BCC Minutes 05/19/1992 RNaples, Florida, May 19, 1992
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(~) nf such ~p-cJa] d~strJct~ a~
have been created accordlr,g to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. tn REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michael 3. Vo]pe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Patricia A. Goodnight
ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; 3ohn Yonkosky, Finance
Director; E1]i~ Hoffman, Annette Guevln and Debb¥ Farrls, Deputy
Clerks; Nell Dorrill, County Manager; Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to
the County Manager; Ken Cuylem, County Attorney; Dennis Cronin, David
Weigel and MarJorie Student, Assistant County Attorneys; Frank Brutt,
Community Deve].opment Services Administrate)r; George Archibald,
Transportation Services Administrator; Tom C]onrecode, Office of
Capital Projects Management Director; Mike McNees, Budget & Management
D~rector; Bob Ilyrne, Budget Analyst; Tom Olltff, Public Services
Administrator; Martha Skinner, Social Services D~rector; Fred
Bloetscher, As~tstant Utilities Administrator; Tim Clemons, Wastewater
Director; Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director; Jeff Perry, MPO
Coordinator; B~rbara Cacchione, Michele Edwards, Bill Laverty and Elly
Soto, Planners~ Sue Ftlson, Administrative Assistant to the Board;
Sheriff Don Hunter and Deputy Byron Temlinson, Sheriff's Office.
Page
May 19, 1992
A(I~I~D& - /~ROV~D trlTH CHANGES
Cosatsstoner Shanahan moved, seconded by Contsetoner Hasse arid
curled m~ani~ousl¥, that the agenda be approved with the changes
detailed o~ the Agenda Change Sheet.
Page 2
Hay 19, 1992
The ~otion for approv&l of the Consent Agenda te noted under Item
,16.
It# ,4
MINUTES OF BCC REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 21 ARD 28, WORKSHOP OF
JANUANY 28, REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, WORKSHOP OF FEBRUARY 4,
BPKCIAL MKKTIN(] OF FEBRUARY § AND WORKSHOP OF FEBRUARY 10, 1992 -
APFRO'F~D AS FFJ[SKNTKD
Com~imsion(~r Ooc~inight Bored, seconded b~ Coniseioner Hasee and
c~rried una~ni~)usl¥, that Minutes of the BCC Regular Nestings of
J~ua~ 21 ~d 28, ~rkahop of J~uary 28, Reeler ~etlng of Februa~
4, ~rks~ of Feb~a~ 4, S~clal ~eting of Feb~a~ 6 ~d ~orkshop
of Feb~ 10. 1992, ~ approv~ as pre.ended.
X~ 85A
~ S~IGE A~ - ~ES~KD
Co~leeton.r Volpe presented Hugo N. Durra with a certificate and
pin for five years of service with Collier County Government.
PROCLAMATIO~ DI~SIGNATING MAY 19, 1992, a~ COLLIER COUNTY SHERIff'S
OFFICE VOLUNTeeR RECOGNITION DAY - ADOlmTED
Upon reading of the proclamation. Coaatsetoner
me¢crnd~ b~ Co~miesioner 0oodnight and carried unanl~uel¥, that the
Proclmtion d.~oi~ting ~y 19, 2992, as Collier Co.tv Sheriff's
Vol~t~r Rec~ttion Da~ ~ adopted.
Sheriff Don Hunter accepted th~ proclamation. He thanked the
Co~lss~on for recognizinG the volunteers. He acknowledged the
volunteers for their fine work and introduced those who were present.
Co~lssioner Saunders remarked from 3anuary, 1990 through the pre-
sent time, thence has been a savings of $477,000 by utilizing the
Sheriff's Office volunteers, in addition to making Collier County a
safer and better community.
Page 3
May 19, 1992
Items ~6A1 ·
~43["~ AM~I1)ImQ~S 92-272/273; A..q'D 92-275/278 - ADOFTED
¢om~tsstomer Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hesse and
carried lxnantz~usl¥, that Budget Amendments 92-272/273 and 92-275/278
be adopted.
Ite~ ,6D
PINE ]LIIXtE Ilq~USTRIAL PARK LINE OF CREDIT RESOLUTION AMENDMENT -
Finance Director Yonkosky explained that on April 21, 1992, the
Commission approved a two year extension on the line of credit
agreement with Sun Bank. He reported that the extension is currently
being processed and will be brought back before the Board for appro-
val. He revealed that each draw on the line of credit is approved via
resolution, noting that it has been the intent of the Commission to
capitalize periodic interest on any line of credit financed project
that is outstanding over any 12 month period.
Mr. Yonkomky advised that Resolution 90-423 was adopted on August
21, 1990, to provide for the interim financing for the Pine Rid[is
Industrial Park project and $6 million was drawn down on April 26,
1991, in accordance with direction provided in said resolution. He
announced that the note had a maturity date of April 24, 1992.
Mr. Yonkosky requested that approval be given to amend Section 4
of Resolution 90-423, to extend the maturity date for one more year
which will allow the County to roll the note over and capitalize the
interest.
Go~tssioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Comsisstoner Hesse and
Ca/Tied unaniB~ly, to a~end Section · of Resolution 90-423, a~
reqcl~ted b~ the Finance Director.
Page 4
Hay 19, 1992
}FUBLIC PETITION REGARDING A PET STORK IN C-2 ZONING - NOT HEARD
Mr. Ernest Schmtdt stated that he owns the store that the peti-
tioner, Mr. Todd Godwin, was proposing to rent. He advised that he
received a telephone call from Mr. Godwin indicating that he no longer
has an interest in renting his property due to the difficulties he has
had In obtaining a permit. He suggested that this item not be heard.
This item wa:~ not heard by the Commission.
