BCC Minutes 02/11/1992 R Naples, Florida, February ll, 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(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
here~n, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in R~OULAR SlSSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Patrtcia A. Goodn~ght
ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance
D~rector; Annette Guevln, Debby Farrts, Kathy Meyers and Ellie
Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Jennifer Pike,
Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; MarJorie
Student and Richard Yovanovlch, Assistant County Attorneys; George
Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt,
Community Development Services Administrator; Fred Bloetscher,
Assistant Utilities Adm~nlstrator; Tom Conrecode, Director, Office of
Capital Projects Management; Mike McNees, Budget D/rector; Bob
Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director; Diane Flagg, Education Quality Control Manager; Peter
Bolton, Chief Helicopter Pilot, EMS; Dave Weeks, Ray Bellows, Sam
Saadeh, Bob Lord, Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere, Planners; Sue Filson,
Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Toml~nson,
Sheriff's Office.
Page
February 11, 1992
A~ENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANaES
Co~mtaeloner aoodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanmhan
· nd c~rrl~4 ~n~nt~ously, that the agenda be approved with the
following changes:
Item #10C - Discussion to clarify Board of County
Commissioners action taken regarding the management reorgani-
zation plan - Added. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.)
Item #7A - George Vega representing Manatee Road Land Trust -
request for compatibility exception - Deleted. (Duplication
of Item #12Cl.)
3o
Item #SD1 - Award of contract for the construction of the
Livingston Road Water Main - Phase I - Bid #91-1825 -
Continued to 2/18/92. (Requested by Staff.)
Item #16B3 - Recommendation to amend the four party
Transportation Financing Study Agreement to reallocate funds
between consultants for the purposes of providing Information
at a public workshop and at a public hearing - Continued to
3/3/92. (Requested by Staff.)
Item #3B
COI~ENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
The motion for approval of the Consent Agenda ts noted under Item
'. #16.
~':" EI~E SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Commissioner Volpe congratulated the following Collier County
employee and presented his service award:
Mark Burtchin, Transportation/Roads Construction - 5 years
I~ESOLD'flOM 92-98 SUPPORTINa THE IMMOKALEE HORSE TRIALS AS TH~ FIRST
FUNI~t&ISER OF TH~ IMMOKALEE FOUNDATION, INC. - ADOPTED
Commissioner Goodnlght moved, eacondsd by Commissioner Hmasa mhd
carried nnmntmously, to mdop~ Resolution 92-98 ~p~rting the
I~la Horse Trials as the first f~dratmmr of the lmhlee
F~tton, Inc.
Page 2
February 11, 1992
Cc~mteetoner Raeee moved, seconded by Commteetoner S]~Lh~n and
carried unanimously, that Budget Amendments 92-139 through 92-143
~tem ~D
I~OO~NDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM~ISSIONERS &UTHORIZE TI~
OOUFl"f"S AUDITORS TO PREPARE TH~ ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT FOR THREE SI~CIAL
DISTRICTS: COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, COLLIER COUNTY
HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY AND COLLIER CO~ INDUSTRIAL DNVELOPM~NT
A(F~HORITY - APPROVED WITH COST OF FUTURE AUDITS TO BE INCLUDED IN
BUDGETS
Finance Director Yonkosky recalled in 1989, the Florida
Legislature created Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes which was
intended to require independent and dependent special districts to
make certain recording requirements to the Board of County
Commissioners in each County. He said those Collier County entities
were contacted beginning in June, 1991, for the lggo reports, and on
October 1, lggl, the Clerk's Office reported that all special
districts had filed with the exception of three. He reported upon
Board direction, the County Attorney contacted the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), and at the same time information was obtained
from the State Comptroller's Office that the annual reports for these
three districts would have to become a part of Collier County's annual
financial reports to the State. He said the Auditor General has taken
the position if the Board of County Commissioners does not provide an
audit for these three entities, they will conduct an audit and require
the Board to pay for that cost. He recommended the Board authorize
the County's external auditors to conduct the audit, adding they have
agreed to do the work for all three districts and provide a report for
the sum of $2,000.
Commissioner Saunders mentioned a report from the Utilities
Division expressing concern with the procedures utilized by the exter-
nal auditor. He suggested when meeting with the auditors that Staff
Page 3
February 11, 1992
ensure the procedure being used not only gives the County accurate
Information, but gives the best benefit from using the external audi-
tors.
