follow-up, Mr. Kant.
If we acquired that property, made a double right-turn lane, is
there enough property there to make it an economically
marketable property so that we could at least maYbe recoup a
little piece of our investment?
MR. KANT: I can't answer that off the top of my head, sir. I
don't know what the dimensions of that property are. It's a
rather narrow piece.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe we ought to beautify that
corner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. A linear park.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. We have staff direction.
Thank you, Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Item #8D1
PRESENTATION OF THE WORKFORCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
CONDUCTED BY FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY -
ACCEPTED, FGCU TO PROVIDE COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH
PRIVATE INDUSTRY
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item, 8-D-1, presentation of
the Work Force Assessment Report conducted by the Florida Gulf
Coast University. Ms. Edwards, is this your--
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. Jennifer Edwards, Human
Resources Director.
Commissioners, we're pleased this morning to bring to you the
results of the work force assessment. With us this morning to
make the presentation we have Dr. Arthur Rubins.
Dr. Rubins is from the College of Business at Florida Gulf
Coast. He is an associate professor in the management
department. And he is also the director of sponsored programs
and projects in the College of Business, Center for Leadership
and Innovation. Dr. Rubins.
Page 29
February 8, 2000
DR. RUBINS: Good morning. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you'd just identify yourself for
the record.
DR. RUBINS: I sure will. Dr. Arthur Rubins from Florida Gulf
Coast University.
And I have a PowerPoint presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
DR. RUBINS: First, let me just say I'm very happy to present
the work force assessment. This is something that I entered into
negotiations in January of 1999, so it's been some time that
we've actually been discussing it and looking at it.
So what I'm going to do is briefly present the overview of the
study. I'll talk about the purpose of it. I'll talk about the
methods used. I'll talk about the findings, and I'll talk very briefly
about the recommendation. And I won't take any more than 15
minutes of the Board's time and the other participants' time.
If anybody feels the need to stop me at any point to ask any
orders of clarification from the Board, please feel free to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually, I think the way we'll
approach that is let you get through the presentation. DR. RUBINS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If any of us have questions, we'll
jot them down and ask them at once.
DR. RUBINS: Absolutely. Whatever format you desire with it.
Before I begin, let me just make a point. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to present the study. And also I want to
applaud you, applaud the Board, applaud the County
administration for conducting a study.
I've been involved in a number of organizational assessments
in my time. I've gone forward telling people what is involved in
an organizational assessment and a number of organizations
have stepped back and said, no, I don't think we want to do that.
So with that, I think an order of complimentary applause is given
to you.
Let me proceed ahead with it. First, the purpose of the study.
The purpose was to provide a comprehensive organizational
assessment of the internal work environment at Collier County
Page 30
February 8, 2000
Government.
We'd be looking at three different areas, primary areas,
employee job satisfaction, organizational leadership and the
internal service delivery of Collier County Government.
Very specifically, what the purpose is was to look at the
strengths of the organization and also those areas for
improvement within the organization. Looking at leadership,
looking at management, looking at culture, and there was
several other areas dealing with work life balance and specific
Collier County Government policies that we looked at as well.
Before I go too much further, let me just tell you about the
study team that we brought together with it. First, of course,
they came from Florida Gulf Coast University. And as you might
know, that Florida Gulf Coast University, it's a brand-new
university and part of the mission of the university was to
provide partnerships or create partnerships with organizations.
In that -- in pursuit of that the College of Business developed the
Center for Leadership and Innovation. That center is a link to
bring faculty resources to organizations such as yourself. And
the team was comprised of faculty members and individuals from
the College of Business, Center for Leadership and Innovation.
The design of the study, the approach that we followed with it
was what one could term a qualitative and quantitative
approach.
Now, in this format what we do is we gather qualitative
information, we inject some quantitative findings and
quantitative measures and follow it up with the qualitative
process.
The project was done in three phases, three distinct phases.
We started with focus groups, which are qualitative in nature as
far as the data gathering. Then we followed it very quickly with
a quantitative self-administered survey and we followed that and
we closed off with looking at qualitative in-depth interviews.
I'm going to very briefly go over each of these methods, and
again very briefly with it.
Qualitatively, how we started the study was with three
in-depth sessions or in-depth focus groups. The participants for
Page 31
February 8, 2000
these focus groups, by the way, came from the 1200-plus
employees that are working at Collier County Government. Now,
the employees were randomly selected. Everybody had an equal
chance of being selected and they were stratified, stratified in
the sense that they were grouped by their EEO position levels.
And we've looked at three different position levels, the first
being technical employees and just some example of technical
employees are plan operator, lab technician, engineer
technician, paramedic, purchasing technician, HR assistant, et
cetera.
The second group was office, clerical and administrative
individuals or service individuals, customer service rep would be
an example of it, library assistant, secretary, food service
worker.
And the last group was the managerial and supervisory group.
And those were the project managers, supervisors, directors
within the organization.
The focus groups were conducted at the supervisor of
elections building. Twelve people were invited to each of the
focus groups, the technicians. There was 11 participants, the
clerical there was 12. And the supervisors there was nine
participants that were part of the focus group.
Now, each focus group began with or started with an
explanation of the process and then shortly following that they
were given two questions. And very basically, the questions
were give us specific things that should be changed at Collier
County Government related to working conditions.
The second question was, please list the areas of strength in
your organization. The individuals were given the opportunities
to independently write down their list and from that we used
group dynamics and other processes to order the different
responses and to rank them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try to move ahead to the
substance. The speaker is behind. Let's move forward to the
substance of the results, if we can. I think each of the Board
members have gone through it and have a pretty good idea. I
appreciate you laying your groundwork there, but let's move on
Page 32
February 8, 2000
and see what we come up with after all this.
DR. RUBINS: That's what I wanted you to tell me. Let me
move on with that.
I'm moving past the survey and the in-death interviews. And
let's go right, as Commissioner Constantine said, right to the
findings that we have right here.
After doing the analysis -- and what I've done is I've taken the
findings and I've brought the qualitative and quantitative
together. We've looked at common themes that went throughout
the qualitative and the quantitative findings with it.
And two very, very strong issues came forward. Those issues
are pay and professional growth or promotional opportunities.
The employees expressed some very high concern for pay
equity and inappropriate reward systems and also opportunities
for professional growth within the organization.
Now, I have a few graphs I'll very quickly go through here.
This is the job descriptive index. By the way, the job descriptive
index is the most widely used survey instrument for employee
satisfaction used since 1969. It has been normalized. The
values have been -- the values of it have been normalized. So it's
been done throughout many organizations for many years. I just
want to stress the validity of this particular instrument.
First, the pay. When you look at it, you can look at the
different groupings right here, with technicians and clerical and
office individuals being lowest on the list of satisfaction with pay
that they're having currently right now.
Now, also what the JDI did, the job descriptive index, has
given us the opportunity to compare it to normalized values of
other government agencies that have completed the JDI. I think
what you'll see right here, when we look on the lower end of the
graph, that's lower satisfaction. What you can see when we
compare it to government norms, Collier County Government
generally has a lower satisfaction with the pay. Qualitatively,
what we got from the individuals in the study was, hey, why don't
you look at other governments that are very similar to you. One
that they talked about was Dade County, in particular, because
they feel that Collier County has a very high cost of living.
Page 33
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The horizontal numbers are what?
DR. RUBINS: What?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The horizontal numbers indicate
what?
DR. RUBINS: These are the findings right there and these are
the scoring. And if you go to your left, 0 to 9, 10 to 18, you're
going to see less satisfaction. If you go to your right, 46 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that. I don't know
what -- 56 what and 9 what? Percentage of the people --
DR. RUBINS: These are percentage of people, yes, I'm sorry,
out of 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
DR. RUBINS.' So what you're finding right here is almost 80
percent are saying, we're not real happy with the pay.
Okay. Let's go to the promotion and what you'll find is
something very similar. Again, when you look at it individually
with Collier County Government, they're on the Iow end as far as
promotional opportunities, with the technicians and office
administrative, or excuse me, office and clerical feeling that that
is the least opportunity for professional growth.
And, again, when I compare it to normalized government
norms, then what I find is that we see again that on the lower
end of the spectrum as far as satisfaction with promotional
opportunities at Collier County Government.
Now, there was some other findings that we had. I put them
under what I called improvement areas and I'm going to go
through them very quickly. One was workload and time
pressures. With that, employees, as we said, they feel
underpaid. But also what they're saying is they don't feel there
is enough time in the day to do their work. When it was fused
out, the information qualitatively, some of it was related to what
was stated was maybe related to understaffing and also not
replacing employees fast enough when openings have come
forward with it.
Going over to communication across divisions. There was
some concern expressed by employees related to
communication. This primarily was with communication from
Page 34
February 8, 2000
one division to the other.
And also there was some concern expressed related to
bottom-up communication. Communication going to the
supervisors. Spreading bureaucracy was used by some of the
individuals in the qualitative section and what they said is that
sometimes the administration appears to be more process
oriented. And as a result of that, it takes longer to make
decisions.
Now, when they looked at some of the reasons why, when we
looked at some of the reasons why, some of it is related to the
organizational structure. Some is related to the physical
separations of some of the facilities, which again, does not
facilitate or has not facilitated communication.
Another area was supervisory practices and accountabilities.
And in a qualitative analysis, some employees feel that certain
supervisors or certain individuals are not really in touch with
what they're doing on the job.
They also expressed that there at times appears to be
favoritism going on with certain employees. But very
importantly, what they feel is that leadership, it's very point for
leadership to assume accountability for their action and that
management really needs some, what they felt and expressed,
was really needs some training in leadership management and
development.
And last is the management's relationship with you, the Board
of County Commissioners. In the qualitative sections, many of
the employees expressed that some of the relationships that
occurred over the last year with the County administrator has
had an impact on morale and that they look for better working
relationships between the Board and the County administration.
Now with all that said, how do you compare overall? How do
you compare with government norms? Again, looking at the JDI
as a measure, as you can see, Collier County Government is not
atypical. It's very, very similar in most of the areas with the JDI
measuring work, pay, co-workers, supervision and promotion. In
fact, with work and co-workers there is a greater level of
satisfaction. So they're happy with their work. They're very
Page 35
February 8, 2000
happy with their co-workers.
Where there are some concerns we find in pay, and of course
as I said earlier, promotion. Generally, there is a satisfaction
with supervision. So very similar to other county governments as
far as the overall findings and I think this is an important point to
make with it.
Now let me move on to the strengths. When we do any
organizational assessments, we too have to look at, very strongly
at the strengths of the organization. And what we found was you
have very much a committed work force, very, a great deal of
pride in the organization, very customer focused in nature.
There are certain policies and procedures. We asked them
specific questions related to policies that are being conducted
by human resources. And there was a great deal of satisfaction
with the policies and the communication of those policies.
Very strongly, co-workers in the working relationship and the
job that they're doing ranked very, very high among the
respondents to the survey. And again, this just gives you a
layout, how satisfied they are with their co-workers. But I'll
move forward with that.
Let me move on to the recommendations. The
recommendations came in five general areas as well as some
other general topic areas.
First area is pay and benefits. And with that there is a strong
need for a comparative wage and benefits study. Looking at
existing wage and benefit structure with similar county
governments is highly recommended. And also we highly
recommend some type of staff advisory committee be done with
it. That's a very short synopsis of what we recommend. More
details, of course, are contained in the report.
Organizational efficiency and internal customer service is the
other category area for the recommendation. Employees cited,
as I said previously, bureaucratic barriers. There is a need to
identify those barriers, barriers that you have control over to
identify and respond to. And, of course, there is a number of
barriers that workers themselves have control over that they
sometimes shift it to other people. Why don't they do something.
Page 36
February 8, 2000
And that needs to be looked at and explored. And that can be
done in a variety of different formats. One format or something
we would encourage is internal customer service inventories be
conducted on a more regular basis.
Other recommended area is leadership and supervision. This
is a very important area, one that was stated by employees and
very specifically they stated they feel there needs to be more
training conducted for supervisors in the area of teamwork,
change, leadership, things of that nature.
And also performance accountability. And that type of
performance accountability, some type of accountable
evaluation system where there can be both upward and
downward evaluations being conducted.
Work standards, accountability in job designs. Employees
need to be measured for quality performance and also some type
of job design and job analysis should be looked at in looking at
the classification system.
And career mobility and training. Again, this was cited as a
very high level of frustration among your work force. And, of
course, what I would say is maintain an open air of fair level
lateral and vertical movement within the organization. And
really, very specifically, more training and growth opportunities
with that.
Now, some additional recommendations I made about
developing common visions, looking at internal processes, and
with the Board and management having more frequent
interactions with the staff and the employees there.
And in looking at the overload situations, identifying where
overload situations exist, much as you did with looking at the
street in an overload situation, you want to do the same thing
with your workplace. And, again, more detail is contained in the
report that you have there.
In closing, let me just make a few different comments and
then I'll open the floor, of course. There has been tremendous
growth in this particular region. I don't have to tell anybody that.
I think you know it better than anybody else. It was highlighted
today when you talked about the congestion problem on Estey
Page 37
February 8, 2000
Boulevard.
That type of growth has impacted the government, and to be
perfectly honest, there is stresses that come as a result of that
type of growth going on.
Currently right now, there is a study being conducted by
Collier County Government. You have contracted with Arthur
Anderson Consultants to do a pay plan study and a job
classification study. I applaud you for that. That is addressing
the first issue and a very high issue that was involved in the
findings of our particular study, so please continue with that and
respond to that.
Also I think very importantly when we look at these areas of
deficiencies or areas of improvement, they're correctable. Each
and every one of them are correctable. And they can be easily
done. Now what that's going to involve is a working relationship,
I feel very strongly as a consultant, my recommendation is a
good working relationship between the Board and the County
administration.
Also, I would like to stress, very strongly recommend and
stress to you that this type of study should be looked at as
baseline data and you should do it on a regular basis. You should
do corrective actions and then look at it in a year or look at it in
two. How are you doing? Are we moving in the right direction?
By doing that, by using this as a foundation, by moving ahead,
I really feel that you can be a model of excellence, I'll call it, for
other county governments out there. And that is my conclusion
of my presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pretty thorough.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I probably have a lot of questions
and I haven't had a chance to review the report. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My concern is you're telling me
what situations are. And I suspect that all of us have a pretty
good idea that we know what the situations are. Strategically
now we have to know how we're going to approach all of this.
Page 38
February 8, 2000
DR. RUBINS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need to have some
expectations. This should not become something that goes on
the shelf and collects dust.
You have to figure out strategically how you're going to look
at these situations and appropriate action steps. I don't see that
here. I see what I'm going to call a group of nicey-nice words.
But it is not telling me where I need to go. And the challenge I
think from this, in looking for Board direction, is if we are going
to take this back to our management structure, then we should
have an expectation that we address these issues and the
strategies of how you're going to do it and then some
expectations of who is going to do what to make these a reality.
And if we don't do that, then as far as I'm concerned, we've
wasted 30 grand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess the rush way of saying that
would be ditto.
Although, I have to add a little bit and that is we knew this. I
think what I've learned from this is compared to other
governments, our employees feel about the same about their
workplace as other government employees, except they consider
themselves to be underpaid and that they don't have enough
opportunity for promotion.
But with regard to things like bureaucracy and those kind of
things, they're pretty much like every other government worker.
I would have been interested in knowing how we rate on a
scale with the private sector because I know that we have a goal
in this county of operating more efficiently than your average
bureaucracy, so I put that out there just as an addition to.
DR. RUBINS.' Can I, Commissioner Mac'Kie, can I give you a
response on that? I can do that very easily. The JDI, because of
the wealth of information that they have stored there, their
database, it can be done very easily to say nongovernment
organization, how do you compare to nongovernment
organization, I'd be more than happy to supply you with a graph,
a general graph of all staff looking at that.
Page 39
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That would be very helpful,
because I think, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, our goal is not
to, whether it's private or public sector, not to simply be average,
but to have our work force be happy, be happier than your typical
work force. And, of course, our primary competition in Collier
County is going to be the private sector, so that would be great.