Ite~ ~8B1
RECOg~ENDATION TO ALLOW WESTINGHOUSE COMMUNITIES OF NAPLES, INC. TO
DESIGN, ENaIN~ER AND CONSTRUCT A GOLF CART UNDERPASS TO CONNECT
PARCELS ON THE EI~ST AND W~ST SIDES OF GOODLETTE ROAD EXTENSION -
CONCEPT APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald reported that this
ts a request by ;lesttnghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. to Install an
underpass for ful:ure use as part of their project and install same
concurrently with the County's construction activities involving road-
work and utility work. He explained that Westinghouse owns property
on both sides of Goodlette-Frank Road and noted that this is an ideal
time to coordtnale the underpass consistent with the County's work.
Mr. Archibald stated that staff has reviewed the concept and does
not object to the plan, subject to a series of requirements relative
to permit conditions as outlined in the Executive Summary.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald explained that
the proposed location of the underpass is north of a wetland area and
the consultants representing the developer indicate that permits would
not need to be modified f~r the road project. H~ pointed out that one
critical item is to ensure that this does not impact the current road
construction activities, but If it should, costs incurred would be the
responsibility of the developer.
Mr. Archibald stated that part of the conditions would be for the
d,~veloper to work out agreements with the existing contractors, accep-
table to the County from the cost and timing standpoint. He revealed
Page 5
May ]g, lgg2
that a permit w.)uld be issued for the construction by the developer,
however, the County will not be a party to the cost of that activity,
but only a part'! to the contract. He affirmed that the security would
be comparable to the subdivision security as part of the Manatee pro-
Ject.
Mr. Archibald requested approval tn concept of allowing the deve-
loper to install the underpass now rather than later, and that staff
be directed to ))ursue the permit in accordance with Ordinance 82-91
that would out]lne the stipulations in the Executive Summary.
Commissione:~ Saunders suggested that prior to conceptual approval,
that a binding i:ontract be drafted which would set forth the
appropriate conditions and contingencies, and present same to the
Commission.
Mr. Archibald indicated that typically, in situations of this
nature, staff w()uld request that the Commission authorize the County
Attorney's office to review the stipulations and the security as part
of the permit process.
C~isaione)' Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~tsaioner Hasse add
carried 4/1 (Conmissioner Saunders opposed), to conceptually approve
the golf conrsa underpass structure subject to staff's stipulations
~ut ~;~ent u~n the final contracts coming back and being ap]~roved.
It~ ~¢1 D~let~d
Ita ~C2
~UD~ET AMKNDg~EN~ TO ASSURE CONTINUATION OF SERVICES FOR INDIGEF~
COLLI~ COUNTY )~$IDENTS - APPROVED
Public Serv:.ces Administrator Olliff advised that this item is a
request to amend the Social Services Department's budget from its
current adopted budget amount of $155,000 to $465,000. He reported
that last year'~ budget for this department was $1,287,000 and it was
amended to $1,5(;2,000 at the later part of the year due to increased
health care costs.
Mr. Olliff reported that the eligibility for clients ~s as low as
it can legally be, which is 110% of poverty or less. He explained
16 Page 6
May 19, 1992
that all the clt,~nts are at the poverty level. He announced that the
Social Services Department is the provider of last resort and all
other programs, .~.e. Veteran's Services, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. are
checked into first to determine whether there are other available
programs.
Mr. Olltff referred to the graphs, depicted in the Executive
Summary and called attention to the mandated programs that the
Department ts required to pay a County portion of. He pointed out the
Increase tn physician and prescription drugs, in addition to the
number of clients receiving assistance per employee. He stated that
the department ts not growing, however, but the number of clients and
the cost per client are growing.
Mr. Olltff requested approval of $465,000 to fund the department's
activities through this fiscal year.
Social Services Director Skinner advised that the increase in
clients receiving services to date this year has been 9%-10% over last
year's numbers. She indicated that last year, her department saw
about 15,500 clients and provided assistance to 4,900 of those people.
Go.missioner Ooodntght moved, seconded by Co.~tssloner H&mse and
carried unani~o~sly, to approve a budget a~end~ent in the a~un't of
$465,000, transferring funds from Reserve from Contingencies.
Item #8D1
PROFESSIONAL SIRVICES AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE FOR THE SOUIq{
COUNTY SEIgER MASTER PLAN UPDATE - APPROVED
Assistant Utilities Administrator Bloetscher stated that this 1rem
is a request for approval of the consultant's agreement for the update
to the South County Regional Master Plan for sewer service south of
the Golden GatE. Canal. He noted that the original master plan for
this area was (lone tn 1986 and a significant portion of the work
recommended in the plan has now been completed.
Mr. Bloetscher recalled on 3anuary 21, 1992, the Board approved a
short llst for this project, and selected Malcolm Pirnle in conJunc-
riot. with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek as the top-ranked firm, and
Page 7
May 19, 1992
staff Is providing a standard professional services agreement to
accomplish the work. He explained that the total cost is slightly
less than $170,0OO.
Mr. Gtl Erilchman, representinG TAG, spoke to this item.
Tape e2
Mr. Tom Peek of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., addressed
concerns raised by Mr. Erlichman. He advised that his proposal will
accomplish som~thinG for 20% of the cost that would have been
Incurred, had there been a full time staff person.
C~tutom~r S&undsra mcrved, seconded by Co.,~tslioner Shanahan and
c&rrt~ unant~rusl¥, to approve the professional services agreement
with Malcolm P:[rnts for the South County Sewer Master Plan u~d&ts.
Page 8
May 19, 1992
lO:&5 A.M. - Reconvened: 11:00 A.M. at ~hlch ttae
Clerk Guevln replaced Deputy Clerk Roll.an see
Xte~
EMINENT DO~AII~ ACTION RULED OUT FOR BEACH ACCESS ACQUISITION ON MARCO
ISLAND FOR ALL P~EFERENCED PARCELS WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF
PARCELS 9 AND 10
Tom Conre,:ode, Office of Capital Projects Management D/rector,
presented a tally of acquisition costs for each of the 11 parcels on
Marco Island proposed for acquisition for beach access easements.