Commissioner Volpe communicated the Collier County Housing Finance
Authority periodically seeks authority to issue bonds through an
attorney representing their interests. He questioned that they do not
have any money to fund their own audit7
Finance Director Yonkosky advised the three entities are
established by the Board of County Commissioners and are not struc-
tured with an annual operating budget. He said whenever bonds are
Issued, the only fees are those going to pay the bond counsel repre-
senting them. He remarked there may have been funds left over from
the Industrial Development Authority in 1991, however, until their
audited financial statement report is completed, he does not know what
~,!~.'-~. actually happened to those funds.
'~ ~ Commissioner Volpe suggested there should be a way for the cost of
the audit to be Included within the budget for bond issues.
: Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Coutealoner Hmsaa and
carried unanimously, to authorize the County's external auditors to
prepare the annual audit report for the Collier County Housing Finance
Authority, Collier County Health ~ectltttee Authority and Colltar
C.mmty Industrial Development Authority; the County to be ratmbursad
for tho costs from the districts if funds are avmll&bla; and the costs
of audits to be planned In future budgets of the districts.
Item ~lk4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 92-1 RE PETITION 0-92-1, GOLDEN GATE CHAMBKR OY
COJOiI3tCE, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THEIR ANNUAL FRONTIER DAYS
FROM FABRUARY 13, 1992, THROUGH FKBRUARY 16, 1992, ADJACKITT TO THE
GOLDKJ[ ~ATK COMMUNITY CENTER ON GOLDKN GATK PARKWAY - APPROVXD
Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator,
requested the Board approve the request for a Carnival Permit for the
Annual Frontier Days from February 13, 1992, through February 16,
1992. He said the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce ts also requesting
a waiver of the associated Surety Bond and the processing fee, and
Page ·
February ll, 1992
Staff recommends approval.
Cc~/Ieioner Ha~ee ~oved, ~econded by Co---iseioner Goodnight and
carried unanimously, to approve Carnival Per. it 92-1 for the Golden
Gatt Cl~a~ber of Commerce Annual Frontier Days.
.... Pa~e ~
February 11, 1992
~ESOLUTXON 92-99 AND CWS 92-2 RK AGREKMKNT
N~ ~ C~ FOR ~ ~~ ~ DXS~LIRG OF PA~G~
~~~ ~~ P~, CO~Y~CE OF W~ATER LI~S,
STATIO~ ~ ~~S IN CO~CTION WITH
S~ TO ~E ~GION~ ~~ FACILITIES OF ~E COLLIER CO~
~AT~-S~R DISTRICT SYST~, ~ S~TTL~K~ OF CASE N0.
91-09~S-CA-Ol-~B BE~ THK P~TIES TO THK AG~~ ~ COLLIER
CO~ ~ ~ COLLIER CO~ WATER-S~R DIS~ICT -
408 ~ ~ ~ING SO.CE
Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, recalled that
the Board directed Staff to look at what the County is receiving for
~ the money being paid to the Naples Sewer Company and to review the
· ~v. - Company's latest revenue and expenditure data. Ne said this is an
!!?~ opportunity to settle a number of problems concerning pending lit/ga-
.:... tion over the imposition of impact fees in the Naples Sewer Company
area, and whether or not the County can serve in that area as well as
the threat of an injunction for continuing the Naples Production park
<;'i' MSTU. He said this agreement settles all those issues. He advised
.:~i the value attached is a performance based agreement for $800,000 which
'~ is payable in three parts on performance by Naples Sewer Company for
:~' certain items. He said the question was raised by the Board of
~ whether the Company is worth $800,000 and as previously indicated, he
· *' said this is neither a good or bad deal for the County, rather it
solves problems. He stated the Company is probably worth $500,000,
~" however, that must be measured with the question of litigation and the
difficulties associated with trying to take this utility off-line
should the County not be successful in a lawsuit.
Commissioner Saunders communicated his concern in that he looks at
the value of the system as an operating system, and it seems the most
generous the County can be in terms of evaluating this utility is
31. $§00,000. He said if this agreement is approved, the County will be
i!. paying $300,000 for what is a perceived benefit to the community,
~ whether it be elimination of litigation that might result in delay in
the Naples Production Park project, or whether it be a delay in
removing a small package plant. He asked what will be the impact to
Page 6
February ll, 1992
the County's utility system if the Board of County Commissioners deci-
des to let Mr. Arnold continue to operate his system, not proceed with
condemnation, and simply apply with the Public Service Commission
(PSC) to take over parts of the certified area if the County is ready
to serve those areas?
Mr. Bloetscher answered the private utility will continue to exist
and at some future point Naples Sewer Company will proceed with the
litigation, which will have more far-reaching effects from the loss on
the litigation than if the County lets the small utility continue to
operate.