DR. RUBINS: Just an interesting note too that when you say,
"We're very much or very similar to other organizations,"
sometimes what I say to that is that the type of thing -- here, we
have a logo up there with the great seal of the State of Florida, is
that what we want on our logo, Hey, we're just as good as
anyone else?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
DR. RUBINS: Or do we want exactly what you're saying. So I
needed to follow-up with that.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, I think this is where I need to
step in and perhaps address Commissioner Carter's questions.
We've already begun follow-up. That will take two separate
directions for us.
The first thing we think is very important is to let our
employees know what they said. In other words, as a group and
an aggregate, what did they tell us. What did they tell us about
their working conditions, about how they feel about their jobs.
And we're scheduling actually some group meetings where they
have a chance to come in and get fed back to them the results of
the survey so they feel like we've communicated back with them.
We've also begun the process of developing a sort of
agency-wide task team that involve not only the division
administrators, but some line level people to begin to pick at this
study to find out what did we learn, begin to get some action
steps to take advantage of whatever we did learn here, both on a
micro scale and some of the specific role things. But also an a
macro scale to tie into the pay study that we're already doing, to
tie into the different efforts that we have ongoing so that we get
the most out of this that we possibly can.
So we're approaching this in two different ways. You will be
hearing about different things that come out of that process as
Page 4 0
February 8, 2000
we go along. Some of them through the budget, some of them as
plans are developed.
The one thing I want to say is to thank you, Dr. Rubins, for
their efforts. They've done a great job with this. It's a large
undertaking. I feel real good about the cooperative relationship
we're developing with the university and this is the kind of them
thing is really going to be useful for us down the road.
The one thing, to echo what you're saying, to say that we're
consistent with government norms, let me speak for your senior
management team. That's not good enough for us. Collier
County is going to be and deserves to be considerably better
than what you would consider the government norm.
And I think to speak very generally about what the survey said
to us, it said we've got very dedicated, very committed
employees. And what they expect from us is to be very
professionally managed. They expect to have careers here, not
just jobs and that it's your management team's responsibility to
provide that. We hear that message loud and clear. And we are
committed to changing that to where we're not just meeting
those acceptable government norms, but rather that we're
exceeding the norms of the private sector, so that's our
challenge and we look forward to getting on with it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. It is a safe assumption
that we'll accept this report and with the one request if we could
get that other comparison, that would be great. DR. RUBINS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And in providing that we are
getting some real strategies into here that is going to help our
executive team take us where we need to go. Because I hear in
here, Mike, that the employees, to reiterate what Dr. Rubins is
saying, that they like working here. They get along fairly well
with each other, but there is some issues with the management
of the process. That's where there are some issues here and we
have to address those issues. Are we doing what we need to do?
And they don't want to be adrift here. They're looking for
direction. We need to have this coordination between
departments. We all know from sitting here week after week
Page 41
February 8, 2000
that we've got some issues to deal with here. I don't want to
lose the momentum with this.
MR. MCNEES: I'm here to assure you that your five senior
managers know exactly whose shoulders that rests on. We're
spent a great deal of time talking about it already. We don't
intend to let those issues drop.
DR. RUBINS: And I just want to add that Florida Gulf Coast
University, the College of Business and the Center for Leadership
and Innovation have already spoken, of course, with Mike at
length about this and we are available to provide the resources.
And I think that's a very important point you made, Dr. Carter,
there, that there are issues. And a lot of the issues have to do
really, to be perfectly honest, with the expansion. You went from
a small town to, hey, you went to a really big town and it's not
going to stop.
And what you need to be doing is and what you are doing is
addressing those issues and you're injecting professionalism into
the managerial core. And that's setting the pace and the
direction to where you'll be going in the future. And in this
particular market that we have right now, the employee market,
it's essential that you keep your workers and they want to stay
here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd just like, looking at page 1t of
this report under the recommendations, one of the things that is
recommended here which the Board of County Commissioners
needs to remember when we hit the budget time is the parity of
wages within the region. And I know last year we kind of
stumbled on this a couple times we did have a recommendation
to us, we backed off of it.
Also, it's not all in wages, but it can be, as they've stated
here, that dollar can be spread to provide other benefits in other
areas.
DR. RUBINS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which can give the people
happiness on their ]ob. It comes in a number of ways. So I
would hope that management would come forward with some
Page 42
February 8, 2000
recommendations not only in the pay scale, but in some other
areas where we can put some money that it's going to make it a
better place to work.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, our pay plan study
will explore some of these, I assume?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, you can count on that. The other thing I'd
like to say is not only is there an expectation from you as a
commission that we tackle some of these things, we didn't just
spend $30,000, we spent a huge amount of our employees' time
and energy. And we've created expectation on their part that
something will come of this. So not only will you-all be unhappy
if nothing happens, we'll have 1200 of them after us too. I
promise you we don't want that. So it's not our intention to let
this die.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
DR. RUBINS: My pleasure. Thank you for having me here.
Item #9A
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOT TO EXCEED $12,000 TO PAY FOR AN
EXPERT TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF
PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item 9-A, budget
amendment for preparation and evaluation of noise ordinance
amendment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion from
Commissioner Norris, a second from Commissioner Mac'Kie. Any
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
Motion carries five oh.
Item #10A
Page 43
February 8, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-48 APPOINTING JERRY THIRIOR, JR. AND
KEVIN M. DURKIN TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -
ADOPTED
Item 10-A, appointment of members to the TDC, there are two
openings and two qualified.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two qualified members.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thirion and Durkin.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
That's it.
Yes.
Motion to approve.
Second.
Can I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Mac'Kie, second from Commissioner Norris. Discussion,
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's just, I have no problem with the
people that we're putting there. It's just a question of getting a
balance between owner operators and nonoperators. And I think
we always got to keep that front and center. That's why I was
particularly impressed with Dr. Ramsey's bio because of the fact
that she had been there, done that in another place, but had a
pretty diverse background. So I think we need to keep that in
mind as we move through these.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, I understand that Ms.
Ramsey does not meet the requirements.
MS. FILSON: She doesn't, but I have a press release ready to
go out for that category and she can apply for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did she fail to meet the
requirements?
MS. FILSON: It called for an owner operator. They were both
owner operators and she's a nonowner operator.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Approval of motion and second.
Do we have any public speakers on this? (No response.)
We'll take that as a no.
Commissioner Norris?
Page 44
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would this be an appropriate time
to ask where we are on perhaps appointing a Marco Island
representative to the TDC, which they have requested?
MS. FILSON: Those two applicants will be on the press
release that I have just issued.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: I will be sending it out this week. There will be
two vacancies in that category.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion to
approve Thirion and Durkin, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-49 APPOINTING SAMUEL E. WELBORN TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Item 10-C, appointment of member of parks and rec advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to accept the committee's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and second for Samuel
Welborn. Any discussion? Any public speakers? Seeing none,
all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Five oh.
Item #1 OD
RESOLUTION 2000-50 RATIFYING
APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF CURRENT MEMBERS AND
CREATION OF A NEW POSITION REPRESENTING THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED
Page 45
February 8, 2000
Appointment of members of the disaster recovery task force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move to ratify the list.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move the approval.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
and second from Commissioner Carter. And a comment from Ms.
Filson.
MS. FILSON: This one is requesting one additional member
representing Marco Island. And if the commissioners so desire,
they will have to instruct the county attorney to amend the
ordinance to include Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I assume
we don't have any in opposition to that.
Commissioner Carter?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers? All those in favor,
please say aye.
Motion carries five oh.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we ready to take a break.
Let's take a break and come back in 10 minutes and we'll hit the
road plan.
(Thereupon, a short break was taken from 10:22 a.m. to 10:35
a.m. and the following proceedings commenced.)
Item #10E
ROAD CAPITAL PLAN - STAFF TO PREPARE INFORMATION TO BE
DISCUSSED AT AN UPCOMING TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
ON MARCH 7, 2000 AT 9:00 A.M. - (CONSENSUS)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's see. The next item is Item
10-E and this was the item I brought forward for discussion on
our road network. And this is by no means intended -- each of
the commissioners should have a handout -- by no means
intended as an end product, but basically a framework.
And all five of us readily recognize the difficulty we're having
Page 46
February 8, 2000
on the road network and just a real-life approach at trying to
correct that in as short a span as possible.
I want to run through the concept with you and then we can
kick it around as a Board and hopefully give staff some more
homework to come back in a couple of weeks with some more
specifics.
But I got a kick yesterday. We've got a reporter who has
recently relocated from Texas and she was covering the news
conference yesterday. She said, "Well, have you had a chance to
talk one on one with the other commissioners?" Which
apparently they allow in Texas. I said, "Yeah, we had a barbecue
at my house over the weekend." Unfortunately we can't do that,
so today is our first crack at this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If that happened, all of us would be
the main entree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's right. We would be in a
little trouble at that barbecue.
I've outlined for the media the problem and the history. I
think all of us know that. In the last couple of years we haven't
done any road projects.
Our staff and this board has set a pretty aggressive calendar
for the next three years with fourteen major road projects
scheduled, all of which are clearly needed.
And really in the short term -- I know long-time money is an
issue when we talk about sales tax and not sales tax. And when
I say money isn't an issue, I mean only in that window.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got the money for the next
two years probably.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. By the end of this fiscal
year, September of this year, we'll have $49 million just in impact
fees. That doesn't include your gas tax, sales tax, anything else,
but just in road impact fees. Obviously there are different
districts within those road impact fees.
And then the projected impact fee revenues for each year for
the next three years is $16.4 million. So by the time you figure
interest and all those things in, we're up to in excess of $94
million in revenues at the end of that.
Page 47
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner, where did you get
your numbers?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: From our staff. As a matter of
fact, I even have a graph I can give you that I got from our folks
that show we've got 31 at the beginning of this year, what we
expect to collect this year, what interest and calculations are.
And there are 16.4 they're projecting annually in fiscal '01, '02
and '03.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we make sure that those
numbers are right? Because I just have some concerns.
Because when I asked, I didn't get the same numbers and that's
a part of my concern.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. Obviously all of us, we
have to have proper info. I'll pass on to each of you the graph
that I got from our staff on that.
MR. MCNEES: As you know, we owe you numbers overall on
the roads based on your changes in your impact fee ordinance
and the updated five-year AUIR and the additional things that
you're talking about which now include things like a double right
turn at Davis and Airport.
So that plan is being put together. We're putting all those
numbers together. I think the dangerous thing is, you can ask
not precisely the same question and get very different numbers
depending on exactly what we're looking at.
But yes, we will be bringing back to you very solid numbers on
the entire transportation plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Obviously in order to do any of
these, we have to have the money to do them. So we want to
make sure those numbers are accurate.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Which, Mr. Chairman, would lead
me to this question. To answer what Commissioner Berry is
raising, the question -- to make sure we all understand the
numbers and all the implications of what we're doing here,
should we be doing a short workshop that deals specifically with
roads or do we take it to a bigger workshop that says roads,
infrastructure, facilities, capital expenditures in the bigger
picture?
Page 48
February 8, 2000
It doesn't make any difference to me. But I really think that,
particularly on the roads because it's such an important issue to
us, that we need to make sure that we're all on the same page,
that we're working with the same data and can make the right
decisions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Really my intent of this today is
for us to do exactly that, lay out -- begin a dialogue. Lay out a
specific set of requests and direction for our staff. What
information do we need to put in place?
Whether it's this exact plan or-- as I said at the beginning,
this is a framework. And I suspect when all five of us kick this
around, there will be tweaking and turning and twisting of this
thing.
But I think there are -- the framework here -- and I don't want
to get too far afield before I at least make my way through that.
The framework really is that on many of our road projects we
have a time schedule that begins either late this year or into
next year that goes 12 months or 18 months. That is using the
standard 8:00 to 5:00 or standard daytime construction schedule.
And by declaring some sort of emergency and looking at what
-- again, giving staff direction to bring back to us a list, but what
would we have to waive as far as sound, lights and so on in order
to do the work around the clock?
Because there are a number of roads -- Pine Ridge is the one --
I had my list of the top five. I'm sure each of us will have our
own unique list, but I bet Pine Ridge would be on all five of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on mine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if there is a way for us
instead of beginning in October and going through another full
season with a 12-month project, to begin that a few months
early, do it round-the-clock and have it done in six months, in
time for most of next season, that's probably something we all
want to look at. And that's the idea, is just to build that
framework and see what is the pros of that and what's the cons.
To get some real numbers, I have had informal discussions
with a number of the contractors here in town, but the proof is in
the pudding.
Page 49
February 8, 2000
When you get your bids back you find out -- they can tell me,
"Gee, the cost will be essentially the same and we sure hope it
is." But until we get some sort of bid back, you don't have that in
concrete.
My hope here today is to use this framework to have all five of
us put together some direction for staff. This is the information
we'd like to get. Is this viable or not? And how quickly can we
get some answers to that? Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think, number one, we all have the
desire up here to do something to improve the roadways in
Collier County. I don't think anybody up here is saying, "No, don't
do it. We're not interested. We want everybody to sit in traffic
for hours."
But I think one thing that we need to do here before we get
too far down this road, that we're not making promises to the
public that cannot be kept. And none of us up here, unless it
happened overnight, have an engineering degree in road building.
And what I would like to see and what I would like --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris got that
mail-away degree, I think.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
You got that degree last night?
Yes.
What I would like to see -- I think
this is an important enough topic and agenda item that I would
like to see us have a special meeting where we deal with nothing
but roadway projects.
I would like to have the people who have the expertise to
come back to us with this information. And I don't know what
that time frame is. I don't know whether they can do it in two
weeks, a month, six weeks. I would like something that -- I'd like
to hear from our staff on how quickly this could happen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The reason I'm smiling --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I would definitely-- I don't
want to -- I'll tell you, Tim, excuse me, I don't mean to be
disrespectful. And I appreciate your getting excited about this.
I've been excited about it.
But I really think that I'd like to see us do this ASAP. I don't
Page 50
February 8, 2000
mean to steal any of your thunder, but I think we need to deal
with this with our staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And get us all going on the right
track here before we all go off in different directions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. And that's the intent today
is, as a group, to lay out, okay, what questions do we have?
What direction do we want to give staff? What's a realistic time
frame?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I don't want to hang on this
where we get accused of, "Oh, here they go again. They're
dragging their feet. They're dragging their feet. They need more
information. They're dragging their feet."
That's not it. We need to do it right the first time. And we've
seen some examples of not doing things right the first time.
So we need to get on track here. Let's get our staff to get
some numbers. Let's hear from our budget people. Let's hear
from our traffic expertise and come back and let's set a special
meeting.
I don't care if it's two hours, three hours. I don't care how
long it takes, but let's get this thing out and get it laid out so
everybody in the world knows what the Board of County
Commissioners is doing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, if anybody says, "Well,
they're going to go get more information," they are absolutely
right. We do need more information.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's your money we're spending and
I'd like to do it right the first time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I want to endorse the idea of the
workshop. I think this is a great idea, great proposal. I think we
ought to do it. I definitely want to do a transportation workshop.
And to make my point as briefly as I can, I want to suggest
that we combine the topic that you mentioned at the beginning
of the meeting about the AUIR with this workshop.
Let me just briefly lay out an idea that I floated by Mr.
McNees, that AUIR -- you're absolutely right that when everybody
Page 51
February 8, 2000
voted -- when the majority voted to accept it, that was a truthful,
honest, appropriate vote.
My vote was the one that didn't make sense by the rules. My
vote was incorrect by the rules. Because the rules were does
this -- are these roads adequate as defined by the process that
we have adopted? And the answer to that question was clearly
yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I made a point by -- my reason
in providing that was to make a point. And this is the point that I
want to get you to and I hope that you would agree to have this
included in the workshop discussion that we have on roads.
The problem -- the real problem -- we have two problems. We
have the emergency that Commissioner Constantine has
identified and then we have the process that has led us to this
emergency.
You know, Commissioner Berry, because you've talked about
it with Immokalee, that the real problem is that we have the
wrong level of service adopted for our roadways.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And we're talked about that at the
wheel meetings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about it. And we know
that all that is really happening on the roads today is that the
level of service that we've adopted as acceptable for our roads is
starting to happen. We're reaching it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And what the people are paying for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. What people have
said they're willing to pay for is what's happening out there on
the roads right now.
I hesitate, even though I could get real excited and would
support changing the LOS, I even worry about that because I
know that it's a stick for the State to beat us with. I know that it
means that we would lose control over the question of a
moratorium if we change the level of service on roads.