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Cronin communicated that he and
Assistant County Attorney Weigel have investigated a number of the
parcels. He ~atd in providing a recommendation, it would be much more
cost efficien': to look at undeveloped parcels rather than what would
have to be pa:.d on any developed parcel, especially high rise con-
dominium parc,~ls with the potent/al of every unit owner having an
interest. He indicated Parcels 2 and 3 at the north and south ends of
Residents' Beach were the primary focus of their visit. He noted
Parcels 5 and 6, the Regency and Deltona parcels, are also undeve-
loped, however, there is only 1/10 mile between them and it would not
make sense to acquire both because of their proximity to each other.
Commissiorer Shanahan remarked when talking about acquisition of
these beach access easements, no cons~deratJon has been given to the
fact there is no parking area. He said acquiring 10 feet of access
does not get anything accomplished other than much litigation, costs
and hurt feelings. He indicated the question of pedestrian access has
been answered many times by the aggregate consolidation of Tigertail
and Residents' Beaches.
Commissioner Goodnlght questioned Commissioner Shanahan on the
outcome of disrussions between resJdentm concerning access through the
Crescent Beach property?
Commission,~r Shanahan reported he met with residents of Aquarius,
Seabreeze and :~outhwinds and followed up with a separate meeting with
Crescent Beach members. He indicated they are continuing to try to
arrange a priv~te access program between the two groups, however, both
May 19, 1992
parties are a~altlng the outcome of t. hf~ debate.
The follo~,ing people spoke regarding this item:
Frank Blanchard Charlotte Westman
MarJorte Ward
Com3~isston~r Saunders objected to the use of eminent domain action
for such a narrow purpos, of acquiring a five-foot easement with no
associated parking.
C.o~iesio~r Shana/nan ~oved, seconded by Couissioner Sounders and
carried unmni~usly, that the Board will not proceed with eminent
domain action c~n any of the referenced parcels with the possible
exception of P~lrcels 9 and 10.
C0us~x ATTOKN~q' DIRECTED TO REVISIT THE POINTE MARCO PUD FOR THE
XKCLUSI~-K PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH OWNERSHIP OF THE PA3~KING LOT, AND
AUTHORIZED TO ]iNSTITUTE EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION TO EXTINGUISH
C0N/~RAC%~UAL RI(,q~TS OF ANYONE REGARDING THE PARKING LOT
County Attc,rney Cuy]er referred to a memorandum that addresses the
specific evaluation of eminent domain as it relates to the Pointe
Marco PUD parking lot parcel. (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the
Board.) He stated the conclusion reached is that there does not
appear to be a contract between the Marco Island Civic Association
(MICA) and the developer of Polnte Marco. He explained the relevant
issues concerning possible eminent domain action.
The following people spoke regarding this item:
Nancy DeVolder George Corse
MarJorie Ward Walter Donovan
Tape ~3
Earl Marlin Harry Cowin
Emily Maggio Dave Brunet
Charlotte Westman
Co~IIiOner $aunders Ioved, seconded by Co~u~issioner Hasse, to
d~rect the C~unty Attorney to revisit the PUD for Pointe Marco for the
vury 111tt~ an, f exclusive purpose of dealing with ownership of the
p~rkin~ lot, a~ that the County Attorney be given the authority to
tnetttnte e~in~t domain action regarding extinquishln~ contract%iai
ri~htm that any,~ne may have in re~ard to the parking lot.
Commissioner Shanahan stated he cannot support exploring eminent
Page
~ay 19~ 1992
domain for thl:~ purpose. He said this area is not the most logical
place for a parking lot and consideration should be Given to moving
quickly and expandinG TiGertail Beach parkinG.
CommissionE~r GoodnJght commented before she can vote on whether to
4to to eminent domain, she would like to know the cost of expanding
TiGertail Beach parkinG and how many additional spaces will be Gained.
She said if Ti~ertail Beach can be expanded by more spaces than can be
gained on the south end of the Island, that issue needs to be looked
at from a fiscal standpoint.
Commissioner Volpe questioned if Commissioner Goodnight supports
the first part 9f the motion which directs the County Attorney to ini-
tiate an amendment to the PUD, to which she concurred.
Commissioner Hasse remarked there is no reason why the County
should not expand TIGertail Beach parkinG at the same time, because
in his opinion there will never be enough beach parking in Collier
County no matter what the Board does.
~;on call for the question, the motion carried 4/1 (Co~isatoner
S~ c~po~ed).
County Attorney Cu¥]er asked for clarification on the motion, that
the vote incorporated both the PUD amendment and initiating eminent
domain?
Commissioner Volpe responded in the affirmative.
e.$ D~t¥ Clerk Fmrrts replaced Deputy Clerk Guevin at this ti~e aaa
Ite~ ~
STAT~ P~OPO~AL T() USE ~EOYCLED PAPER FOR COURT-FILED PROCEEDINGS AND
PAPE~ - O~EN~[~ TO SUPPORT BUT NOT MANDATE USE OF RECYCLED PAPER
County Attorney Cuyler referred to a four-page document identified
as "9C ADD-ON" (copy not provided for the record), and explained the
State's proposal necessitates those persons filing documents tn the
court system doing so on recycled paper.
After brief discussion, the consensus was to encourage but not
mandate the use of recycled paper.
$'$ Recess: 1:25 P.M. - Reconvened: 2:00 P.M.
Item
May 19, 1992
~.~[~KEH THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF FISCAL 1992 -
ACTION REQUIRED
Budget Analyst Byrne pointed out that page 2 of the Executive
Summary reflect~ projections through the end of the year for intergo-
vernmental revenues, enterprise fund revenues and impact fees. He
reported that, ~lth the exception of ambulance fees, road impact fees,
law enforcement Impact f,es, and affordable housing linkage fees,
everything is on budget at this point and expected to remain so
through the end of the year. He confirmed his office will continue
,monitoring the revenues and will report back at the end of the third
.quarter.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Byrne confirmed that land
tipping fees are down almost 9% due to the fact that less ts being
hauled to the landfill, which in turn is attributed to the slow down
in the construction industry.
Commissioner Hasse commented perhaps the reduction can be partly
attributed to the fact recyclables are not dumped at the landfill, and
Mr. Byrne agreed he will investigate that possibility.