Commissioner Shanahan stated the hard value as well as the future
value have been shown. He said the time, effort and expense asso-
ciated with litigation and condemnation procedures should be con-
sidered as well as the overall goal to provide the best service to the
customers in that segment of the community. He indicated his support
for the agreement proposed by Staff, understanding that the costs will
be recouped within a relatively short period of time.
Mr. Bloetscher reported this agreement will pay for itself within
the next 10-20 years, depending on the number of people coming on line
in that area. He sald another polnt to remember is the County's rates
will be lower than those Naples Sewer Company is looking for with the
PSC.
Commissioner Hasse concurred with Commissioner Shanahan, adding
this issue has been discussed for many years and should be settled.
Commissioner Volpe asked what is the source of payment to acquire
this system?
Mr. Bloetscher rep//ed that $2.3-million tn user fees was budgeted
In 1991 for utility acquisition, specifically targeted at North Naples
Utilities. He said the carryforward from not expending that total
amount will allow for this acquisition. He advised none of the user
fees were collected from customers of North Naples Utilities. He said
the fees were collected Countywide and are' being used to expand the
rate base.
Page 7
February 11, 1992
Commissioner Volpe asked if the surplus funds are an appropriate
funding source to consummate this agreement with Naples Sewer Company7
Finance Director Yonkosky clarified the composition of the funds
are transfers from the operating fund, impact fees and interest earned
on those fees.
Commissioner Volpe asked if impact fees are a part of that fund,
is it appropriate to utilize them for this purpose7
County Manager Dorrtll responded an allocation of the fund reve-
nues that make up that fund needs to be done, because he does not
believe it would be appropriate to use impact fee revenues to make
this acquisition.
Clerk Giles pointed out that since Countywide Water-Sewer District
funds are being utilized to purchase this utility, the Board needs to
make the determination whether this agreement serves a Countywide.
Water-Sewer District purpose.
Commissioner Volpe asked if there has been any discussion of
expanding the boundaries of the Naples Production Park MSTU to take in
this area?
County Manager Dorrill stated the Gounty is responding to a peti-
tion for what is being called the Naples Production Park MSTU which
did not include this area.
Gommissioner Saunders commented the Naples Sewer Company has a
total of 240 commodes with the possibility of doubling that capacity
if they expand. He asked how much of the MSTU overlaps ~nto the cer-
tified area of Naples Sewer Company7
Mr. Bloetscher answered the County has planned sewer infrastruc-
ture on Enterprise, Domestic and Progress Avenues. He said Mr. Arnold
has sued to prevent the County from installing sewer lines in those
streets.
Commissioner Saunders inquired how long has it been since Mr.
Arnold has expanded his service into other parts of his certified
area7
Mr. Bloetscher indicated additions to the system were made two
Page
February ll, 1992
years ago, but Mr. Arnold has made no aggressive efforts to serve his
entire area.
Commissioner Saunders stated if this agreement is approved the
Board is saying to the private sewer operators in Collier County that
the County will pay for not only the fair value of their systems, but
will pay a bonus in order to take over an area that the private opera-
tor may never desire to serve.
Commissioner Volpe remarked the Board should not loose sight of
the fact that the community is interested in a regional wastewater
treatment system and the goal is to acquire the private uti/it/es. He
said the real issue is how best to make those acquisitions.
Commissioner Shanahan asked how strong is the recommendation of
Staff to acquire this facility?
Mr. Bloetscher advised that Staff is comfortable with the
agreement.
County Manager Dorrill stated in his opinion, the acquisition is a
good deal because the County is buying an existing and a future tax
base and ability to make money within this defined area. He said
regardless of the litigation issues, it is also a good deal because
Collier County has a desired project that goes back to 1982 in the
Naples Production Park. He indicated the County acquired the Lely,
Glades and Foxfire systems as part of the regionalizatton process, and
this is the smallest of the systems that make up the South County
Regional Sewage Treatment System. He said it is also a continuation
of a policy from 1984 when the Board first adopted the regional sewer
master plan.
Attorney Robert Medvecky, representing Naples Sewer Company,
reported he has advised his client that this system is worth substan-
tially more than $800,000. He pointed out that the figure of $500,000
is nothing more than appreciated original cost and has nothing to do
with the system's value. He mentioned case law which supports the
his client's rights, and the County will have a very difficult time
position to argue in court. He said this is a good deal from both
ee 64
Page 9
February ll, 1992
points of view and it is the Judgment of both sides that 8800,000 ts
an acceptable figure.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Medvecky stated the
County will be acquiring Naples Sewer Company's territory and totally
eliminating their rights to operate. In his opinion, he said, that
of considerable value.