What I had asked Mr. McNees to think about, and maybe he
could incorporate into the workshop, would be to have an
additional standard. We have the State standard, which is the
Page 52
February 8, 2000
level of service standard, but let's have a community standard.
Let's have some standard by which we can measure, you
know -- we have higher standards than the State. Let's have
some standard by which we have a barometer to identify when
the roads are getting uncomfortable for us. A whole different
question from moratorium, level of service, the State process.
But maybe it's a --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Community expectation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- community congestion standard
or something like that that is quantifiable. So that when the PUD
comes in and it's going to be dumping another 800 cars on Pine
Ridge Road, there are two questions to be asked.
One is, what is the LOS? And the answer to that one always
is, things are fine. But the second question would be, what's the
community congestion index or some other topic, whatever we
end up calling it, and would this project contribute significantly
to that?
Would it make the congestion worse? How much worse? Tell
us, transportation staff, what this would do to Pine Ridge Road.
That is an idea that I hope you guys would support having staff
bring back to us as we go forward both with the emergency and
with the long-range idea.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would say ditto --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cool.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- to everything that you said.
Because along with that in the framework of the workshop, I
think we should invite in people from CBIA.
I think some of the engineering companies here who contract
to us, who work with us, I would like to see this -- the broadest
base inputs that we can get, the most comprehensive to deal
with everything that has been put out here in front of us this
morning on the dais.
I agree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we too often look at
just one little piece, what is the overall community impact. And
that's the word I've been hunting for for so long.
And the criticism that ! get, why do you continue to approve
Page 53
February 8, 2000
projects when we're already congested? And I know a lot of the
reasons why we do it, but I'm looking for some reasons perhaps
why we shouldn't do it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- until we have met the -- have an
infrastructure that can handle what we're going to do.
So if we can design a workshop to take all that into
consideration, then I think the catalyst here is what
Commissioner Constantine has provided, is to get us to do that.
If it takes an emergency to make this happen, I agree with that,
let's get it done.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me say one comment too. The
very people that many times complain about the congestion, as
all of us have, we have all contributed to it. We moved here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And there are also people who come
down here who visit in the wintertime. And they come down --
whether they're staying in Collier County or they drive in from
Lee County for the day, they are also impacting. And you're not
going to stop it. And you can't even build a road to
accommodate it.
But there is going to be times of the year when there is going
to be congestion in Collier County. Whether you like it or not,
you live in a resort community. That's what it started out as
umpteen years ago and that's what it is today.
However, many people have chosen to make this their home.
They don't think of it as being a resort community. Sorry, guys,
you are. That's the way it started and that's the way it's going to
be.
There is not much you're going to do about it. You can't
change it. Tourism is a hot item in Southwest Florida,
particularly when it's 30 below in Duluth. People, if they can get
on a plane, they're going to get out of there.
Talk to the people that live up in New York and it's snowing
up there and blizzarding in Bangor, you can bet your life, if they
can find a plane, they're going to be down here. Or at least
they're going to get close and we're going to feel the impact.
Page 54
February 8, 2000
But we can certainly do a lot better for the people who are
here probably nine months out of the year. Those of us who
reside here even on a year-round basis, we can do a better job.
And I think that's what Commissioner Constantine is addressing
when he brought this forward today. That it's not only the peak
traffic, but it's just our daily --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're absolutely right. We're
looking from May to November. We really have to focus on that.
We're going to have peak season where, yes, it's congested.
And I can tell you if you go to some resort in the summer, is
there congestion in the highlands and North Carolina in the
summer? Yes. But that is not -- that has to be a subissue to the
bigger issue that we're trying to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. And Martha's Vineyard will
tell you the same thing. I mean, you don't move too well up there
in the summertime. But that's not what we're talking about.
The Pine Ridge intersection on 1-75 is that way even in the
summertime at hours. There is still a traffic problem out there in
the summertime, so that's what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm all in favor of fast tracking
these road projects. I'm not sure that we need to declare an
emergency. I think we can just do it. If we have to have a
workshop, I know Commissioner Mac'Kie has never met a
workshop she didn't like.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you've never met one you did.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I never met one I did. Anyway
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Once in a while they even agree
with each other on the workshops.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As we move forward to that, I'd like
to have one question for Mr. Kant and the transportation staff to
be ready to answer during that alleged workshop. MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bringing back our attention to
when we did 951, Collier -- which is now Collier Boulevard from
Davis Boulevard down to 41, we had originally scheduled that as
Page 55
February 8, 2000
two separate projects. By combining that into one project, I
believe we saved $6 million or so, wasn't it?
MR. KANT: I don't remember the exact number.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Something like that.
MR. KANT: We did have a significant saving.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm looking here at our proposals.
Now we have five different Livingston Road segments. I think
the one north of Immokalee Road is already underway and I don't
think we need to pay too much attention to that.
But if we combine those four segments from Radio Road to
Immokalee Road and made that one project, we would most
likely save a lot of money.
Plus, if we did that on a fast-track basis, I'm not so sure that
we would have to go ahead and six-lane Airport Road from Pine
Ridge to Vanderbilt at this particular time. That might stave that
one off because that would be a reliever, really, for Airport Road.
MR. KANT: We can examine that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I think that's one of the things
I'd like for you to examine and be ready to talk about when we
get over there.
MR. KANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Beyond that I think we just need to
go ahead -- in that workshop we'll use that time to prioritize
some of these projects and balance that with the funds we have
available and go forward with it as fast as we can.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think what Commissioner Norris
said was outstanding. And that's what I'm looking for in a lot of
this, is how do we take big sections and do it versus saying do a
little here and a little there and a little here? That's what I'm
looking for. You said it well, Commissioner Norris.
And I hope that the staff will not just take that, but look at
everything that we're doing in these areas and come up and say,
"You know, Board, if you did this, it would help the situation
immensely and it would be better than doing two or three little
ones over here." So I'm looking for all of that input.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Looking at that Livingston Road
Page 56
February 8, 2000
section, I would like to just propose something. As you know,
and even on our agenda today, we've got several developments
that are coming before us for either rezones or some type of --
something that we're going to be looking at.
I don't know if we can do it or not, but if they want to get
Livingston Road and they want to get those projects, I would
suggest that perhaps they ought to combine their efforts and
build Livingston Road to connect up with that Wyndemere
section before they turn the first shovel of dirt on those projects.
And that will certainly help out the Pine Ridge interchange area.
I know they're all dying back there about this. I thought about
this --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: EMS was just called, I think.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If Bonita Bay or Long Bay
Properties, whatever they are called, can do it up for the
Mediterra Group, then you've got a number of properties. I'm not
talking about one group bearing this whole load, but there are
several.
We've got them before us today. Why don't they pool their
efforts, build that road -- and I don't care if there is impact fee
credits or whatever. I believe that's what we granted to the
Long Bay Partners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then why not go ahead and let them
build it? I think it's, like, what, Ed, is that a mile and a half, mile
and a quarter?
MR. KANT: Two miles.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, two miles of roadway. If you
want to get your project out of the ground and time is money,
then build the darn roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we have, once we get to --
because I'm optimistic that we will -- once we have something
like a community congestion index or whatever we call it, that
would be the flag that waves when these projects come in that
says, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You can approve it, but you
better put some conditions on there."
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think there is -- if I recall, there
Page 57
February 8, 2000
is like four or five developers in that area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've got two things. We've got
the Livingston Road, but we also have the east/west road. And I
want to -- and a planning commission person brought this up. I
want to see all that together before we're --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I'd like to consider putting that
stipulation on any of this area in there that before this happens --
because I'm not likely to say yes unless we have some
alternative.
And I don't think we can get this other done in time to adjust
and take care and accommodate the traffic that is going to be
generated by these developments coming on. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can help wrap all this up
a little bit. You're making some great suggestions and I guess,
I'll put it this way, I'd have to be a tree stump to not have
grasped already that our road and our transportation issues have
become a high priority, if not the highest priority for you as a
Board.
I can tell you what we're already doing. We've already
launched a concerted effort internally to dissect, so to speak,
how we deal with all of our transportation issues from capital to
maintenance to -- and everything in between. We're bringing in
some outside assistance to help us with that.
I can tell that you Mr. Kant has already contacted the two
contractors that we have under contract, that would be for
Livingston Road and for Immokalee Road, to get a proposal from
them on an advanced construction schedule as an add after the
fact, even though those contracts are already let.
He's already contacted the contractor for the Golden Gate
Boulevard project -- or the bidders on the soon-to-be-bid Golden
Gate Boulevard project to get an add alternate into that bid for
an accelerated schedule, so that we begin to push these things a
little more quickly through the pipeline.
I think the idea of a workshop where we can bring back to you
the result of all of these things that we're pushing is a great idea.
We would like -- I'm going to look for horrified looks over there --
Page 58
February 8, 2000
30 to 60 days because we're talking about the financial issues
that we need to -- and we need to figure the new impact fee
numbers. We're talking about all of these things. We'd like a
chance to bring back to you a good comprehensive review.
And I think a workshop is a great idea. You-all do it whenever
you want to do it and we'll be here to have it. So I want you to
know that we understand the urgency that you're trying to
communicate to us and that we're after it and we'll continue to
do so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am going to make the following
suggestion. And that is, I think by the enthusiasm expressed by
all of us here, you're absolutely right, all five commissioners are
pretty dedicated at trying to solve the problem.
There are two distinct issues here. One is the immediate
problem, the short term, and trying to -- if we can condense some
of those projects into a shorter time frame and beat next season,
or at least not go through two seasons in the case of Golden
Gate Boulevard, then we ought to look at those alternatives.
I would like to set March 7th, that would be a month from
now, as a workshop. That's a Tuesday. It's not a regular
commission meeting Tuesday, but at 9:00 a.m. have a workshop
and have prepared, spend the next month looking at costs and
priorities. Realistically, what's the expense, additional expense,
if any, to doing round-the-clock type work.
Also getting those numbers clarified as far as revenues. So
that if the information I was provided is inaccurate, that we have
accurate information to work from.
But the impacts. If we move up some of these, as
Commissioner Norris said, if we move some of these projects up,
does that ease off any of the other projects? And we ought to be
able to look with some transportation modeling as to what the
impacts might be.
Just general viability. And also if there are alternative means
to shorten this. I mean, 24-hour work may be one alternative.
There may be other alternatives to make these contracts shorter
in time.
And also, just the legality of some building requirements. I
Page 59
February 8, 2000
think Commissioner Berry's suggestion is a great one. If we can
require some of these folks to participate in the building of the
roadways they are directly impacting or requiring, then we ought
to.
And then just for ourselves, I included in here kind of my top
five list, but I bet each of us -- as I said, we may all have Pine
Ridge, but we may have other priorities.
Just in the meantime all of us ought to look around and see
what we think are our top priorities, so when we go into that
meeting we're not starting from scratch. The staff has done their
homework and we've tapped the private sector.
And we, as commissioners, have done the homework, and we
sit down and -- for the short-term part of this, anyway, we come
out of there with some direction, some general direction for
where we want to head.
I think separately we want to explore the long term. I know
from MPO direction we've already started that process with level
of service and so on.
I want to be careful because they are -- while they're related,
they are two different issues. I think we need to look at the
overall process. And I wondered if we may even be able to set
aside some time at our next MPO meeting specifically for that.
And this is strictly from memory, but I think our next agenda
on the MPO is extremely short. I mean, it's like a 40-minute
agenda. And so we might just set aside a couple hours at the
end of that to go through the long term.
Because we want to include -- in any long-term planning, we
want to include our city representatives from the City of Naples
and City of Marco. MPO is probably the best place for us to do
that overall process.
Is there any objection to setting that workshop for a month
from now, March 7th?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we be sure that this long-term
option is also in the agenda?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. As still sitting chair
of that, I'll make sure that's on the next agenda as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. No objection.
Page 60
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you.
Item #10F
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL "FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT" RE:
KINGS WAY CLOSURE - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO
VERIFICATION AND METHODOLOGY OF DATA PRESENTED TO
THE COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE -APPROVED
That takes us to Item tO-F, Kings Way closure. Legal issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Briefly, speaking of road
congestion problems, you guys know that I have sort of done a
mea culpa on the Kings Way and said that for myself my vote
was a mistake.
We had a staff recommendation not to close it. We chose to
close it anyway. Everybody will have had different reasons why
they cast their vote.
One of the problems -- one of the factors in the decision I
made to cast my vote to close the road was that all of the area
neighborhoods had agreed and supported the proposal. I'm not
so sure that turns out to be true.
And now, I'm not suggesting that that would have changed
everybody's vote if that weren't true because there were still and
there are still real world reasons why we needed to do something
to help Kings Way, just like we are addressing these problems on
a case-by-case basis as they come up.
What I'd like to ask -- well, let me back up one more step.
We've done it, though. We've done it now. And I see it as a
mistake and I'm trying to find a way to rectify my mistake.
And if there is a majority of the Board who is interested in
looking at it, this is not going to be an easy mistake to rectify.
Because we have now made this conveyance of real property
and it's very difficult to undo.
Nevertheless, if we were in some way misled, and that's all
that fraud in the inducement means, if we were misled -- and I
feel that I was -- I'd like to know if that would be a legal basis for
us to go back to Foxfire and reevaluate that decision.
Page 61
February 8, 2000
Whether it's a -- maybe it wouldn't have changed your vote,
but maybe it would have changed the timing on the
implementation. Maybe we would have said, "Yes, we'll close it,
but not until we address Donna and not until we have the
Livingston extension."
I'm just looking for some direction to the county attorney to
research, what are the possible repercussions of our having been
misled in that process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
are in question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Specifically which neighborhoods
I don't want to say and limit and
question any in particular. What I think is that our process
doesn't have a means by which we confirm.
We accept by face value when we get a representation that
this letter came from this association and it represents the will
of the association and they all agree.
I'm asking for the county attorney to investigate if that were a
misrepresentation, not concluding that it is, if it were, would that
open the door for us to reevaluate our choice on Foxfire? Any
support for doing that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just speaking for myself, I can
tell you that I know -- I understand the letters that you're
referring to. That type of letter, I don't want to seem crass with
this, I generally don't put a lot of weight on my decision-making
process to that type of letter as they came from -- the ones
you're speaking of came from indirectly-affected areas rather
than directly-affected areas.
And while they're certainly valuable in your decision-making
process on a weighted scale, they're not that important on the
overall picture. So it would not have affected my vote one way
or the other no matter what the letters had said, whether they
were pro or con.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will tell you, my opinion was
based on the amount of traffic that is going to be coming --
particularly as Livingston opens -- through there, and the idea
that 17 -- you know, we discussed this morning the 9800 cars
going through one neighborhood. They would have been looking
Page 62
February 8, 2000
at 17,000 cars a day going through a neighborhood street and
that by itself was enough for me.
I've said it continually. I think it's an inconvenient issue for
some other people, but the toughest part of what we deal with
with the amazing growth here is protecting the old
neighborhoods and trying to maintain a balance there. That's
where mine came from, not from some letter from Lakewood or
anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with you that that was --
and I hope I said that -- that there may well be really important
reasons to close Foxfire. But if we had -- if, in fact, those letters
are not true, I can just say for myself, if we had had somebody
from Flamingo Estates or some neighborhood waving and saying,
"Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, we're concerned what's
going to happen to our neighborhood as a result of this closure,"
I might have adjusted the timing on my vote.
I might have said, "Yes, you know, that's going to be a huge
problem when Livingston is extended, but first let's lay out a plan
for the area. Let's divert in Donna. Let's say what we're going to
do in Foxfire.'
Once Livingston is extended, it would have affected the
outcome if only with regard to timing. And I just think that it's
worth looking into to see if we can make any changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The County has in place a
reconsideration ordinance, which is very clear that you have a
particular time frame in which to reconsider.
And I understand your issue of whether or not there was
fraud. If you want to pursue that with the county attorney on
your own and if you have some reason to believe other than
hearsay that there was, then certainly we want to know that. We
don't want people lying to the Board.
But to go back and try to reconsider a year later I don't think
is, A, legal; or, B, in the best interest of the community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the question is, I certainly .- I
understand that I can ask the county attorney any question that I
want to. But he works for the Board and his priorities are set by
what the Board asks him to do.