Mr, Byrne announced this report is for informational purposes only
and no action it requtred by the Board of County Commissioners.
DI$C'~SION AND ~PDATE REGARDING STRATEGIC GOALS - CONSENSUS THAT STAFF
Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager, referred to a
*blue folder" (copy not provided for the record) explaining that it is
~ compilation of the status on the goals of each division in the exe-
cutive offices. She revealed that for the 27 identified goals there
&re 99 performaKce indicators, 40% of which were to be completed by
the end of April, and 73% of which have been achieved. She announced
that the implementation of program budgeting by the Office of
~anagement and ~udget and biannual evaluation of in-house fleet
operation by Administrative Services are examples of goals which have
been completed. She disclosed that the tn-house fleet operation
73'
Page 12
Hay 19, 1992.
program is saving $200,000 to-date, She confirmed that timely
progression on the soccer fields at the Vineyards has been attained as
well as approval of the increase in the road impact fee, but noted
that the Coastal Zone Management Plan experienced a 16 day slippage
and the bid award for the water line at the North Naples Regional
Water Treatment Plant has been extended to May 27th.
Commissione;- Volpe questioned what divisions which have completed
one or two of their three stated goals will do for the remainder of
the second half of the year and, following brief comments, Ms. Edwards
agreed staff can be directed to bring back additional goals.
Consensus w;~s that staff is to bring back an addendum to this
report identifying what divisions which have realized their goals
intend to do fo~ the second half of the year.
Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that the figures for indigent
health care, outlined on page 22, need to be adjusted to reflect the
$465,000 budget,~d today.
Itu PSH3
· TAFF'S AWALY~I:3 OF THH MARCH 31, 1992 CONSULT~ CO--CT ~RT -
CO~~ ~T :~T~ ~DATE ~ PRESE~ IMFO~TIOM ~RY SIX
Thomas Conrecode, Director of Office of Capital Projects
Management, reminded the Board of County Commissioners of Mr.
Erlichman's Rep,Drt presented on March 31st and explained that initial
review of same [ound $8,000,000 worth of work had been completed or
closed out of the total $31,000,000. He distributed a handout iden-
tified as "Open Consultant Contracts" and expressed a desire to work
more closely with Finance Director Yonkosky to provide for better
tracking method:~ in the future.
Gilbert Erl[chman confirmed that he asked for and received a copy
of Mr. Yonkosky's report of open consultant contracts which he pre-
viously present,~d to the Board of Cr)url%y Comml.~lorler~.
Finance Dlr,~ctor Yonkosky revealed that a report Is compiled
approximately e'/er¥ six months to track open contracts and close out
those which hav,~ been finalized. He confirmed that up until the time
000,, 74
PaGe ! 3
May 19, 1992
Mr. Erltchman requested a copy of the report, it was basically of an
Internal natu]'e. He briefly discussed the contents of the report of
contracts, po:.nting out that from fiscal 1986 through fiscal 1992 the
Board of County Commissioners appr~ved $30,000,000 worth of consulting
agreements, t{e relayed his intent to continue compilation of the
report and to provide same to each Division Administrator.
Following brief discussion, Commissioner Volpe concluded that the
"lion's share' of consulting fees are bein9 paid to engineerin!~ con-
sultants and that the $31,000,000 would provide for a very nice
tn-house engtKeerIng department.
CommissioKer Goodnight suggested that future reports reflect items
which come in under budget as well as how much under contract ~hey
are.
Tom Peek, of W~lson0 Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., spoke to the
Issue of creatlom by the County of an in-house engineering department
versus continuing to contract out to consultants.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Finance Director Yonkosky
confirmed he will work with Mr. Conrecode and other members of staff
to make the report provide as much information as possible for the
Board of Count-~ Commissioners at least every slx months.
Item ,8E4
SEA.ALL REPAIH AND/OR REPLACEMENT IN THE REDWOOD WATERWAY WITHIN THE
RI(FHT-OP-WAY 0]~ NORTH BARFIELD DRIVE ON MARCO ISLAND AND TO DESIGNATE
A FUNDING SOURiIE FOR SAME - FUND 111 TO BE USED
Thomas Con]-ecode, Director of Office of Capital Projects
Management, explained the intent of the request for seawall repair
and/or replace~ent in the redwood waterway within the right-of-way of
North Barf/eld Drive on Marco Island.
Gilbert Er]tchman explained the reason for his request that this
item be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald concluded that the
need to repair the seawall ts not road-related.
Page 14
May 19, 1992
Finance Director Yonkosky questioned whether the Unincorporated
Area General Fund (Fund lll) would be the more appropriate Fund to use
should it be determined this be paid from a General Fund, and Mr.
Archibald concurred it would.
C.o~/~ioz~r Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~umtsaloner Goodntght
~ cmrr~ed um~ni~ousl¥, to fund the seawall repair and/or replacement
ou~ of ~ 111.
FUBLIC ~ O~ ~ TOPICS
Frank Gumpert, representing Northgate Homeowners Association,
requested that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to
include all residential manmade waterways in the descriptions being
prepared regar,]ing the gillnet fishing ban to be introduced at the
State Legtslat.[ve Special Session in two weeks. He stated he has a
report on the issue as well as maps he has prepared of saltwater
canals which should be included in the new law, copies not provided
for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the contents of the report proffered
by Mr. Gumpert as well as previous and current laws relevant to the
issue.
Commissioner Volpe questioned whether it is possible to prepare
in-house the necessary descriptions for inclusion of areas identified
by Mr. Gumpert in the gil]net fishing ban and Thomas Conrecode,
D~rector of Office of Capital Projects Management, acknowledged it is
possible.
County Manager Dorrill expressed concern regarding advertisement
requirements relative to local bills to be entered into the special
session of the legislature as well as adequate public notice.
Following a,]ditional discussion, it was the consensus to direct
staff to work with Mr. Gumpert to compile the appropriate legal
descriptions for presentation at the legislative delegation meeting
when possible.