C~i~ion~r Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~ieltoner Hula, to
a~t l~lution 9~-99 ~d 05#-9~-~ author~z~n~ the ~~nt ~n
Collier
Co~lssloner Volpe advised he will support the motion only if he
receives additional information regardinG the funding source.
Finance Director Yonkosky reported a review ts currently under way
of the water and sewer impact fees. He said Staff ts attempting to go
back tn the records to 1984, which was the last time they were segre-
gated, and carry them forward tn order to know how much available
money the Board has tn the way of funds transferred over, how much
water impact fees and sewer impact fees. He said that information
will be available within the next two weeks.
Clerk Giles clarified impact fees are used to fund Infrastructure
Improvements, while user fees are normally used to fund operations.
He said another ~estton ts whether this ac~lsttton ts an authorized
use of impact fees because it ts not an infrastructure improvement. He
added if this
it will be paid for from the customer base, leading to the question of
whether this primarily benefits the County water/sewer customers?
County Attorney Cuyler answered the acquisition benefits the
~stomers tn the sense that it ts an addition to the system as a
whole. He Indicated he is inclined to say that impact fees probably
can be used because this ts a capital acquisition, however, he wtll
investigate that issue further.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Finance Dire=tot Yonkosky
stated If the Board of County Co~tsstoners approves this agreement,
February 11, 1992
.~..,,... it Is his recommendation to fund the acquisition from Fund 408, the
operating fund. He said the review information will be available tn
two weeks, should the Board decide to wait for funding. He concluded
there are sufficient funds in Fund 408, in reserves, to cover this
acquisition.
Commissioner Volpe asked Mr. Yonkosky's opinion of the more
appropriate funding source.
Finance Director Yonkosky advised the more appropriate funding,
according to the way the Board adopts the budget, is in capital funds.
He said the general types of capital acquisitions in the operating
fund is limited to $25,000 or less. He indicated these types of
acquisitions would normally be budgeted and paid for out of Fund 412
or Fu~d 414, the capital acquisition fund.
~taaton~r Shanahan amended the motion, seconded by Comtsstoner
lisa# ~mt c~rrted 4/1 (Co--lsstoner Saunders opposed), to fund the
m~q~tsition of this utility from l~and 408.
'7'3 :.
Page
February 11, 1992
~: 10:20 A.M. - Reconvsned: 10:30 A.M. st which time Clerk Firrie replaced D~put~ Clerk ~usvin ,,e
$~L~TION OF DATES AND APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
~ TO TH~ ~RCN~I~B PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S C091PATIBILITY EXCEPTION
DETZ~IINATION~ - 3/30/92, 4/13/92 & 4/20/92 BIGINNIN~ AT 9:00 A.M./C0.
ATTT. DIP~CT~D ?0 D~V~LOP PROCXD~aXS FOR C0NDUCTINa ~INGS PRI0a T0
2/lS/92
Community Development Services Administrator Brutt reminded the
Board of County Commissioners of their decision to hear the Growth
Planning Department's Compatibility Exception Determinations at
meetings other than normal Tuesday meetings. He reported that origi-
nally nineteen appeals have been received, one scheduled to be heard
today under Item 12Cl, three being postponed pending further develop-
ment plans, and fifteen of which are to be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners. He suggested that March 30, 1992, April 13,
1992 and April 20, 1992 be established as hearing dates.
Discussion ensued regarding the amount of time required to hear
the number of appeals presently contemplated to be heard resulting in
the determination that three hearing dates should be established at
this time tentatively allowing for five appeals to be heard per day.
Colttaeloner Shanahan moved, seconded by Col~tssioner Hal~e and
carrie~ ~ntiously, to approve March 30, 1992; April 13, 1992 In~
April 20, 1992, beginning at 9:00 A.M., as public hearing dates for
Appalls regarding the Growth Planning Department's Compatibility
hceptton Nterltnattons, with s mtntlu~ of five Appeals scheduled to
~e heard per day.