Page 63
February 8, 2000
And my question is, I hear that there are two people who don't
agree with the inquiry. I hope that there are two who might
direct the county attorney to investigate whether or not this
would allow us to make some adjustments in our decision on
Foxfire.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Frankly I think perhaps we might
have been misled with some of those petitions. It was one of
those things that if you were close to making a decision one way
or the other it may have swayed you.
Because thinking that, hey, this doesn't appear to be a
problem. The neighborhoods must be very sympathetic with the
Foxfire traffic problem. And so they're saying to us, "It's okay,
you know, we understand it's different than it was before. So
now we're sympathetic and we're saying it's all right."
If that wasn't the case, then I'd certainly like to know about it.
I don't particularly like being lied to. That doesn't set real well
with me.
The second thing is -- which may be more of a bombshell from
my perspective, is just a couple weeks ago we authorized the
Board to spend $100,000 on an engineering study for the power
line area, which we've all said we'd like to take a look at.
In addition to that, we've done this, we've closed this traffic
situation for Foxfire and eliminated the traffic coming through
their neighborhood. But I'd really like to take a look and see just
exactly what it would cost to acquire the line-up with Livingston
Road.
And yes, I know it involves nine holes of golf and I know it
involves some apartment buildings or condo buildings, but I'd like
to know what that cost is as well as the power line road. Now,
we'll stop the traffic from coming through your neighborhood, but
guys, there is going to be a cost to this.
So I think we need to take not only a look at the power line,
but I'd like to take a look at what it would cost the county to
acquire that right of way to take it right on down that ties into
Livingston Road. I think it's a straight shot, as I recall.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is Mr. McNees here. I know
Page 64
February 8, 2000
Ed Ilschner had done a preliminary look at that, so that wouldn't
be that hard to get that information, would it? MR. MCNEES: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The big thing is -- I don't think
anybody here cares if we went through a golf course. The big
thing is, you have condo buildings here in the timber area and
you would take a number of people out of their homes. And
that's information we ought to look at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And we need numbers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aren't those rental apartments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's what we need to know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think they are. I think we looked
at this in another context once before.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Apparently they don't count as
homes if you only rent it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not just that. It's that there
are going to be -- if the FP&L easement is an option, it's going to
be way more expensive than usual because of the additional
damages that would result.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. It could potentially be. You
need to be very, very careful to say it is going to be because we
don't know that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's the reason, no matter
what we say, we would like to get some numbers back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On both.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to get a comparison to see
what we have got here so we know what might be our potential
cost out here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's fine. Mr. McNees, take
that as direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the Foxfire question? I
have heard two yeses and two noes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't have any interest in doing
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't like information that I can't
Page 65
February 8, 2000
verify. I would like to know whether or not -- I will -- in this case I
agree with finding out what the information is.
I am not going to sit here this morning and tell you that I
would change my decision on Foxfire. Some people may
question whether it was the best decision I ever made or not.
That could go on forever. But I would like to know how valid the
information was, but I don't want to reopen that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to look at the other options.
I think in hindsight I could say, Monday morning quarterbacking,
if I had a master plan of the area, would that have influenced my
decision differently than what I did? Perhaps it would have.
don't want in the future to get information coming to me that
can't verify and so perhaps --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe that's the bigger question,
Commissioner, is that in the future is there some way that we
can verify that this is representative of an association or of a
homeowners' group or whatever?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I think we need to be very
careful in assuming that these were fraudulent because right
now there is allegations. You're not suggesting anything
different, but some in the public may pick that up and run with it
that, quote, there was fraud. We don't know that. They are
allegations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't know that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if somebody has proof of
that, great. Bring it to Commissioner Mac'Kie, who has a great
interest in it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring it to Mr. Weigel, I think,
because we've now gotten direction for him to look into it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We did?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we got three.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear three. If
you want to make a motion to give him some sort of direction, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the motion?
Page 6 6
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The motion is to give the county
attorney direction to look into the question of verification of
documentation that is presented to the Board and an appropriate
methodology for verifying for future.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For future.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: For future.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in addition to that, inquiring
regarding the veracity of the information submitted in support of
the Foxfire closing position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll support the first part of that
motion. But Mr. Weigel and his staff are extraordinarily busy. I
don't think the best use of their time is chasing out wild
allegations that we have absolutely nothing to back up right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have 6,000 signatures on a
petition to back it up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. We have 6,000 signatures of
people who are upset by what we did, but that doesn't
necessarily mean the letters --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can I finish?
That doesn't mean the letters we got from a particular
homeowners' association president or board of directors were
fraudulent. And we don't have one ounce of factual data to
indicate they were. So I don't think it's in our best interest to
assign him on that goose chase until we have something that
indicates they are.
We know there are members of the public who were upset
with the overall idea. But to just say, "Well, somebody has made
an allegation that something might have been wrong by
somebody," we don't know who, we don't know when, we don't
know how, that is not the best use of Mr. Weigel's time.
That might be a great use of your time and you could try to
track down specifically which ones you think are fraudulent and
then we could pass that on to Mr. Weigel. But that's not the best
use of his nor his staff's time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion, though, stands.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion?
Page 67
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you don't mind if I could
finish.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion?
Motion dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just 30 seconds ago two people
agreed with it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What I agreed with, Pam, was I think
-- I don't know that we can do anything right now on this issue.
But I think in the future I certainly would like to know if this
comes before us. Pam, do you have some information that these
were fraudulent?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have 6,000 signatures from
people who live in the neighborhoods that purport to be
represented by the people who signed the letters. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The whole thing -- let's get back on
track here. The whole thing is completely academic if there is
not a majority of the Board that would change their vote,
assuming that you're correct in the first place.
The whole thing is academic, so why spend our legal staff
time chasing down something that doesn't matter?.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I will tell you, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, I live in a group where sometimes a majority of the
people are frustrated with my homeowners' association, but they
still legally represented what they thought was in the best
interest.
That doesn't mean it was fraudulent. So the 6,000 signatures
express tremendous frustration at the action that was taken, but
it in no way clarifies any fraudulent action.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my request is that we ask the
county attorney to make that determination. And that has
apparently failed. I've made the request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I would certainly encourage
you to pursue that on your own if you feel that strongly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would support a motion for future
verification of data coming to this Board.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll make a motion to do that.
Page 68
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion for Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second from Commissioner
Carter.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion -- wait. We've got a public speaker. Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Actually, you had a speaker on the last item,
the roads issue, that in tree stump mode I ignored as we went
through there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're past that right now. Motion
is by Commissioner Berry. Second by Commissioner Carter. All
those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carried five oh.
Item #1 lB
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - TY AGOSTON SPOKE
REGARDING ROAD ISSUES
Would we want to go back to the individual who was here on
the roads issue? Ty, can you bring that up under general
comment? That will be coming up in another ten or fifteen
minutes.
MR. AGOSTON: I have a luncheon date.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. I've got a luncheon
date with my dad. Come on up. I can sympathize.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, everybody. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates. Let me just start by
expressing the protest.
I was locked out of the last meeting because of a late slip
that I handed in on an item that I didn't even know you were
going to cover and I don't believe in the fairness of that process.
I believe that unless an item is part of the regular published
agenda --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ty, are you speaking to the road
Page 69
February 8, 2000
issue? Because that's what we -- MR. AGOSTON: No. This is just the last time I couldn't bring
up the issue, but I just wanted to address that.
Now we're talking about the road issue. I have expressed a
number of times my frustration with the process of the widening
of Golden Gate Boulevard.
I have attended many meetings at the planning of that
boulevard and was dissatisfied the way we have allowed some
11 people to block the entire process of the widening of that
road.
Last night I took my grandson to the library. On the way back,
traveling east towards Wilson Boulevard, it took me 25 minutes
to travel from the library to Wilson Boulevard.
I happen to be from around New York City. The only damn
place that I have ever spent 25 minutes traveling a mile and a
half was in New York City right around Christmas. They get busy
over there.
I believe that you as a commission should also gauge the
waiting time. I talked to a number of people traveling that road.
I don't believe that there was another road in Collier County with
that type of a delay.
You're talking about Pine Ridge. You're talking about Airport.
I don't see that kind of a delay there and I travel those roads. I
don't travel Golden Gate Boulevard at the peak hours because I
don't have the time to sit there.
I also believe that you should build some access maybe by
13th Street going out towards Immokalee Road so there is some
relief. You just sit there. You're not going anywhere.
And I want you to understand one other fact. The people
living out there are primarily family people. These people are
trying to get home to feed their children.
I believe if you look at the population demographics, you're
going to have a lot more family out there than you have in the
inner-city. And I believe even that compassion part should enter
into your decision.
But I think even in terms of pure numbers -- let me just repeat
it. There is no other place you have the kind of a traffic delay as
Page 70
February 8, 2000
you have on Golden Gate Boulevard. So I'm kind of begging you
to make some extra effort in trying to satisfy some of these
mothers who are trying to get home.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So it's safe to assume that if we
can come up with a way to shorten the construction schedule for
Golden Gate Boulevard, you would be in support of that?
MR. AGOSTON: But Mr. Constantine, you just mentioned that
your top priority is Pine Ridge Road. And to be honest with you, I
thought that you guys should have -- I don't know what you guys
got against cloverleaf entrances and exits to large highways.
That I believe is your problem on Pine Ridge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually, I listed five priorities
and Golden Gate Boulevard is one of those. And they are not in
any particular order.
MR. AGOSTON: But it should be at the top.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They are not in any particular
order. They are just my top five priorities.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're really in no order.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I mean the point is -- and
Commissioner Berry has brought that forward as well as
anybody, is, I mean, if you get on the boulevard, it's a parking lot
in the morning, at night and unfortunately even in odd hours
nowadays. It's not even just during rush hour.
MR. AGOSTON: But that doesn't happen anywhere else, not
that kind of waiting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I suspect there are people in
other parts of the county that would --
MR. AGOSTON: Long Island Expressway gets to be a parking
lot.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Kant, can you
clarify a point, please? Because this has been talked about
recently too. I feel like I'm a schoolteacher again.
Would you clarify the point about the interchanges on the
interstate and who determines what kind of access is on the
interstate, whether it's a cloverleaf or what we currently have
here?
Page 71
February 8, 2000
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
The interstate is under the jurisdiction and control of the Florida
Department of Transportation and they're guided further by
guidelines set forth by the Federal Highway Administration.
Collier County has -- except for the public hearing and
workshop process, has no decision-making authority on those
design or implementation issues.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Thank you. And I certainly
hope, Cathy, back there writing, would you please make sure
that this point gets put in a news article? Because I'm tired of
getting ripped, as all the commissioners must be, about the fact
that we, the Board of County Commissioners, ought to put
cloverleafs on the interstate. We don't have a darn thing to do
with it. Okay.
Please make a note of that. I mean, it's just one more point.
It's just information that gets out there and everybody says, "Oh,
they're at it again, those five ugly people up there."
We do enough wrong, okay, that we deserve getting criticized.
But when we don't deserve it, I think we need to make note that,
take your complaint somewhere else.
Item #11A1
COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM ADDITIONAL OFFICER
REQUEST - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Moving on to Item 11-A-1,
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
approve the COPS Universal Hiring Program -- I think the only
question on this, we have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Mac'Kie -- Commissioner Berry has often brought
up the question of subsequent years --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have any problem with it, but
please note that when this grant runs out, the sheriff department
is going to come to the Board of County Commissioners and it's
Page 72
February 8, 2000
going to be in their budget.
I just want that made perfectly clear. And don't come and say
-- and don't write it in here that it will be absorbed into the
sheriff's budget. Oh, it will, but it will be added on as additional
dollars required by the Board of County Commissioners for the
sheriff's department.
So please don't mislead the public that this is a freebie and
that we should race out there and do it. I'm supportive of what
you got and I don't mind you doing it, but just don't mislead the
public.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In the past we have requested and
they have complied with our request that come budget time
when these come off of the grant program that they will list them
as expanded service. And if they continue to do that, then we'll
at least know that these are now going to be picked up locally.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to second?
Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that another way of looking at
this is that these are necessary police officers today that we get
paid for without property taxes for two or three years.
So these are necessary today, that we either pay for them by
property taxes or by this grant. So thank you very much for
finding a way to pay for them without our pocketbook.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But the question we need to know
is, how many of these positions actually get filled?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I bet these get filled.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do they get filled? Because I'm sure
every time we end up coming that we get further and further
behind. So if you're filling all these positions every time these
grants come up, we shouldn't be getting further and further
behind.
MR. LEWIS: For the record, Harvey Lewis, Collier County
Sheriff's Office. We do our very best to try and fill the grant
positions as quickly as we can.
Page 73
February 8, 2000
Are we having a problem filling positions right now? Yes,
we're having a problem filling positions right now. We're very
hopeful, though, with the salary study that is underway and with
your support of adjustments in the pay plan that we'll be able to,
you know, overcome the critical problem we have right now
filling vacancies.
And I might say also just for information, it's early in the 2001
process, but we have started to look at the 2001 budget and this
relates to grants.
We believe that in the 2001 budget we will be able to limit the
number of new position requests, that through the federal
funding we will be able to fund any expanded positions that we
need to keep up with growth, need to keep pace with growth and
increasing calls for service. And that our real priority in the next
budget process will be full implementation of the new pay plan
and the salary adjustment.
So we're equally as concerned about the problem of filling the
positions as you are. We do think it's having an impact on
preventive patrol. And we're hopeful that we'll be able to
address -- with your help, we'll be able to address those problems
in the future coming months of this year and next year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We have a motion.
We have a second. All those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response}.
Five oh.
Item #11A2
EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
FIBER OPTICS CABLE FROM BUILDING "J" TO BUILDINGS "F',
"C1" AND "C2" - APPROVED
Item 2, the question -- 11-A-2 is, authorize emergency
expenditure of funds for the purchase of fiber-optic cable.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
Page 74
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why do we have fiber-optic cable
going to Guy and Abe and everybody else?
MR. LEWIS: Related to some specific information, for
example, driver's license records that the sheriff's agencies need
direct access to. We've gotten those questions answered and
we certainly don't have any objection.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner Norris,
second from Commissioner Berry. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
Item #11 B
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - JANE VARNER SPOKE
REGARDING URBAN GROWTH ISSUES
Any general comments? Anybody signed up for that?
MR. MCNEES: We have one. Jane Varner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MS. VARNER: Good morning. I'm Jane Varner and I'm just
speaking for myself, though I belong to a number of organizations
that are all concerned about growth. Everything we're talking
about here is all due to growth.
And I see that there are more people applying for zoning and
new developments and so forth. And I guess what's so hard to
understand is, why do we continue approving more and more and
more developments when we're here in this dilemma of what are
we -- how are we going to supply the roads?
I don't know, we have water problems. We have sewer
problems. We'll have waste problems of garbage disposal and all
of this. And it appears that growth is controlling us instead of
the other way around.
And I don't know -- I thought we had some kind of a density
plan that we would keep things within a certain density. I see no
reason to increase density and price of acres of land that are
already zoned for less density, that at least we can hold down
Page 75
February 8, 2000
the density. That's a lot of our problem.
And I also see our problem is within the urban area. I know
we talk about urban sprawl, but I see our problem is within the
urban area. That's where all of us are piling on top of each other.
And I don't know -- I imagine there are a lot of pressures upon
you because people have property, they want to develop it and
so forth. But I just wonder if you can say no sometimes because
I think I'm led to believe the level of service for our roads is
what, D?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: D.
MS. VARNER: Now, are we proud of D?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what you're paying for.
MS. VARNER: That's close to F.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what you're paying for.
MS. VARNER: We're paying for D?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you want to pay for more, we can
do it.
MS. VARNER: Well, I just don't know. We want to kind of
pride ourselves with being a nice community and so forth and yet
we're satisfying ourselves with D? And still, I'm even questioning
if it's D.
Because I hear people -- I fortunately don't have to be on the
roads all the time like some people do. I try to avoid these peak
periods and stay within my little area.
But there are a lot of people that have to travel these roads
every day. And then to pile upon them more population to add to
more congestion. Can we let the roads first get to a more
acceptable level before we continue to approve more
developments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jane, I just wanted to comment
because I know that you are a capitalist, so I want to put this
question in front of you.