Item
Page 15
DI~"I~ZO~ R~dtDIi[G & CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD
May 19, 1992
Conatsstoner Hasse re]ayed the request by Professional Realty
Consultants that consideration be given to the creation of a
Construction Advisory Eoard to work with the School Board as well as
the County.
Following brief discussion, staff was directed to ascertain
whether the industry is willing to participate by performing the
service and whether the School Board will participate.
Commissioner Hasse volunteered to pursue the matter.
ORDI~t~C~ 92-~4 R~ 1991 GRO~rl~ ~b~RAGEXENT PLAR ~ - ADOFTED &S
Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on May
13, 1992, as ~videnced by Affidavit of Publication fi]ed with the
Clerk, public hearing was opened.
Growth Mar.agement Planner Laverty revealed this ts the second
public hearing' to consider the 1991 Growth Management Plan Amendments.
He confirmed that included in the proposed amendment package are two
public pettttc,ns for amendment, staff's proposed amendments, amend-
ments suggested by the Board of County Commissioners during the past
year as well i,s the annual update and amendment to the Capital
Improvement Element.
Growth Maragement Director Lltstnger outlined the DCA objections
relative to c~pital facilities tn General, concluding that their
lnterpretatior was a mtcroanalytical approach to public facilities
while the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities ProGram and the
capital improvement element are based on a macroanalyttcal approach.
He revealed staff feels its current approach to public facility
planning ts adequate and, therefore, wou]d not want to commit to any
compartmentalization of the county or even break the County into
districts. He disclosed that staff proposes to include tn the adop-
tion of this amendment to the CIE the AUIR as Appendix G to the CIE in
Page 16
Nay 19, 1992
the future. {eferrlng to page 58 of staff's response (copy not pro-
vided for the record), he explained the proposed revision to Policy
1.1,2 of the capital improvement element.
Following brief discussion, Mr, Lltslnger concluded staff
generally fee~;s that nothing beyond what is currently being done is
required, how~ver, proposes an Amendment to the capital improvement
element in an attempt to meet DCA's objections prior to a finding of
noncompliance while avoiding the need to add a section to the capital
Improvement element everytime a rezone petition 1~ approved or a
change Js made to the Future Land Use Element.
Timothy P. Cannon, representing the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, introduced himself as the one who drafted DCA's
obJect]ons and the one which will review the adopted amendments. He
stated he feels DCA ts Jn agreement, at least ]n concept, on most of
the issues ral~ed In the report.
In respons~ to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Cannon highlighted some of
DCA's concerns and objections to the capital improvement element.
M;'. LltsJn!;er reiterated that staff feels DCA'~ objections have
been addressed and, therefore, recommends the Board of County
Commissioners ~ldopt the proposed changes and offer them to DCA for
review.
In response? to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney
Student stated that when Mr. Litsinger concludes it will be
appropriate to take action on the capital Improvement element as a
whole.
Mr. L~ts~n~er referred to his memo to the Board of County
Co~miss~oners (copy not provided for the record) and explained that
most of what Js being discussed at this time in its final form, as
adopted today, w~ll be previously unreviewed Amendments and, there-
fore, there will not be the advantage of having an ORC report (DCA's
Ob~ections, Rec3mmendations and Comments) as to whether or not today's
dec~sions are t:3 compliance.
ese ~t~ Cllr][ Hoff~ replaced D~puty Clerk Fma'rts mt this
Mr. Lttstnger explained that the Ttndale-Oliw~r analysis included
May 19, 1992
funded state roads on the project list and staff removed those funded
state proJectf. He remarked that Ttndale included federal, state and
county gas ta~es and staff removed those gases that are not remitted
to the county. He reported that Tinda]e added projects indicated by
their proprietary traffic modeling program and staff relied on the MPO
model and its own traffic analysis. He revealed that the Ttndale ana-
lysis assumed that gas tax receipts equivalent to 12¢ of the total
available 36¢ from ali sources are applied to road construction,
however, only 2¢ of county gas, and the current Board of County
Commissioners budget policy indicates only 25% of the gas taxes that
come Into the county to road construction and the remainder goes to
road matntenanre. Further, he stated that the Tinda]e list included
project costtn; which was FY-gl est]mates, and staff updated the
F¥-92/96 project costs to reflect current data and experience based on
the contracts ~hat are currently being let.
In responsf~ to Commissioner Goodnight, Transportation Services
Administrator Archibald recalled that the Contractors' Association
stated that there was a much greater shortfall, however, staff has not
changed its position. He explained that the argument at the time, was
the deftctencits being discussed and not the shortfalls.
Mr. Archibald stated that Ttndale's report of 1991 was based upon
data provided to them by staff and the CIE at that time was approxima-
tely $160 million. He divulged that Tindale indicated that from a
level of servtc9 standpoint they could cut $30 million from that
program. Me affirmed that staff deferred that $30 million in pro3ects
out to the next year. He reported that those projects which were
deferred beyond the five year time frame need to be addressed.
Mr. ArchibaLd advised that during the first quarter of 1992, staff
updated its proiect plans for those pro3ects on board for the next
five years and this reflected a $14 million increase in the 5 year
CIE. He pointed out that the exhibits in the package detail to the
dollar what each and every Increase reflects.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Litsinger revealed that
79
Page 18
Nay 19, 3992
the assumptions relative to growth rate are simply the fallout from
the growth rate of traffic counts on individual lanes. He noted that
the current analysis indicates projects that have been identified and
the timing that has been identified which has not changed drastically
from what was previously presented. He affirmed that what has changed
Is the cost of those projects. He pointed out if staff's next analy-
sis Indicates that an improvement can be dropped for another year,
otaff will bring that Information to the Commission In the AUIR.
MPO Coordinator Perry explained that what ts being acted upon
today is something that was transmitted to DCA six months ago and to
alter that material significantly would put the County in danger of
being challenged by DCA by not having adequate data and analysis to
Justify taking out a substantial number of projects. He recalled that
Tindal~-Oliver r,~commended that $30 million worth of projects be taken
out, however, stilff's analysis was to leave $16 million worth of pro-
Jects in the plait and defer $14 million until a better analysis can be
completed, but this will not be known for approximately four weeks.
"'$ l~s 4:40 P.M. - Recorrvened 4:55 P.M. ess
Mr. Lttstnger explained that staff has reviewed the differences in
the original analysts of the roadways and arrived at the $157 million
project list and the resulting $67 million shortfall. He called
attention to Page 3 of the report, which identifies the four basic
options for funding the shortfall. A discussion ensued with respect
to the funding options.
Mr. LJtsinger called attention to Attachment 2 of the transmittal
package, detailing the 10 year projection of revenues available for
capital construction within the County based on current Board policy;
Altachment 3 details the Gas tax revenue situation and the current
b~ldget; Attachment 4 reflects that four of the projects construction
phases could be deferred beyond 1996 but the design and engineering
phases would need to be continued. He noted that staff recommends
that the second list of three projects (Projects 40, 42 and 44) not be
May 19, 1992
deferred, as recommended by Tlndale.
Mr. Litsinger stated that Attachment 5 is correspondence to him
from Financial Advisor, Marc Samet; and Attachment 6 is a project by
pro,eot comparison of Tlndale's modified CIE and the CIE presented by
staff.
Co~mtssioner Volpe remarked that there ks a net cost increase of
S14 million since the Commission's last review of the Tindale-Ollver
report.
Mr. Litetnge? indicated that the "pink pages" are the changes to
the CIE to provi,~e language as d~scussed previously with DCA.
Mr. Litsinge;r advised that on May 7, 1992, the CCPC heard this
~,reeentatton, and concur with staff's revisions to to the CIE road
~Fo~ects schedul~ w~th the caveat that the need for "grade separation"
in project Nos. 14 and 44 be re-analyzed annually for possible delay
or deletion; implement the revenue shortfall funding Alternative I as
the fiLanc~ally feasible funding mechanism; and that a second refere-
ndtAm t~e held on ~he Local Option Seventh Cent Sales Tax, which if suc-
cessful would be substituted for ad valorem taxes as the roads revenue
&hoFtfa]! fundin~ source.
Mr. Litsinge~ requested that the Board take the following actions
relative to the ;ending CIE Update and Amendment:
1. Review and approve staff responses to the DCA Objections,
Comments and Recommendations (nRC) Report;
Review and approve staff revisions to the schedule of FY
92-96 rcad projects (Attachment I);
3. Select an alterna~ive road revenue shortfall funding source
from available alternatives to replace CIE Policy 1.2.9 (rna6
assessment distr~ct);
4. Adopt the Third Annual CIE Update and Amendment with approved
changes.
Co~tmaloner Volpe advised that he ks not supportive of the use of
ad valorem taxes to fund the CIE Element of the Growth Management
Plan. He affirmed that he is supportive of balancing the CIE Element
with e combination of Alternative #3.
Mr. Perry pointed out that Alternative #4 reduces the CIE by
Page 20
19, 1~92
$]~.8 million b%, deferring three additional projects. He Indicated
that the proJecim to be deferred are Oood]ette-Frank Road from Solana
to Golden Gate Parkway, Vanderbtlt Beach Road from Gulf Shore Drive to
U.S. 41 and Tamiamt Trail North grade separation.
Mr. Lttetnger stated that based on the current data and analysis,
he Is recommending Attachment 1 and ~f staff can present someth~n~ An
four weeks Jus~lfyln~ ~ha~ ~hose proJecfs are not needed, they could
~ re~ved at that t~ne.
Hr. Per~ reported that It would be easier to defer the construc-
Tion of Projects 40 and ~4 since they are in the 95/96 year and place
~hee in the 96/97 year. He indicated that this would reduce the CIE
by $10.6
Mr. Lltstn~er su~ested that the Co, lesion consider the possibi-
lity of a bond issue since it provides the flexibility of combining
revenues and accmmpllshes the same purpose without co~Attlng one par-
ticular revenue source, notin~ that this is reflected ~n Alternative
9IV. ~e Cootsston concurred with Mr. Lltslnger's suggestion.
~t~ ~~sly, ~o ~~ staff's ~s~ to ~i's ObJ~tt~,
~J~l ~ ~ t4 within f~r ~ks; a~ro~l of ~
~ -- Alte~ti~ IV; ~d t~t the Bird ~1 CIE
'' ~W Clerk ~tn replac~ N~W Clerk ~of~ at this tie ''
Ntttt. ~1-1
Planner Mlch~lle Edwards stated the proposed amendment Is to the
Future Land Use ~lement (FLUE) Description Section. She said the
language is bein,I amended to address support medical facilities within
one-quarter Ills of a hospital or major treatment center. She noted
originally, those facilities were allowed only within one-quarter mile
of existing hospitals, while this amendment will allow support medical
Page 21
~ay 19, 1992
facilities within one-quarter mile of existing and future hospitals.
She concluded there were no DCA objections to this amendment.
Co~Iesion~r Saunders moved, seconded by Co.--issioner Shmnahan and
cm~'rte4 u~ntmously, to close the ~bltc he~t~.
~~i~r ad. rs ~, secon~d W Contsstoner ~~ ~d
~tg ~i~uly, to appr~e P~tttton CP-91-1.
Planner Elly Sots explained this is a request to amend the text of
· the Activity Center Subdistrict to allow for flexibility in defining
Activity Center boundaries. She indicated the CCPC was concerned with
the language which references the parcel must be less than five acres
and within a subdivision plat. She said the CCPC suggested additional
language which clarifies the subdivision plat must have received
approval by the Board of County Commissioners prior to this date. She
Indicated Staff encourages the revised language as proposed by the
CCPC.
In response to Commissioner Hasse, Ms. Sots agreed the language
may be revised to state "five acres or less" rather than the proposed
"less than five acres".
C(~t~lox~r Sa~Sers ~oved, e~conded by Co. missioner Shmnmhan and
carried ~lmoul¥, to close the lmbltc hearing.