The dilemma for me is this, because we could and I would
support increasing the level of service, raising it to a higher,
make it a B or a C or something that is more aligned with our
standards, but that would leave us with two alternatives.
One, to tax your pants off to pay for roads that nice; or two, to
Page 76
February 8, 2000
stop development through a moratorium which would put 25
percent of the economy or more of this community out of work.
That's the bottom line. We have got these two choices.
MS. VARNER: Well, I am a capitalist. I'm a free marketer and
so forth, so I do recognize your dilemma. However, there is
always a point when people will be out of work because there is
a point of diminishing returns.
The question is, when we reach that point, what can we
accept? I mean, obviously jobs are important, but there comes a
point when we have to say that the jobs will have to go
somewhere elsewhere where there is place to develop.
But there just comes a point when you have to say no or to
slow down because otherwise people keep rushing in here. They
will rush in here and create more jobs for building, which puts
even added pressure in the future because we have more and
more people in the industry.
So somewhere, I realize you have a dilemma, but I'm just
saying this as a public citizen here to try to slow down and stop
it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Jane, you have always been a
staunch conservative. Let me explain to you what we have to
deal with.
A person especially -- and let us concentrate inside the urban
area because that's what we're dealing with in almost all cases
because we do have a moratorium outside the urban area for the
moment.
Our Growth Management Plan takes up a full shelf on my
bookcase in my office. There is a number of different elements,
a dozen different elements in there.
If a property owner wants to develop his property and it's
inside the urban area and it matches the comprehensive plan's
map -- for example, if it's in an area that would be classified as
single-family residential, for example, that property has to
comply with all of that entire Growth Management Plan.
But they're not done yet. They have got to comply with the
Land Development Code, which is about this thick, a book about
Page 77
February 8, 2000
this thick. Then they have to comply with all sorts of
environmental regulations and so forth and so on. They get
permits from all these different agencies.
If a property owner goes through that process, complies with
all regulations and all laws on the books, we can't just arbitrarily
say, "We have decided that we don't want you to develop your
property." We can't do that.
Well, we can do that, but we'd be immediately sued. And
under the Burt J. Harris Private Property Act we would have to
buy the property or compensate the owner for the property, that
we took his rights, his very valuable private property rights away
from him. And he would have a good case. He would win.
Now, as far as a moratorium, we could declare a moratorium,
but we have to follow the regulations that are contained within
that big Growth Management Plan in order to do that.
And if we fail to comply with the conditions that would be
required to impose a moratorium, there again, we'd be under the
Burt J. Harris Private Property Act.
If we did declare a moratorium, we would find ourselves
immediately in court with the State of Florida, forcing us to make
whatever tax increases and remedial actions need to lift that
moratorium. You can't just arbitrarily do that.
Now, I know it's very popular for everybody out there. The
newspaper -- the public is not getting the correct information.
You just can't go out and say, "1 have decided I want to declare a
moratorium because there is too many people here."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I, if you don't mind, Jane --
MS. VARNER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a really useful debate. The
fact is, you can do it, but you have to follow the rules. And the
way we could do it tomorrow is to adopt a level of service for our
roads of LOS-B.
So when all of our roads are below the level of service, no
more development can be permitted. The State is not going to
haul us to court, but we have to have a plan to dig out of that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This requires you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is Commissioner Berry's
Page 78
February 8, 2000
point, which is, we will have to tax you to death. But that might
be what the community is saying we're ready to do; and that is,
bite the bullet, have the repercussions, have the fallout on the
economy of the area and bite the bullet on having a long-range
plan.
All we have to do is budget for five -- if something is in a
five-year budget, it's enough to allow a road to be approved -- I
mean, a development to be approved. There is a way to do a
moratorium that is legal, that wouldn't haul us into court. It's
expensive.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What happens is, the State
immediately requires you to create a plan for how are you going
to get to that level of service you said, which would -- we're
looking -- you said, "What about other levels of service?"
We have given staff direction to look at level of service C for
our roads. That's going to come back with literally hundreds of
millions of dollars, is what it will cost to bring our road network
up to that level.
Now, you could set B and it could be billions of dollars. And
the State would require you -- you wouldn't have an option -- the
State would require you to spend that money.
So you would have instead of the lowest tax rate in the state
of Florida, most likely the highest state tax rate. So there is -- it
isn't as simple as saying, "We simply don't want anybody to come
here anymore."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why my proposal with
regard to this community congestion index --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then we're going to wrap this
up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My proposal would give us a
second alternative so that we could establish goals for our roads
that aren't standards the State can beat us up with and force us
to enforce.
But we could establish a community standard that as a rezone
comes in, based on the health, safety and welfare, which is our
roles, we could say, "Not now, we're sorry, you can't have that
rezone now. Because in the long stack of books that
Page 79
February 8, 2000
Commissioner Norris referred to is a community congestion
index and you don't meet it." We could do that, but that would be
bucks.
MS. VARNER: Because you have the right to establish
density. I would think you'd have a right to establish density on
certain properties, still giving them the right to build, but that
you could say, "Well, we're going to establish a certain density
as opposed to a much higher." Now, I would think that maybe
you could do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to wrap this up
because we have a room full of people here for the very next
agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me just make one quick
comment to this; and that is, every time that you raise what it
costs people to alter property, you have difficulty finding the
people who can work here.
We already have a labor shortage in this county. We can't fill
the jobs. We're all competing. You can do -- there is no simple
solution to this.
So the person who cuts your grass, where you go to get your
dry cleaning, where you do all these things, suddenly you drive
those people out of here and you say, "We've got the highest
level of service and roads in the world, but nobody can afford to
work here." And then what happens to your community? So you
have to ask all of those questions and bring it into balance.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2000-09, RE PETITION PUD-86-12(4), BLAIR A.
FOLEY, P.E. OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,
REPRESENTING TRANSEASTERN PROPERTIES, INC., ARTHUR
FALCONE, PRESIDENT, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
'BRETONNE PARK" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE
MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS FROM 3 STORIES TO 4 STORIES IN
TRACT "J' OF THE BRETONNE PARK PUD LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BLVD. AND SOUTH SIDE OF RADIO RD. -
Page 80
February 8, 2000
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us to Item 12-B-1,
Petition PUD-86-12(4), Blair A. Foley of Coastal Engineering
representing Transeastern. This is a Glen Eagle item. Does the
staff want to do a presentation on this?
Hi there. Anybody who intends to participate either as a
speaker or as a presenter in this, we need you to stand, raise
your right hand and be sworn in. If you have signed up to speak,
that includes you. Do we have more than four slips -- five slips
for speakers?
Thereupon,
(Speakers sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows. Good morning still.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The Petitioner is requesting to amend the Bretonne Park PUD.
They're requesting to allow four-story buildings within Tract J.
As you can see on the conceptual -- or on the location map,
Tract J is located in the yellow area. It's in the north half of this
PUD, centrally located.
The master plan shows that Tract J is completely surrounded
by golf course, lakes and buffer areas. It's not abutting up to any
other adjacent residential tracts.
The Petitioner wants to limit the buildings that will be four
stories to four buildings and the rest of the site will be developed
with three or less stories tall buildings.
The way this PUD master plan is structured, they will be
resulting in less dwelling units than the entire PUD is allowed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many less?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe Mr. Foley has that information.
MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley. 146 units less.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Than what's allowed right now?
MR. FOLEY: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: Since Tract J is the last tract to be
developed, you'll end up with 146 less. This has no impact on
the light and air circulation, traditional ways that we calculate or
limit height.
Page 81
February 8, 2000
There is also an existing four-story structure that was
approved that's currently under construction for the ALF Tract B,
which is located at the entrance.
Therefore, the staff has recommended approval. The Collier
County Planning Commission by an eight to zero vote also
recommended approval.
Many residents showed up at the Planning Commission in
opposition, feeling that the increase in height of those four
buildings may cause some detriment to the property values and
may impact its use.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Bellows, what is the height
difference between three and four?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, depending on the type of architecture
and structure, it can vary from the -- the height of the walls
within the units, 10 to 15 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So currently it would be at what
versus where you want to go?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there is no height limitation per story
within the PUD. It just limits it to the number of stories.
So there is -- I can't tell you the exact height difference other
than there would be about a 15 foot difference. A three-story
building may be about 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So there is no height limitation on
three stories at the point?
MR. BELLOWS: Other than the number of stories.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So they could build it 150 foot? I
don't mean to be ridiculous on this, but they could go as high as
they want with three stories?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there is no set building height.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Theoretically you could have
three 20 foot vaulted ceiling stories? MR. BELLOWS: Possibly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The second question is, you said
there would be a slight increase in open spaces. Will you define
for me what "slight" means?
MR. BELLOWS: I have a copy of a conceptual site plan the
applicant has submitted. It's a little light. Let me see if I can
Page 82
February 8, 2000
zoom in on it.
Typically the applicant can build the same number of units in
lower, wider buildings that are closer together. By building a
taller building, you can make it a little bit thinner.
So the spaces in between the four taller buildings are located
here. The space in between them are a little bit larger than -- if
you can see, these smaller buildings look a lot closer --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the measurement between?
MR. BELLOWS: Half the sum of building height is what we are
requesting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Foley, let's hear your side of
the story.
MR. FOLEY: Good morning, Commissioner. For the record,
Blair Foley. We concur with staff's presentation. However, this
is an unusual project and it fits in well with today's agenda and
your question, Chairman Constantine, regarding traffic and some
other issues.
We do have t46 less units, which will result in almost 1500
less trips per day should this slight increase from three stories to
four stories be approved, so that the roadway network will have
less traffic on it based on this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Foley?
MR. FOLEY: I still have some more items if you'd like. I can
just wait and answer them. I'd like a chance to rebut if there are
any specifics brought up by the public at large. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the motivation?
MR. FOLEY: They've got some product that they've marketed
and they think is going to be successful in here and they'd like to
try it out. They've located it at the portion of the tract -- the last
tract to be developed where it will have the least impact on the
community. So far to date they haven't had any 20 foot vaulted
ceilings for any of their three-story products and that's not
anticipated here either. This is the owner.
MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Roy Ramsey, vice president of
Page 83
February 8, 2000
Transeastern Properties. The motivation for this is that we will
be able to reduce the density overall, more open space.
But more importantly, we'll be able to introduce three
different types of product inside that one pod; and therefore, be
able to sell the product quicker and be out of the community. So
there is an economic value to us in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. RAMSEY: Further, this is an improvement over what the
prior developer had in that project because it was slated for all
three-story buildings, very long, very large footprints. So we
think it's a better product and enhances the value of the overall
community.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you tell me the new height
where you will be on this versus where you were before?
MR. RAMSEY: I could if I had the plans with me,
Commissioner, but the plans are already drawn. And I didn't
know it was going to be a foot issue, just a story issue, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is it safe to assume no higher
than 50 feet for four stories?
MR. RAMSEY: That's a very safe bet. I would be willing to
have a commitment in height if that would make everybody feel
more comfortable. I can step out of the room and --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There are no flat roofs?
MR. RAMSEY: Oh, no. May I show you a picture?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be great. I would like
to see it. While he is doing that, may I ask the staff one more
question?
Can you help me understand how existing single-family
homes, how this will affect their views? Are they looking out at
something that this will block that they otherwise -- I mean,
what's the -- if you lived in one of these single-family houses --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct me if I'm wrong, and you
may need to help staff on this, but I need to see on that map
where the three story would have been versus where the four
story is proposed to go, which directly impacts your question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would they have been
looking at versus what will they be looking at if this change is
Page 84
February 8, 2000
approved?
MR. RAMSEY: Our single-family tracts to the north and the
west, they'd be looking over the lake and golf course area at the
buildings. I took a picture of that general area, so you would be
seeing the buildings off in this area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what they would have been
seeing -- what I'm trying to judge here is that there are neighbors
who are used to looking at a nice open field and would like for it
to continue to look like that or do they recognize that their
choice is really wide, flatter buildings versus this, which might
give them more views?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you recognize in the picture
right there, Mr. Ramsey, is that where the three stories would
go?
MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. So the building -- well, actually,
no, that particular picture right there would be about right here.
That particular perspective, I think, would be, looking from a
single-family neighborhood -- that particular perspective would
be, looking from a single-family neighborhood, about right here
across a golf course fairway, across a lake and then to what we
propose is two-story coach homes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That picture won't be impacted
by the four stories?
MR. RAMSEY: You would see the four story maybe over those
two buildings, but I doubt it really.
If I could go further to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, the
neighbors that are across the golf course here are in two-story
coach homes. The neighbors that are across this lake over here
are in two-story garden condominiums.
So it's not -- it does not abut up to any neighborhood, but the
ones that have the most impact are already in two-story
condominium buildings. And we also have three-story
condominium buildings already in the project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, the purple ones
are the ones that are proposed to be four stories?
MR. RAMSEY: The purple footprints are the only ones
proposed to be the four-story buildings. There are six units per
Page 85
February 8, 2000
building, so there is only a total of 96 out of 228.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And where on there would be -- if
we do not approve this, what will be where those purple
buildings are?
MR. RAMSEY: In order for us to have the kind of economic
impact that we need, they would all wind up being three-story
buildings. And in fact, what would be reduced is the coach
homes, which are the lower-density project that allows us to
have more open space and the lower density.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you could either have a repeat
all the way through there of more of the same or this would allow
for some variety?
MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely correct. It makes for a more
attractive skyscape and all that sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the public. How
many speakers do we have, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: You have three. Your first would be Raymond
McConnell, followed by Mary Manning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McConnell.
MR. MCCONNELL: I would like to defer --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McConnell, we call them and
you come up in the order they are called. And I realize when it's
only three, that should be fairly simple. But there are days where
we have twenty, so we try not to let people juggle them around.
MR. MCCONNELL: Thank you. I defer to Ms. Burke.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You realize she gets five minutes
whether you defer or not. She doesn't get your time. MS. BURKE: In essence --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are?
MS. BURKE: I am Joan Burke. And my husband and I have
been residents -- have been owners for over nine years. And it's
kind of interesting because when we talk about long-range
planning, one of the first questions we asked, which was back
when it was Embassy Woods -- and I must say at this point that
Transeastern has done a wonderful job with landscaping bushes
and everything. Although the golf course is getting narrower and
narrower.
Page 86
February 8, 2000
But when we asked about the long-range planning for this, we
were told that Chatham, which is where we were, and there are
five three-story buildings, that was going to be the most dense
area.
The next would be Glenmore Green. And that's true, there are
now three with another one going up. That's three-story
buildings. And they said Saratoga, the single-family homes, and
that all happened, even though we've been through all these
transitions in the last nine years.
And they said possibly down the road eight or nine years, and
here we are, there might be one other community which would
have three-story buildings. So of course, to these of us who were
involved with that long-range planning, this comes as a big
surprise.
And yes, we had a huge crowd at the zoning. And there was a
petition, which I might add, was taken at a very poor time. A lot
of people had returned for Ghristmas, the holidays.
And basically there are 600 units that are occupied. And the
petition only represented 25 percent of that. And I think at that
point everyone was just getting here and it just hit us.
Last year it was the assisted living that's going up at our gate
and now it's this. Every year there seems to be some stressful
thing when we arrive.
But anyway, so they have -- to change from three to four, I
don't think really anyone seriously tested that it was going to be
Iow income or economic. I think they're thinking more of the
beauty of the community.
We had quite a contingent, about 30 owners from Countryside
because part of their property will see these four-story buildings
because they're in single-family homes on one edge of our golf
course. So they came. They had one spokesman. And they
were very concerned.
People said to me, "Well, this is a done deal. Whatever the
Zoning Commission does, it's rubber stamped by you people."
But in telling my children and grandchildren that if you think
something --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are certain planning
Page 87
February 8, 2000
commissioners who get very upset because we don't do that.
MS. BURKE: That's what 450 people think. Anyway, in just
the way I have lived, if you think something isn't going to be
right, you should at least have the opportunity to speak, which is
why I'm doing that.
I do have a copy of what -- which I will give you -- now, one
thing I should mention, that Mr. McConnell's wife, Terry, had
been the major person, but unfortunately she had a family
emergency back in Philadelphia, so that's where she is. And
that's why I'm here. She has been in communication with Mr.