C~lHion~r Sm~ndsrs ~ovsd, seconded by Co~alsstoner Shmnmhmn and
cmrried ~imouly, to approve Petition CP-91-2 with the m~end~ent as
~ote~
Planner Diane Holltng reported DCA had no objections to the amend-
ments to the Traffic Circulation Element and the CCPC suggested no
changes. She pointed out Staff has proposed changes to Table 5 which
reflect the revisions in the CIE heard earlier in this meeting. She
indicated the only amendment necessary is to delete projects 40 and 44
as recommended by the Board. She concluded with a recommendation to
adopt the amendments as proposed on the side sheet (copy not provided
83
Page 22
May 19, 1992
to the Clerk to the Board), with the deletion of projects 40 and 44.
C~s~d.~oner Shanahan ~:~ved, seconded by Co~missioner ~oodntght
·nd ~t.~ed~m~ni~ousl¥, to close the public hearing.
CO~/Nionsm Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Com~issioner $~unders and
~Ti~ ~ia~l¥, to accept Staff's recomndation on the Traffic
Circulation lls~wnt with the ~nd~ent to delete projects 40 ~n~ 44.
Planner Barbara Cacchione explained the five areas of language
changes due to DCA comments, specifically relating to the locattonal
requirements for group housing, compatibility exceptions, affordable
housing, commercial under criteria provisions and the agricultural/
rural designation regarding asphalt plants.
Assistant County Attorney Student suggested the Board consider the
FLUE Map changt~s at this time.
? . Ms. Cacchione noted there are two changes on the FLUE Map, one
amending the Iauaokalee Urban Area Boundary to be consistent with the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the other adding a three-acre parcel
into the Plantation Island Urban Area. She added that the natural
resources and ~ubltc facilities maps have been updated.
Coati.toner Shmnmhmn ~oved, seconded by Co~tsstonsr Goodlmtght
~nd ¢~zTted un~ni~ously, to close the public hearing.
Oo~i~toner Shanahan ~ved, seconded by Co~tssioner Goo~ntght
~ · ~n~ =~rrt~ unantml¥, to approve the Future Land Use Element text
Plan
Ms. Edwards presented changes to the Immokalee Area Master Plan
amendments due to DCA objections. She referred to the Commercial
'.
District for which Staff has provided a response to DCA identifying
that the proposed Commercial District or its expansion will be sup-
Page 23
May ~9, 1992
~i' p ort~ ~ adequate public facilities and there will be no additional
financial obligations to provide those public facilities to this com-
mercial site. She mentioned a second objection was to the level of
service, and Staff has provided analysts that the proposed amendment
will not tncr~ase the level of service on surrounding roadways. She
noted a corre¢:tton has been made to wording regarding access points
for future commercial development, changing the word "minimum" to
She concluded the Immokalee Area Master Plan FLUE Map has
been revised to reflect the changes concerning the Commercial
District.
oarriei ~tse~sl?, to close the p~bltc hearing.
Oomim~io~er $~xmd~re ~ved, seconded by ¢omtsmion~r Shanahan and
carrl~ ~2t~zti~o~ly, to approve the ~nd~ents to the I~okalee Master
. ~ol~ma ~ate ~amter Plan
Ms. $oto reported DCA's objections to the Golden Gate Master Plan
a~endments are the same as those reviewed regarding the commercial
~... under criteria provisions, land use description and the group housing
i:,i; clarification, which were addressed as noted within the FLUE Text
t;,'
· amendment s.
~arrie~ ~mm~m~l?0 to close the public hearim~.
Oomai~io~m~ Saxumders ~mv~d, seconded by ¢ontsstoner Shazihan and
Fred Bloeti;cher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, explained
these a~endmente are in response to DCA's objections to certain
Objectives, as well as modifications to others.
Attorney Bruce Anderson questioned Policies 1.1.8 and 1.4.5 of
Sanitary Se~er and Policy 1.2.6 of Potable ~ater, in regard to
000,,,, 85
Page 24
Nay ~9~ 1992
Coss~anity Development Districts. He asked if it is the intent that a
,Co~unit¥ Development District will have the same option as a private
'developer to o$~rate an interim water or sewer treatment plant until
County service ia available?
Mr. Bloetscher replied in the affirmative, aa long as it is
~.;~ . clearly understood to be an interim system.
~m~A~elo~e~ ~md~re ~oved. eeconded by Cosmissioner Shaz~ahan and
. carried ~i~,asl¥, to close the public hearing.
';' Ce~l~io~e~ Sa~.ndere aov~t, seconded by Couissloner Shanahan and
i~ carried ~i~ly, to approve the a~m~nts to the Samitax-y Sar
I~a~lie ~ilitie~ - Potable ~ter ~b-Ile~nt
This amendment was discussed In conjunction with the Sanitary
Sewer Sub-Element.
~t~lo~r ~mx~ere ~m~, ~econded by Co~teelo~er Sha~ahan ~
o~i~ ~~IT, to cl~ the ~bllc he~tng.
~tsi~r 8m~rs ~, Ncond~ ~ Co~lssioner S~~ ~d
~i~ ~~lT, to a~r~ the ~n~ts to the ~table ~ter
b~ti~ ~ ~ S~ce Elmnt
Planner Bill Laverty reported there were no objections from DCA to
the proposed am,ndmenta to the Recreation and Open Space Element.
Commissioner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~tssiomer ~ae ~d
~t~ ~i~ly, to close the ~blic hearing.
~l~i~ ~~ ~, 8econd~ ~ Co~tastoner Sanders ~d
c~i~ ~~ly, to a~r~ the mn~nts to the Recreation ~d
~ti~ ~l C~tal ~~t Elint
Mr. Laverty noted this amendment will delete Policy 13.3.8 from
the ~rowth Nanagement Plan, which received no objections from DCA.
Oo~io~.r Shanahan moved, seconded by Conteetoner Saunder~ and
Poge 25
19, 1992
. c~u~i~d~m~nisousl¥, to close the public he·ring.