Bellows.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you want to just hand that to
Mr. Weigel, he'll take care of it.
MS. BURKE: You will note that when this first was set up, it
said that the property was approved for 1380 on a 334 acre site
and the density would be 4.14.
Going down to the last paragraph, which I think is wrong -- I
hope is wrong -- they say I received, so on and so forth, four
buildings which will be four stories, the remaining 18 buildings
will be three stories tall. This shows that the petitioner proposes
to develop 228 units that result in approximately 13.5 density, or
units per acre.
Now, basically I would just like to have some confirmation or
affirmation that this tract will only have 228 units. Because if
you add up the numbers that we have on this proposal, we have --
it looks to me like you have four four-story buildings, then you
have eight two-story buildings and between eight and ten
three-story buildings.
And the numbers, if you go with what they currently are, you'd
be way over 228. So I would like to have some confirmation as
to what else is going to be there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your biggest issue obviously is
density. You don't want it flooded with people?
MS. BURKE: Right. Right now you have about approximately
600 people going out Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. And
adding to the congestion on Airport-Pulling, you're looking at
quite a considerable number.
Page 88
February 8, 2000
My time is up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: After we hear from the other
speaker, we'll try to get some confirmation on that. Our final
speaker is?
MR. MCNEES: Mary Manning.
MS. MANNING: Hi. I'm Mary Manning. I guess after what my
neighbor said is very -- my feeling is emotional. You've heard this
morning about density from many people. I want you to please
keep that in mind. I heard somebody once say that Naples will
soon be like Miami in seven years. I hope that we're wrong.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They got 2 million people over
there. I'm pretty sure we're falling behind there.
Very good question for you, Mr. Foley. As far as the density
issue, you said there will be 146 less units. But specifically here
MR. FOLEY: I'll give you the numbers. There is 1380 for the
PUD. We're offering 1234, which would be -- there was a typo in
the staff report that said balance would be three-story units.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that is not true.
MR. FOLEY: That's correct. It's not true. What we represent
of being 1234 units were -- 146 less units is correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So four buildings will be four
stories. Here where it says the remaining 18 buildings will be
three stories is inaccurate?
MR. FOLEY: Three stories or less would be more accurate.
MR. BELLOWS: That was the intent, three stories or less.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So it could be three stories.
Because what I heard you say earlier --
MR. FOLEY: We're not proposing any three stories, but the
PUD does allow that. We have not gone in for site development
plan approval on the balance of any of this tract.
The only thing that the developer knows for sure is the
locations of the four four-story buildings. If the coach homes do
very well, there may not be any two-story condos put in there.
It's a market driven effort.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My math real quick -- I suppose
theoretically you can do three stories, but you're not going to --
Page 89
February 8, 2000
unless you have giant units in each of the three stories, without
these 146 units, you can't mathematically put up all 18
three-story buildings.
MR. FOLEY: That's correct. We wouldn't be able to do it
we're committing to a less unit or even -- that's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bottom line, you're committing to
146 less units.
MR. FOLEY: Total units in the PUD -- would be 1234 --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right now is 13807
MR. FOLEY: 1380, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have a conceptual plan for
the rest of this?
MR. FOLEY: That's what this is on the board, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's it? There's no more?
MR. FOLEY: That's it. No more. Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is the last tract? There is no --
MR. FOLEY: There are no further tracts to be developed. All
the rest of them have received at least some sort of preliminary
approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then I didn't hear this correctly. I
thought I heard that this is a piece and then there may be more
to come.
MR. FOLEY: No. The rest of the tracts are in various stages
of approval. They've gone through preliminary-- PSP, preliminary
subdivision plat.
Some of them have infrastructure that is being completed.
Some of them are just now turning dirt for homes. There is no
other tracts involved in the planning process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We'll close the public
hearing. What I heard both of the speakers say is, the density is
the big issue. If they're cutting 146 units out, it sounds like that
may address that.
If height is the issue, then we have a question. But I heard
both folks say that density is the issue. If we can have 150 less
cars -- I mean, 146 less units, which is mathematically whatever
that comes out to, 1200 less cars a day, there is an up side to
that. I -- clearly there is a height issue, but with the commitment
Page 90
February 8, 2000
to the fewer units, that seems like it would be good for the
community.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What I've heard on the height
issue, we will not go higher than 50 feet. Is that a commitment?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you going to close the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I did close.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, you did close. I'm sorry. I'll
second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion --just to be
clear, Commissioner Norris, your motion is?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To approve the staff
recommendation with the further stipulation that the 50 foot
height limit will apply.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that includes 146 less units
than what's allotted for?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commission Berry seconds that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion? All those in
favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Motion carries five oh. Thank you.
Item #12B3
PETITION PUD-98-20, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER
PLANNING, REPRESENTING GULF SUN CORPORATION,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A' AGRICULTURE TO "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT NOT TO EXCEED 628 DWELLING UNITS LOCATED
1/4 MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE RD. AND NORTH OF NIGHT
HAWK DR. BETWEEN WHIPPOORWILL LN. AND 1-75 CONSISTING
OF 76.85 +/- ACRES - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 22, 2000 AT
THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER
Page 91
February 8, 2000
Item 12-B-3, PUD 98-20 Petition, Mr. Hoover representing Gulf
Sun Corporation. Whippoorwill Lakes, Commissioner Berry, I bet
you've got some suggestions on that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I certainly do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I bet that Mr. Hoover has already
heard about them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Everybody who is going to
participate in this either from the public or a hired gun or our
own staff, please stand and be sworn. (Speakers sworn.}
MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Don Murray, the principal
planner with the Planning Services Department. Before we get
started here, I just want to mention, this petition was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and
would have been on the summary agenda were it not for the
issues involved with Whippoorwill Lane.
Since then, the applicant has agreed to a reduction of density
on this property. And he has also agreed to certain stipulations,
which I've passed out. Stipulations 5 and 6 have some changes
to it, which are acceptable to staff and to the Petitioner.
The issues, I'm not going to go over all of those again. This
has been before you a couple of times and I've heard you
discussing those issues today. So we are recommending
approval with these stipulations. If you have any questions, I'll
be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I don't see my proposal in
here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Maybe we ought to add it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will add my proposal.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Let's hear from Mr.
Hoover, representing the Petitioner, or Mr. Currance.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my
name is Tony Pires, with the law firm of Woodward, Pires &
Lombardo, representing the Petitioner in this case. Mr. Hoover is
Page 92
February 8, 2000
also the agent and the planner on this particular project. For the
purpose of this hearing we ask the Board to recognize him as an
expert in the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to recognizing Mr.
Hoover as an expert?
(No response}.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. He'll be describing the
project and how it meets and complies with the applicable
criteria of the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan that is applicable to the rezoning.
We have heard some of the discussion with regards to the
consideration of compliance with the rules and criteria and the
parameters outlined within the Growth Management Plan when a
project comes in for rezoning of this nature.
And I believe the staff has clearly stated in the staff report
that to impose a phasing requirement on this project or deny this
project is -- this project complies with the regulatory framework
as outlined within the existing Growth Management Plan in that
under the regulatory structure of the Growth Management Plan,
to impose phasing or deny the project would constitute a de
facto moratorium that's not authorized. I believe that's at page 3
of the executive summary.
Mr. Hoover is here to address the issues concerning
transportation and traffic. And I believe Commissioner Berry is
concerned with regards to the timing of the construction of
Livingston Road.
I heard part of that discussion. I apologize because there was
some other discussion out in the hallway. But I believe that the
concern is that the building permits for this project be phased in
and not be issued until such time as Livingston Road is finished.
If I'm mistaken in that understanding, I'm sure I'll be corrected.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can speed it up, Mr. Pires. All
they have to do is just volunteer to go out and help build that
road.
MR. PIRES: Well, I believe that this, from this area the Board,
I think, a few weeks ago embraced and endorsed and the
property owners in the area endorsed the concept of an
Page 93
February 8, 2000
area-wide approach to various issues; transportation, drainage
and sanitary sewer.
And the stipulations that have been prepared by staff, we
have been working continuously with staff on the concept that
has been embraced and endorsed by the Board. The stipulations
do achieve that.
It provides for the contributions by -- on a proportionate share
basis either through dedication or through construction or
payment of the roadway system and an area wide sewer system,
an area wide sanitary sewer system, an area wide drainage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that's a yes, that's a
commitment to Commissioner Berry's requirement?
MR. PIRES: As far as the area wide issues, we're for a lane in
the east/west connector. That's yes. As far as Livingston Road,
that's a project that I understand is in the capital program and is
to be completed in fiscal year 2001 and 2002.
But as this project, technically under the Growth Management
Plan -- and Mr. Hoover can best provide the information as to that
-- is less than 5 percent of the level of service for Pine Ridge
Road and does not exceed the threshold of impact that would
support a decision to either deny the project or -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that a no?
MR. PIRES: With regards to Livingston Road?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. PIRES: I guess the specific question is, no building
permits until Livingston Road is completed or paid for Livingston
Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think you-all can get started
quicker if you would agree to contribute along with the other
property owners in that area to the construction of Livingston
Road. I would think -- I mean, it can be done. I just think it
would be in the best interest if you want this project done --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It would be a shame to have this
project go down because you didn't want to participate in the
good of the community.
MR. PIRES: Well, I think it's beyond the good of the
community because the -- once again, it's a major north/south
Page 94
February 8, 2000
road. That has always been the plan, regardless of whether this
property was going to be developed or not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tony, you and I had this discussion
yesterday. And I'm not singling you guys out any more than the
rest of the property owners that are in this particular grouping of
properties that wish to be developed.
But it seems to me that in the best interest of this community,
that to go ahead, if -- I don't have any problem with you. You
have the right to develop that property and I support that.
However, we have a traffic problem. That intersection is
probably the worst in -- one of the worst in Collier County.
And in so doing, I would think that it would be in the best
interest of all the properties if you want to get this project
through and get it done, would be to go ahead and expedite the
processing of Livingston Road, connect that road up to what's
existing and go ahead and get this project done.
Because the longer you wait, it's more time and money on
your part. So I would think that you would want to get together
with the rest of the property owners and get this job done.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That just leads to the cons on page
3. It says: The combined development of the area will cause
levels of services to be exceeded and will likely degrade service
on the surrounding road network. See attached Executive
Summary which was presented to the Board of County
Commissioners on January 11.
This reinforces your point, Commissioner Berry, that if we
don't get this done and have a cooperative venture here of all the
participating properties, not only with Livingston Road but the
east/west road --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I don't think we have to approve
anybody in here until they reach that agreement and start doing
what needs to be done on the roads.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's very clever to come in and
say, "Well, our project doesn't cause more than 5 percent." And
look at the hodgepodge of projects that are listed in there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're all going to be coming in --
Page 95
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we've made our point. Do
you need to get Mr. Hoover on the record?
MR. PIRES: Yeah. Also, some additional comments on the
record in light of that because I don't believe the framework is
contained -- and I could be corrected -- contained within the
Growth Management Plan.
We meet the criteria outlined in the Growth Management Plan.
We meet the criteria outlined in the Land Development Code.
We have the proper recommendation from staff.
I think Mr. Hoover will also advise you as to his opinion that
we comply with all the criteria. That to impose a new criteria
that is not in the regulatory scheme is subjective, not objective
and not appropriate for this particular situation; and does result
in a de facto moratorium on any development in the area.
I think the staff has articulated that. If you look at the project
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the level of service on
Pine Ridge Road right now today?
MR. MCNEES: I can't answer that. I believe E.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If it's E, I bet from a legal
standpoint of evidence, even if you claim there is a moratorium --
I'm not suggesting that's in our best interest. But if you claim
this is akin to a moratorium, if we're at a level of service E, we're
not out of line on that. We're not out of line on making that
declaration.
I appreciate what you're getting on the record, but you've got
to understand if the roads you are directly impacting are
deficient to the point where we could be declaring a moratorium,
if you say, "de facto," we are -- well, that's legal. That's allowed
under the very codes you're referencing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in addition to that, we have
the moratorium regulations that the State imposes on us via the
comprehensive planning process, but we also have to step back
and realize we have health, safety, welfare obligations and
authority. And we can say there is too much congestion on this
road. We may have to pay, but we can do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant.
Page 96
February 8, 2000
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
The adopted level of service is E and -- for minimum standard and
it's presently at an existing level of service F, shown as
deficient. And the construction project on Pine Ridge Road is
scheduled for later this year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why he technically gets
in. Because even though it's currently a failure, the law --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're making his record for him.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm sorry. I'm going to just
say it because I think it's something we need to look at.
Even though it's technically a failure, the law allows the
project to go forward simply because this is a budgeted project;
the road project is budgeted. We can, as a community, adopt a
higher standard than that. That's what the State requires. We
can do something more.
MR. PIRES: And I hear what the Chairman indicated with
regards to, that the Board has the authority to, under the
regulatory scheme, to possibly implement a mechanism to
declare a moratorium with regard to constraints with regards to
that.
One is that this is a project within your five-year program and
it is planned on being constructed so that rezonings can occur.
And secondly, as you're well aware of -- I'm not here to inform
you of that process -- to go through the moratorium as opposed
to on the spot making an indication -- a determination that no
more activity will occur in this area.
Just from the standpoint of being able to discuss -- while Mr.
Hoover is up here outlining some of the technical aspects, so I
can fully understand the concept as articulated by Commissioner
Berry and some of the thinking of the Board as to paying a
proportionate share for Livingston Road, I'm not sure how that
would be achieved.
There are road impact fees already that the Board has
determined and calculated based upon a particular methodology
that is designed, as I understand it -- and I think the staff would
also indicate that -- designed to address the various districts and
Page 97
February 8, 2000
the road construction activities within various articulated
districts within the county.
And Livingston Road is within a district obviously -- or
probably that this property is located in, so that the road impact
fees as established are designed to achieve and pay for the
capital costs for the acquisition, signing and construction of
Livingston Road. I'm just trying to get a handle on what the
proportionate share would be for this project in paying for
Livingston Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand. Let's let Mr. Hoover
get his stuff on the record and let's hold our questions for him
until he has concluded his presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have a question for Mr. Pires.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we hold it until -- because
they're a team here. Let's let them finish their presentation and
then ask whatever questions we have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why when it's on the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because it will be a more
efficient use of time than stopping after every sentence and
asking a question.
MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon, Commissioners, bill Hoover of
Hoover Planning representing the Petitioners.
I can understand your concern. I believe staff made a note
some time back, there would be about 2,500 units in this section
of land which encompasses about I square mile. And I just -- if I
estimate $2,500 per impact fee at 2,500 units, that's about $6
and a quarter million.
I don't know how much it costs to build Livingston Road there.
Ed Kant might know. It's sort of like -- a little bit like Catch 22
there because the -- it would be nice if the impact fees were -- I
guess the County has the money to build the road, but the impact
-- the road gets built generally first and then your impact fees
come in to build two more lanes on that road or the road down --
an extension of the road down the road further for the next
people that are coming in. And originally the first people that
came here, the roads were sort of already in.
So the impact fees are to cover your impact, but you really
Page 98
February 8, 2000
don't -- generally the road is not put in first by the developer, but
your impact is there. Hey, we're going to pay our fair share for
future growth. If I'm making sense.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is not entirely accurate, Mr.
Hoover. In many, many cases we have developers that will go
ahead and help fund a road segment in return for impact fee
credits in the future.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which is the situation with
Mediterra.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the only point I wanted to
make before, that Commissioner Berry is suggesting, as I
understand it, that you get impact fee credits for your
proportionate share. She's not saying, "Go build the road and
suck it up." She's saying you get impact fee credits.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As much as we'd like to.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to say it, but that's unfair.
But what I'm trying to do is expedite this road.
MR. HOOVER: There is actually two roads that we're actually
talking about.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
MR. HOOVER: We've got Whippoorwill Lane and the west
extension. That's number one. And number two is -- you're
referring to is Livingston Road from the Parkway to Pine Ridge
Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Except you don't have to go clear to
the Parkway. All you have to do is get down to Wyndemere at
this point. But then the County could go ahead and do that other
segment. But I'm worried about that northern segment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hoover, as a recognized
expert, is there anything else you absolutely must get on the
record?
MR. HOOVER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public speakers,
shall we?
MR. MCNEES: You only have one registered speaker. That's
Rich Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let the record reflect, he's dying in
Page 99
February 8, 2000
the back of the room.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for the Petitioner
on this? No questions for the Petitioner on this?
Commission Mac'Kie, followed by Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pires, do you have any
objection -- I realize that we have dropped this on you this
morning and that you guys have been very patient.
And you've worked very hard -- all of you together have
worked very hard together to come up with a master plan for the
area, even though your developments are separate. And you've
done that with regard to a lot of issues and we appreciate that.
I think what Commissioner Berry is asking today is, could you
please go away and add one more element to your master plan
and then come back. And that one more element would be, can
you guys get together and build the road so that it's there before
you turn a spade of dirt in your projects? Can you please do
that?
I realize that that is a new request we're making today and it
might be that you want to have a continuance of this hearing so
that you can work that out with the other property owners.
Because obviously all you can do -- the most you could do
today would be to commit that for your client you would pay your
proportionate share and construct the road.
But basically that's what I think we're asking is -- you've done
a lot of master planning in there. We're asking, can you also do
that with regard to Livingston Road?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're welcome to commit to
that today. You don't have to go away.
MR. PIRES: I understand. I appreciate the comments by
Commissioner Mac'Kie. And our client has been working with
the county staff and we've worked for a year on this issue. It's
been a very complicated issue. We're trying to get a number of
parcels together to have a coordinated area wide plan.
As I understand it, Livingston Road is fully funded, or will be
fully funded, and the contracts might be let next year. And the
design is -- Mr. Kant, if you can correct me, if I get some items on
the record, that 60 to 90 percent of the design is there in that
Page 100
February 8, 2000
this project is within the same road impact district as Livingston
Road.
So once again, I think the whole idea, if I can get the -- that
the methodology for road impact fees is that you pay your
proportionate share and you pay for roads in that area.
As far as asking that this thing be continued so we can
discuss this with our client, if I can huddle with the client for a
few moments because I guess a couple issues arise.
One is, if my understanding is correct, that the methodology
for road impact fee already takes into account the fact that there
will be construction of this roadway, Livingston Road, that we're
already paying it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's proposing to give you credit
for asphalt instead of dollars.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't you take a couple
minutes to huddle with your client? We'll table the item, if
somebody will make that motion, so we can do the other -- MR. PIRES: There is a second --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. We'll let
them huddle. We'll table the item. MR. PIRES: If we could --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on, Bill.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They want to continue?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to continue. Great. Is
there any objection to continuing the item, from the Board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two weeks.
MR. PIRES: That would be wonderful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll see you in two weeks.
Item #12C1
BAR 2000-01 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR
1999-2000 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED
Item 12-C-1, to adopt resolution approving amendments to
fiscal year adopted budget.
Page 101
February 8, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion is seconded. Any
objection? Any public speakers? All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Five oh.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2000-51, RE PETITION V-99-26, JAMES M.
BOSWELL II, REPRESENTING 19 PROPERTY OWNERS
REQUESTING A 7.5 FT. VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FT.
SIDE YARD SETBACKS ESTABLISHED FOR BOAT DOCKS ON
LOTS LESS THAN 60 FT. WIDE TO ZERO FT. FOR BOAT DOCKS
ON 3"". ST. W. IN BONITA BEACH, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES -
ADOPTED
That takes us to 13-A-1, Petition V-99-26, 7.5 foot variance.
Good afternoon, Dr. Badamtchian.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Don't we have --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody who is going to
participate in this, you need to raise your right hand and be
sworn.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
I had some contact
heard.
(Speakers sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have disclosure on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had contact with some people
involved in this one, as I have had on all of the public hearings
that we've heard so far today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Likewise.
MAC'KIE: Ditto.
BERRY: I had contact with the Petitioner and
on the other side, that last one that we
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. I see the visual sign
from Mr. Weigel on that. Dr. Badamtchian.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Page 102
February 8, 2000
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Boswell
is requesting a variance for 19 lots located on Third Street West.
There are 34 lots which are not buildable. They are small lots,
usually 20, 25 foot deep and 30 foot wide.
The Commission approved the conditional use allowing them
to have boat docks without the main house. This variance is to
waive the side setback requirement for those boat docks.
Approximately one-third of those lots contain docks and most
of them, they comply with today's setbacks. The request today
is to waive the 7 1/2 foot side setback and allow them to build
the structure with zero setbacks.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and by a
unanimous vote recommended denial. There are several people
that spoke against this. And staff have received several letters
of opposition.
The staff's original recommendation to the Planning
Commission was for approval because in here we don't have the
traditional planning requirements for air and light circulation.
And there is -- since there are no residences, there is no view
blockage problem here. That's why staff had recommended
approval. However, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended denial on it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Let's hear
from the Petitioner. There is a hand-held microphone right there
if that's easier. For the record.
MR. BOSWELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jim Boswell. I'm the Petitioner representing the lot owners on
Third Street. I'm also an owner.
I don't want to be redundant, but yes, we are applying for a
zero lot line request here. These particular properties are
unique. You-all have a package. I'm sure you've had a chance to
review it.
I believe that the denial by the Planning Commission was
based on the fact that the opposition to this was not identified.
We've identified that the majority of this opposition is in a
completely different subdivision; only one of which of these
people live on this particular street. 97 percent of the people
Page 103
February 8, 2000
who live on this street don't have any problem with it.
I don't know what else more to say than what you've already
got in front of you. I don't want to take up your time and be
redundant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for the Petitioner?
Do we have speakers on this item?
MR. MCNEES: Just one. Robert Davy, representing the
Petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Davy.
MR. DAVY: My name is Robert Davy and I have met with you
folks before. I own Lot 6, Block H on Third Street in Bonita and
I'm asking for your approval on this variance petition for the
following reasons:
The majority of the lot owners have come forward with the
request. And Mr. Boswell is representing 19 out of the 3:3 lot
owners out there. Staff has recommended approval, I believe,
with two conditions; no dock rentals and no commercial
watercraft to be on there.
Owners of only three properties on a total of 112 owners on
the portion of Third Street where these lots are located are
opposed to this variance, which means 97 percent are not
opposed to it.
The Petitioner, Mr. Boswell here, he owns the first house west
of these lots, a beautiful home. And if anybody should be
concerned about these boat lots, it would be Mr. Boswell.
The lots are very small and unbuildable lots, as you're aware
of. Some of these lots are owned by more than one person. And
in this case, a second owner may also want to moor a boat. That
would be one reason for having more than one boat moor.
Ten of the nineteen lots included in the variance request
already have docks. Boat ramps or pilings are already within the
setbacks. Most of these were put in place prior to the Land
Development Code being adopted.
I believe to deny this request at this point could subject those
property owners to either having to remove those items which
have been in there for years or pay large after-the-fact variance
fees and come back before you again individually, which takes
Page 104
February 8, 2000
up a lot of people. And I believe it would be unreasonable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is what we, in fact, asked
them to do, if you guys remember when they were here. We said,
"Everybody get together, come in with one package and we'll
process them as one because it's more efficient."
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just spoke to Little Hickory
Association a week ago. This issue didn't even come up. You-all
know that they are a pretty outspoken group about issues. It
was a non-issue for them.
MR. DAVY: I'm glad you mentioned that, Commissioner,
because I've got in front of me a letter that was sent out by
planning to Mr. Robert Schwartz, president of Bonita Shores and
Little Hickory Shores Improvement Association. And as of
yesterday when I spoke with Mr. Badamtchian, there was no
negative response to this letter.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Davy, I'll tell you what. My
dad is in the audience. And he told me when I was a kid, once
you've made the sale, perhaps it's time to quiet down. MR. DAVY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't see a whole lot of
objection here. We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
Motion carries five oh. Thank you.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 2000-52, RE PETITION CU-99-22, DAVID CARTER
OF DOWNING-FRYE REALTY, INC., REPRESENTING WILLIAM J.
FOGNINI, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "A/MHO"
ZONING DISTRICT FOR EARTHMINING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON PLATT RD., CONSISTING OF 20 +/- ACRES - ADOPTED
Page 105
February 8, 2000
Item 13-A-2, Petition CU-99-22, David Carter of Downing-Frye.
MR. CARTER: Good afternoon, Commissioner. it's Dave
Carter with Downing-Frye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. We'll
have staff and we also need to swear everybody in. Anyone who
is going to participate in this discussion, if you would stand to be
sworn,
(Speakers sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I vote with the Petitioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As I have.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As I have.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have no recollection of that, but
I haven't been sleeping a lot lately. If we could hear from staff
first.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioner. Fred Reischl,
planning services. This is a request for conditional use for earth
mining at a location -- as you can see on the visualizer, is close
to the intersection of Platt Road and Friendship Lane.
I can show you here. This green line is Immokalee Road, so
it's located east and south of Immokalee Road. Those two roads,
Friendship and Platt are private roads. You saw one of the
stipulations in the resolution is no county maintenance for this.
After the completion of the project, of the earth mining
portion of the project, the Petitioner has proposed four home
sites and a required preserve area, so basically you will have
four homes on a lake with a preserve. These lots are already in
existence; therefore, they are consistent with the administration
of the Commission's final order.
The Planning Commission listened to neighbors who mainly
had interest in the conditions of the two roads. After driving
down the roads, they are not in the best of shape, even though
they are private roads; therefore, the Planning Commission
added stipulations for maintenance of the roads. And they also
have added a stipulation for construction of a school bus stop
shelter at the intersection of Immokalee and Friendship.
Staff recommended approval. And after the addition of the
Page 106
February 8, 2000
stipulations, the Planning Commission also recommended
approval.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions from staff? Let's hear
from Mr. Carter.
MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have talked extensively
and even more at the public hearing with the people that actually
live in the area.
And of the, I think, 37 homes that I have counted from my real
estate maps, that I've spoken to a bulk of them. And the ones I
haven't seen, I see here now at the public hearing. So we have a
percentage of representation.
The only thing that I do have a dark area on is this proposed
shelter on Immokalee Road, Friendship Lane intersection. We
submit to the Commission that we're going to go with a wide turn
lane to the entrance at Friendship Lane.
And we already know that it would end up with, like, a 14 foot
shelter, which should give the opportunity for not only a school
bus, but a truck to go around a school bus or park next to a
school bus off the -- the eastbound traffic lane of Immokalee
Road with absolutely no impairment. In fact, increase safety for
the children, because you actually have a turn lane now for the
school buses to pull off of.
As far as the shelter is concerned, I have a question that -- on
maintenance in the proposal why or if, in fact, we're setting a
precedent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who suggested the shelter; was
that Planning Commission or staff?
MR. KANT: Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did they state why they wanted --
MR. KANT: A number of neighbors discussed school children
walking up Friendship Lane to get to Immokalee Road where the
bus stops. We stated that we had the hours of operation listed,
but the Planning Commission felt more comfortable with the
shelter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So who would maintain the
shelter?.
MR. KANT: Good question. It's in the right of way.
Page 107
February 8, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps for the length of the use
of this facility it should be maintained by those who have made it
necessary. Once you've used up the property in its entirety,
there wouldn't be a whole lot of use because you wouldn't have
the trucks running back and forth there anymore.
MR. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, we're possibly in a liability issue
from the standpoint of the owner, maintaining a shelter on a
public right of way. And if that's okay with counsel, I -- but I
think the widening of the road -- and not only that, our actual
focus here is on four residential units which in more likelihood
than not are going to increase the population of children on a
school bus stop.
And my issue is liability. If I could have some input from
counsel, I think that would help.
MR. WEIGEL: Counsel has no objection to a petitioner
assuming liability.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public while we
kick that idea around.
MR. MCNEES: Your first speaker is Milly Ball. The second
would be Martin Plamondon.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We call them in the order that he
calls them.
MS. BALL: That's fine. I'm Millie Ball and I'm a homeowner on
Friendship Lane. I thought to make things simple I would just list
what I thought was necessary. And I've talked with most of the
neighbors and so I -- I also got them to sign them or talked to
them on the phone.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to give those to Mr.
Weigel and he'll bring them up to us?
MS. BALL: I also thought -- since she wouldn't have to type all
the -- read this -- I'll read it. I'm trying to save her some typing.
Okay. With regards to the petitions, I want to provide a
written statement on what needs to be done. This should
promote clarity, efficiency and limit misunderstanding. Seems
reasonable.
I put the first one: Due to heavy truck traffic on a private dirt
road, increased our compacted limestone lime rock base to a
Page 108
February 8, 2000
minimum of 12 inches. Secondly, I want it watered daily.
And three, grade weekly including filling in potholes. Four,
maintain culverts at the intersections of Immokalee and
Friendship and Friendship and Platt Roads to manage water and
to keep the road at least 60 feet wide.
Reservoir water so it does not overflow into surrounding
properties and ditches. In other words, once he starts digging,
that water has got to go somewhere. We don't want it dumped
on us.
Six, provide for moving of mailboxes. Mailboxes are currently
located along Immokalee Road where the required turn-in lanes
will be put. A wide, deep ditch prevents them from simply being
backed up. There is no culvert. It's just a wide open ditch.
Residents now have drive-up access to mailboxes and we'd like
that to remain unchanged.
Seven, limit earth mining operation from 8:00 to 6:00
weekdays, as stated in the original proposal. That's from the
previous minutes listed as Exhibit D, so I just didn't write it
again. I just wanted to make sure they did what they said they
were going to do. It didn't get lost in the shuffle somewhere.
Construct school bus stop shelter as per Exhibit D. And with
regards to why the shelter is needed, it's because there is a wide
ditch. So you give the children the option of, one, either standing
where the big trucks are going to be pulling in, which is not a
good idea. The trucks drive fast on Immokalee Road and they're
going to be pulling in fast.
I don't think you want 20 school children standing there in the
turn lane. They back up from that turn lane, they're in a big,
deep ditch which is wide open and it's running alongside of
Immokalee Road with whatever gets dumped in there. But it's
wide open, no culvert, nothing protecting it.
So you've got to have something, otherwise you've got, you
know -- we had -- this is a short week, what, Tuesday -- Monday
we had a trucker run the stop. Where the school bus was
stopped, the trucker ran right past the school bus and didn't
catch the light.
Yesterday we had, Ms. Opal was stopping for a school bus.
Page 109
February 8, 2000
She ended up in the hole -- she has a little car. I don't know what
kind of car. The whole thing was in the ditch because she was
stopping short and she clipped another car.
She's an older lady and she had no place to go except that
ditch. And she went there. Fortunately she wasn't hurt. But
that could have happened, you know -- we've got 20 kids that
catch the bus there.
D -- I mean, nine, final maintenance be done one week after
the last truckload of dirt removed from earth mining operation.
This means compacted lime rock, grading and filling in potholes.
I don't want that road being left -- a lot of people in that
neighborhood have put a lot of money into that road. You know,
this shouldn't happen.
And ten, there's probably a regulation requiring this, but I
thought I would put it in there, fencing around the earth mining
operation that should be appropriate to limit access by
pedestrians and ATVs.
I would think they would have to put some kind of fence up,
but I thought I'd put that in there. I think it's better to put things
in, write them out, that way you don't have misunderstandings.
And I have the names here. I have signatures. And I also
have people I wasn't able to get signatures from, I talked to them
on the phone and I asked, Would it be okay if I wrote their names
there? And I separated those from the signatures. And you can
-- I put some phone numbers if anybody wants to call them up
and ask them if it's valid, they'll certainly back me up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. MCNEES: Next speaker is Martin Plamondon, followed by
Faye Glidden.
MR. PLAMONDON: For the record, my name is Martin
Plamondon. I live on Platt Road. I'm west of the project.
What we're concerned about is the trucks taking the shorter
route out to Immokalee Road. We've put a lot of money into the
private road also.
And our roads are quite a bit narrower than Friendship Lane
and the kids catch the school bus there at 3:00 in the afternoon
when dump trucks are coming in and out.
Page 110
February 8, 2000
If two cars pass on Platt Road, you've got to get in the ditch.
And it's a steep ditch. That's what we're concerned about. We
don't want those trucks coming down that end.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you in general agreement
with the ten-point list we just heard?
MR. PLAMONDON: That other end of the road has no effect on
me. I think it's great, the things they are doing down there. That
sounds real nice, if they'll do them.