Cgx~t~ton~ Sh~l~n ~sd, sec~ ~ C~tsstoner Sanders ~d
~lg ~i~sly, to ~ppr~e th~ ~letton of ~1t~ 13.3.8 from the
~~t~er S~ders ~, .conded ~ Coat·stoner a~an ~d
~i~ ~i~aly, to a~r~e the m~nts to the 6r~h
~t Plat u ~~. there~ ad.ting Ordt~ce 92-34, u
to
Comm/~ton~r $~unders moved, seconded by Co~-tsstoner Shtnahtn and
carrtod mumt~ousl¥, to authorize the Chair·an to sign · letter to
t~n~tt th~ 1991Grc~th N~r~gement Plan a~endments to DCA.
· *' Commissioner Sh~n~h~n moved, seconded by Coat·stoner
Goodnight ~nd carried unanimously, that the following Ires·
m~der the con~ent ·gend~ he approved ~nd/or adopted: ***
It~m.16&l
FACILITIES FOR RAILII~D IRT)OS/RIAL P&R~
STZPUT~TIONS &S DETAILED IR TH~ ~CUTIV~ SUI~e~R:Y
Item #l~Aa
;,: :, ACCEPT~ OF IRREVOCABLH STANDBY L~'I'rER OF CREDIT FOR LARD~CAPIRG OF
See Pages
I~,CAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.424, "WILSHIRE LAKES" BOUNDED BY VANDERBILT
~ ~%OAD AND 1-75 - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
%"' '. Item ~l~d~
!*,.' Ai~'~TTAiIr~ OP CA~R BOND AS SECURITY FOR LANDSCAPING OF ~CASTANO · P~.E][, ~ S3, GOLDEN (3&TS CITY""
Nay 19, 1992
;':'JI~C~Z~A]IC~ OF CJ~ BOND &S SECURI~ FOR L&RDSCAPING OF
.:&CC~FT~ OF CaSH BOND AS SECITRTTY FOR LANDSCAPING OF
BID ~92-1859, MOBILE TRACK FILING SYSTEM - AMARDED TO PIONEER
KItI~II~C~ 1~1 ~g ~ OF 911,875
;,; ll~:~O'a~lT~O]l 92--295, 'PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LI~II FOR 2 ~ST OF
~~ J. ~ ~ OF ~C0~
Se~ Pages
',~lt~:g~lTIOII 9~'20~, PROVIDING ER ASSESSMENT OF LI~31 FOR T~ COST OF
TI~ ~ OF FUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 6, BLOCK 795, OF A I~PLAT OF A
PORTIO~ OP IM~tCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY-FIVE, GIUSKPPE DONOFRIO 0MILER OF
Item ~16&gq:
R~OLUTION 92-297, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 15, BLOCK 193 OF MARCO BEACH
UNIT ~V~N, VASH! P. AMARNANI OWNER OF RECORD
It~ .1~k10
['*:' RI~O~IT~ON 02-298, FINAL ~T 0F "~ 108 ~T"
See Page /~ ~
.
92--299, PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE 0F ~ RO~Y, ~INAGE,
~ ~K~S ~R ~ FIN~ P~T 0F =P~Y ~" -
~~TI0~ D~AIL~ IN ~ ~C~ S~
· See Page /[~/7~
· *~' ' lt~ ~16B1
~U~O~IYll&TIUN OF UTILITY INTERESTS A~~ BK~ ~ITE ~LK~O~
~~ ~ ~RIDA ~ COLLI~ CO~ ~ A ~RTIOR OF ~
~ ~~ ~ - ~ STI~TIONS AS DETAILED IN ~ ~I~
1992
- I:~OL~I~OI 92-300/C1~-92-15, PROVIDING I~R TE~TAT/VE A~&RD OF BID
' .. 92--1~49~ ~O~ CORI~DTER EQUIP~]IT ]~3R T~E SOUTH COUNTY REGIOR&r,
~ OF COITIt&I,'T FOR PUI~P STATZOI 3.16 &ND 3.18 UNDER BZD IUI~BER
92-186~ -- TO ~~ C~~, INC. IN ~ ~ OF $1,418,065
Item OI~D~ Norad to 8D1
Item ~16D4
~ O~DE]t ilO. 2, ~I~&L TO ~ CO~~ON CO~ ~ ~T
~ ~~lOl C~ 0Y ~RIDA ~R ~N ~A~ ~~ STATION
- ~I~ ~ CO~ ~ ~ ~23,750
!~:.'t- ~t. ~1tI~ - Continued to 5/26/92
Ztmu d~l)4 - Continued to 5/26/92
· ~II~IT TO LKJum A~ BETWEEN COLLIER COU]ITT AID COLLIER tlXALTH
Tt~,m ~1~31
Cl::~I~C&I~ ~ b~RECT~O]~ TO T~E T&~ ROLLS AS PRESE~I~D BY THE
&t~/~t ~ $ OI~ICE
1991
000,, -89
Page 28
May 19, 19~2
No. 183
No's. 97/98
Dated 05/04/9~
TAMeZBLE PERSOMAL PROPERTY
1991
Dated 05/05 & 05/0?/92
MO*5. 73854 AMD 75775
Item
MI~I~i~4i~Q~ CI~i:~:~aOMD~iiC~ __ FILED AMD/OR
The following mlecell&neous correspondence was filed as presented
by the Board of County Comalsstoners.
Page 29
Nay 19, 2992
Xt~/~,l - Co~.t.nued to 6/2/92
.l~X'XO~l g~-~O1, Jt~DXNG PJLR~ 2 OF COLLIER COU~f~ P~SOLOTIO1E
9X--77~ To I~r-x~&T~ A DX~CTXV~ TO R~¢ORD TH~ SOLID I4J~T~ COLLECTION
A~D DZBIK)~LL BI:)~-.CZAT- ASSESSHE]~I' ROLL FOR SERVICE YEAR 1992
See Pages
There betng no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 6:25 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
.:' , .~ ~ "~,.:.:..:~. .. ~ /.
~?" as pr~~ ['./,~':" or as corrected ",'.:
Page 30