But I don't think they can control the direction that these
dump trucks come in because they're all independent
contractors. If you open up a pit, they're going to come
whichever way is easiest for them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Faye Glidden. Your final speaker, I believe it's
Patty Swilly.
MS. GLIDDEN: Hi. I'm Faye Glidden and I live on Platt Road.
We're concerned about the children too. And our road is narrow
and those truckers are going to take the shortest route.
And we have worked hard to build our road up and the County
doesn't help us at all. We've had a conflict with them before. I
had something stopped out there. Doing that -- they do not slow
down on that road. They go fast. And I just don't think they need
to do that.
And they're ruining the land when they earth mine. I read my
abstract one time and it said, when they earth mine or quarry
pits and things like that, they were supposed to put the land
back the way it was. And if he digs a big hole, he won't put the
land back the way it was.
And we just don't need all that traffic on our private road for
our children and other people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Final speaker.
MS. SWILLY: Hi. My name is Patty Swilly. I live on Friendship
Lane, which my house will be the very first one they come down
to going around into the pit.
One thing I wanted to point out was, when you come off
Immokalee Road to turn into Friendship Lane, if they're talking
about putting the turning lane there, we also have probably
Page 111
February 8, 2000
another 500 foot from Friendship Lane is the turning lane that
goes into Simpson's mining area. So you're having a double
danger there for the kids at the, you know -- catching the bus
stop.
And if you -- you have to look at the way that Friendship Lane
and Immokalee Lane is designed there. There is a deep ditch
there. And if you turn that lane into a turn lane and then put that
school bus thing there, you're asking for some serious problems
and injuries to children. And we have three or four asthmatic
children that walk down that road.
Now, I understand that he said that he will agree to some of
the terms that you put up, but who do we contact if he's not
following what he says that he'll do?
And will the County come in? Maybe the County would like to
take over our road and pave it and then the County can deal with
him on a one to one versus us as public and private citizens.
Because what he's going to do is, he's going to come in there
and mine that dirt. And then he's going to leave and we are
going to be left there trying to get in and out of our property, that
we've been in there for 20 to 25 years. And that's exactly what's
going to happen.
But the main thing is that you're going to have to look back
and see that turn lane going in there from Immokalee Road to
Friendship Lane. You know, it's going to be a dangerous area.
And also Platt Road, if you come from Immokalee Road on
Platt Road coming from Naples, if you decide to do something
there, you have that curve that comes around Corkscrew
Sanctuary.
So this whole section there is nothing but a traffic hazard.
Every morning I go into town to Immokalee. I leave Friendship
Lane -- before I can get to Friendship -- out of Friendship Lane
onto Immokalee Road there in front of Simpson's, I can tell you
that probably three dump trucks pull out in front of me. Every
morning it's the same thing.
And I don't leave to go to work until probably about 20
minutes to 9:00. So can you imagine the congestion and the
problem that you're going to have there in the morning between
Page 112
February 8, 2000
7:30 and 8:30 in the mornings that you're trying to get your
school kids off to school and you have not only the one at
Friendship Lane, but also you have the one that's already in
effect there at Simpson's? You're going to have a double dose of
disaster waiting to happen. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We'll close the public
hearing. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think this is any shock
because I spoke with Mr. Carter the other day and told him how I
felt about this project. I have nothing against earth mining per
se. It's an allowable use on land, on ag land.
However, with the condition of Immokalee Road being what it
is, I told him and I'm going to stand by that today, I cannot
approve of this project with the number of trucks that will be
coming out on this particular project. And I'm going to stand by
that today. I cannot support that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I move that we deny this particular
petition.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion. Is there a
second?
I'll second the motion to get it on the floor. Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion fails three two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve
subject to the ten conditions listed on Ms. Bali's sheet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we need three or four?
MR. WEIGEL: On this, for a variance, it's three. I think just
three -- it's a conditional use? Conditional use is four. Pardon
me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I did want to state further in consideration of
this, with regard to the shelter, is that part of the ten items that
Page 113
February 8, 2000
are listed there?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: When I stated that -- in response to the question
of liability, I think that there is a possibility of Petitioner liability
for a structure that is placed in the road right of way. Obviously
it's under the auspices of the County.
If that were to go forward, I think that something like that
could be done whereby there is an obligation of Petitioner to
provide such structure, that it be accepted by the County and
tended to by the County.
Any needs of that structure could be billed or during the life of
this project could be the responsibility of the Petitioner, but
having the County be the operational manager of that structure if
it were constructed on the right of way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Question, school buses, do they go
on these roads at all or where do they stop?
MS. SWILLY: They stop on Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to be rude. The
public hearing is closed. Apparently buses stop on Immokalee
Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They don't go down those roads.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. They don't go on the other
roads.
MS. SWILLY: But it does come in --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ma'am, she can't pick you up on
the microphone and we've closed the public hearing.
Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion, state aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries four one.
Item #13A6
PETITION CU-99-32, GLORIA GODARD REPRESENTING MIKE
WALCZUK REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
Page 114
February 8, 2000
FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 853 AND 857
101s*. AVE. N. IN NAPLES PARK- DENIED
Which takes us to the final item of the day, Petition CU-99-32.
Thank you to the Balls, by the way, for putting that together.
That's very, very helpful.
Petition CU-99-32, questioning approval of a child care center.
MS. SWILLY: Does that mean that he can do --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That means that list that Ms. Ball
put together, is subject to the ten items.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you-all were really generous
on that list.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But we need to move on. Thank
you. Mr. Badamtchian. Dr. Badamtchian.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This one doesn't have any that
need to be sworn in.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a conditional use for day care to
be located on 101st, I believe, Avenue in Naples Park. There is
an existing duplex and they are proposing to convert this into a
day care to accommodate up to 50 kids.
This will create 2:32 trips per day on that road. The Planning
Commission has reviewed it and they voted seven to one,
recommended denial. The denial based on the fact that there
are existing commercial properties and commercial buildings
within close proximity of this area and there is no need to
compromise the integrity of the residential neighborhood by
having some more commercial uses within the residential area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the Petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for staff?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty kids in a duplex. What is the
square footage of this?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's a State requirement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that meets the State
licensing?
Page 115
February 8, 2000
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That meets the State's requirement, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the zoning issue is going
to be the key here, if there is commercial readily available
nearby. Is the Petitioner here?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't see them here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before we go to the public, is
there overwhelming support on this from the Board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not from me. I am going to move
for denial.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll certainly open it up to
public speakers, however it certainly looks like it's going to be
shot down. So unless you're going to support it, I would
encourage you to waive. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate, for the record, that, in fact,
there would be swearing in. And that any disclosures, if there
are any to be made, would be placed on the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Badamtchian, you tell the
truth and you're going to tell the truth through this thing? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Absolutely I do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Public speakers, hopefully
to waive.
MR. MCNEES: We have three. Vera Fitzgerald.
MS. FITZGERALD: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you for saying no. That's it.
MR. MCNEES: Al Newman.
MR. NEWMAN: I waive.
MR. MCNEES: And Wallace Buman.
MR. BUMAN: I will waive.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. We'll close
the public hearing. Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for denial on this petition.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, please state aye.
Any opposed?
(No response).
Page 116
February 8, 2000
Motion carries four zero. Commissioner Norris has wandered
off.
Item #14A
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - JIM MERCER TO INTERVIEW THE 2
INTERNAL APPLICANTS ON 2/15/00; SUBMIT REPORT TO THE
BCC ON 2/18/00 AND DISCUSSION OF SAME TO BE HELD AT
MEETING OF 2/22/00
Which takes us to staff communications. Mr. McNees,
anything?
MR. MCNEES: Only one item in response to a couple of
questions from you-all. I've asked Ms. Edwards to come up and
give you an update on your search process for a county
administrator.
MS. EDWARDS: Jennifer Edwards, human resources director.
I talked with Dr. -- or Mr. Jim Mertzer. Jim will be here on
Tuesday, February the 15th, and he will interview both of the
internal applicants on that day.
He will then prepare a report of the strengths of the
applicants and have that to us by Friday the 18th so that you can
discuss this at the 22nd meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll discuss then the report from
the consultant on the 22nd. We'll get it on the 18th in writing, so
it won't be in our regular agenda packet, I don't guess. MS. EDWARDS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you run those dates again for
me?
MS. EDWARDS: He will be doing the interviews on February
the 15th.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: We will receive a report from him on February
the 18th and then that report can be discussed on the 22nd.
Now, I don't know if you-all are going to make a decision on the
22nd.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll see. Anything else from
Page 117
February 8, 2000
staff?
MS. EDWARDS: I have another question as it relates to this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, wait, there is more.
MS. EDWARDS: When we receive the information on the 16th,
what I had planned to do is receive the information and bring it
to the Board office and have it distributed to each of you. Is that
how you want me to administer it?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Because frankly, as soon
as you have it, the media can. And I'd rather read the report
itself than read about it in the newspaper over the weekend.
MS. EDWARDS: We'll get it to you as soon as we get it on
Friday.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's lunchtime.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, anything?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have nothing.
Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
MS. FILSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We are adjourned.
Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter, and carried unanimously, that the following items be
approved and or/adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2000-33 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR A HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY JORGE
Z. FUENTES AT 5346 TEXAS AVE., NAPLES MANOR LAKES,
Page 118
February 8, 2000
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2000-34 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR A HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY DENISE
E. RIVERS AT 5200 19TM. AVE., S.W. IN GOLDEN GATE, COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 2000-35 THROUGH 2000-42 AND AGREEMENTS
AUTHORIZING 100% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR 8 HOUSES
TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY,
INC., AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: NAPLES MANOR
EXTENSION, BLOCK 7, LOTS 20-23; NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
BLOCK 2, LOT 10; NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, BLOCK 5, LOT 15;
NAPLES MANOR LAKES, BLOCK 7, LOT 33 AND NAPLES MANOR
LAKES, BLOCK 8, LOT 2, COLLIER COUNTY, RESPECTIVELY
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF "CORAL FALLS RESORT"
Item #t6A5
RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF "STRAND REPLAT 4A'
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2000-43 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR A VERY LOW INCOME SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. IN THE SEMINOLE SUBDIVISION, BLOCK
B, LOT 25, IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A7
Page 119
February 8, 2000
RESOLUTIONS 2000-44 AND 2000-45 AND AGREEMENTS
AUTHORIZING 100% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR 2 VERY LOW
INCOME SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. AT NAPLES MANOR
ANNEX, BLOCK 7, LOT 2 AND AT NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
BLOCK 9, LOT 3, RESPECTIVELY
Item #16A8 - Deleted
Item #16A9
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY-FORWARD
FUNDS TO PAY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT SERVICES FEES
ORDINANCE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
Item #16A10
RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A,
UNIT 2" - WITH PERFORMANCE SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1 - Deleted
Item #16B2
APPROVING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF BLUEBILL AVENUE
FOR THE CUB SCOUT 'CUBMOBILE" DERBY ON SATURDAY,
MARCH 18, 2000 FROM 7:30 A.M. UNTIL 5:00 P.M.
Item #16B3
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENTS TO UPDATE OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER
MASTER PLANS, PROJECTS 70005 AND 73036, TO CAMP,
DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., IN THE AMOUNTS OF $66,750 AND
$45,050 RESPECTIVELY
Page 120
February 8, 2000
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR REPAIRS TO THE
AGRICULTURAL PLASTIC BURIAL CELLS AT IMMOKALEE
LANDFILL
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2000-46 APPROVING A SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION
FROM 55 MPH TO 45 MPH ON AIRPORT-PULLING RD., TRADE
CENTER WAY NORTHERLY TO PELICAN MARSH ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Item #16B6
APPROVING AMENDMENT 4 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, MONTES, AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
MASTER PUMP STATION 1.02, CONTRACT 89-1506, PROJECT
73924 IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,850
Item #16B7
BID #99-3011 - "SOUTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY BERM MAINTENANCE" AWARDED TO
STAR'S ASTRO LAWN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000
PER YEAR
Item #16C1
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO AMEND ORDINANCE 92-60 TO PROVIDE
FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF MUSEUM FUNDING FOR COUNTY AND
NON-COUNTY OWNED, FUNDING THE NON-COUNTY OWNED
MUSEUMS FROM THE FUNDING MADE AVAILABLE FROM A
RESTRUCTURED LOAN PAYMENT SCHEDULE FROM THE TDC TO
THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND
Page 121
February 8, 2000
Item #16C2
APPROVING THE RECIPROCAL BORROWING AGREEMENT
ENABLING COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARIES TO
PARTICIPATE IN RECIPROCAL BORROWING WITH MEMBERS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA LIBRARY NETWORK (SWFLN)
Item #16C3
APPROVING A LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES
JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., APPROVING USE OF
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK FOR CONDUCTING A JULY 4TM.
FIREWORKS FESTIVAL
Item #16D1
APPROVING THE "STANDARD FORM" AGREEMENT TO
PURCHASE SPECIAL SECURITY SERVICES FROM THE COLLIER
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE REQUESTING RESPECTIVE
DEPARTMENTS
Item #16D2
APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
FLORIDA ism HEALTH PLANS, INC. FOR THE PAYMENT OF GROUP
HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION RUN-OUT
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2000-47 APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CONGRESSMAN PORTER GOSS
Item #16D4
AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF ALL SURPLUS
COUNTY-OWNED ITEMS AS DESCRIBED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 122
February 8, 2000
SUMMARY SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2000
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-120, #00-128, #00-129, #00-130
Item #16G1
PURCHASE ONE MEDIUM-DUTY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
"MEDIC MASTER" AMBULANCE FROM AMERICAN LAFRANCE
MEDICMASTER CORPORATION USING CITY OF JACKSONVILLE'S
BID SC-0384-98 IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,948.75
Item #16G2
APPROVING WAIVER OF THE SPECIAL EVENT EMS STAND-BY
SERVICES FEE FOR THE LPGA SUBARU MEMORIAL OF NAPLES
GOLF TOURNAMENT
Item #163
BUDGET AMENDMENT ALLOWING FOR AN EXPENDITURE OF
$14,400 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO COMPLETE THE
DESIGN OF AN EMS AND FUTURE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SUBSTATION TO BE LOCATED WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16H1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Item #16H2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the
Page 123
February 8, 2000
various departments as indicated:
Page 124
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 93-01924-MMA, 99-0236MMA,
98-8648MMA, 98-9723MMA, 98-10256MMA, 99-4172MMA, 99-7577MMA, 99-
1416MMA,99-0531MMA,98-10963MMA, 99-0431MMA, 98-10939MMA, 98-
6291MMA, 82-1003 C J-A-21 -CTC, 84-923 C J-A-21, 84-925 C J-A-21, 99-2019MMA, 93-
0122MI, 99-5163MMA, 99-0953MMA, 99-3626MMA, 99-3479MMA, 99-4248MMA,
98-11213MMA, 99-0128MMA, 88-3769-MMA and 90-1130-TM
2. ' MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
o
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
A. January 5-11, 2000
B. January 12-18, 2000
4. Districts:
Ao
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - Agenda for January 12, 2000
meeting and minutes of December 8, 1999 meeting and Lower West Coast
Mobile Irrigation Laboratory Quarterly Report First Quarter - Fiscal Year 2000
Bo
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of November 18,
1999 meeting
Co
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of July 12, 1999
and November 2, 1999 meetings; budget for fiscal year 2000 and Description of
Outstanding Bonds
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of November 24,
1999 meeting and budget for fiscal year 2000
E. Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Agenda for January 28, 2000 meeting
AGENI~Ay, ' I~'EU.
Ho.~
FEB 08 2000
5. Minutes:
Ao
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 14,
2000 meeting and minutes of December 10, 1999 meeting
Bo
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for January 20, 2000 meeting and
minutes of December 1, 1999 meeting
C. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for January 27, 2000 meeting
Nc>
FEB 08 2000
Pc:j°
February 8, 2000
Item #17A - Continued to the February 22, 2000 meeting
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 12:57
p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF~.ONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICI/O~GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPEC[AL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
i" __/,
~ ~AIRMAN
ATTEST:
· "DWIGHT .E. BROCK, CLERK
, '~ese:minutes approved by the Board on
as presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: Tracie Mountain
Page 125