Later tn the meeting, after hearing Items #8A2 and #8A3,
discussion returned to development of procedures for conducting
hearings, at which time County Attorney Cuyler stated he has a four
page memo with an attached analysis of about forty functions that the
Board of County Commissioners does under the Land Development Code
(copy not presented for the record). He announced there ts a need to
make a couple of changes to same, but proceeded to read from it
regarding quasiJudicial proceedings, pointing out the right of the
Page 12
February 11, 1992
parties to present evidence, the right to cross-examine witnesses and
to be informed of all the facts upon which the Board of County
Commissioners acts, and that the hearings are not under the Rules of
Procedures used in Courts. He referred to an attachment by Bob
Blanchard, Growth Planning Director Blanchard, labelled Compatibility
Exception Appeals Hearing Procedures (copy not presented for the
record), and announced appeals will be heard on the evidence presented
in the original application only with no new information being con-
sidered during the appeal process except as it pertains to surrounding
property or the subject property. He predicted th~s issue will be
raised by a number of speakers, with the question being what constitu-
tes new evidence. He advised the Board of County Commissioners their
decision should be based on Mr. Blanchard's information and decision,
adding there may be expert testimony on the basis for his decision.
A brief discussion ensued whereby the Board of County
Commissioners determined that any exchange of information is to take
place five business days prior to the hearing date, not counting the
hearing date itself; and that one hour will be allotted for each
hearing with provisions made should they extend beyond that time.
~iset~ner Shmnahan ~oved, seconded by Co~lilsioner Saunderl, to
al~ri~ the ti~e llmits for Co~atib~lit¥ Exception Appeal He~ln~
~utlt~ tn Attac~nt A acco~ytng the ~e~ttve S~ ~ ~11
~ ~tr~t of exch~ge of tnfo~tion to t~e place f~
~ ~or to the hearing
County Attorney Cuyler suggested it would be helpful to get
something in the nature of a witness list as part of the information
to be submitted, adding he wlll include the request in the letter he
will be mailing contingent, of course, on the Board of County
Co~lssloners' concurrence.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard expressed
understanding that, ff the Board of County Commiss~oners upholds the
determinat~on made by his office, the new findings are not an Issue as
Page 13
February ll, 1992
the findings are already included in the determination letter and,
therefore, only in instances where his determination As overturned As
it necessary to have a checklist.
Bruce Anderson raised questions and concerns about the proposed
hearing procedures. He pointed out that evidence must be admitted on
any matter that is relevant to any of the seven criteria list in the
Ordinance and cannot be limited to the original application, and
reminded the Board of County Commissioners that staff went outside the
original application when making their determination. He q~estioned
who has the burden of proof.
County Attorney Cuyler responded that staff has the burden of
proof in showing their action was supported by competent substantial
evidence under the Ordinance and, that being the case, staff's deci-
sion is to be upheld.
Brief d~scussion ensued regarding who has the burden of proof.
Regarding Mr. Anderson's comment about staff going outside the
original application when making their determination, County Attorney
Cuyler clarified that in such situations the appellant can address
the issues staff has considered.
Commissioner Saunders suggested establishing the principle that
the hearings are to be reduced to the shortest amount of time, that
evidence is to be limited to the smallest amount possible, and things
are to be kept as simple as possible, and suggested County Attorney
Cuyler develop the policies to implement such a procedure.
Commissioner Saunders voiced concern regarding the question of
/imitation of evidence, and County Attorney Cuyler replied that is a
fine line the Board of County Commissioners might have to address on a
case by case basis.
Attorney Anderson pointed out there was no due process opportunity
at the staff level.
County Attorney Ouyler disclosed there was no limitation on the
ability of the applicants to put whatever they wanted to tn the
record and, therefore, they had the right to control what the petition
93
Page 14
February ~l, 1992
'~.,:~-~ consisted of
.:~' Attorney Anderson reminded the Board of County Commissioners that
time limits were considered and rejected after a thorough public
discussion at the time the Ordinance was adopted.
Attorney George Vega posed several questions to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding the hearing process, at which time it
was determined that same is a quasiJudicial hearing, that it ia not a
super majority, Mr. Blanchard's decision should be upheld by three
votes, demonstrative evidence is going to be admissible, and later on
another session of batch rezones will take place which deal with the
properties that have had exemptions acted on since the last batch
rezone.
Attorney Vega concluded that the double procedure as currently
proposed makes more work and more cost to the client, and delays more
· . proceedings. He suggested that a combination of the two procedures
would be in the best interest of the County and preferable to the
client as well.
. ~ Attorney Don Pickworth suggested implementing a regular full b/own
hearing examiner process.
'~ ~/uiener Shanahmn withdrew his motion to approv~ the t~m
l~t. for ~tibllity Exception Appeal Hearings at this tim and
~ui~ner saunters withdrew his second.
C,~/oei~ner Saunders moved, seconded by Coniasioner Shmn~hm~, to
dir~t O~nntFAttorney Cu¥1er to, between now and next T~em~F, (~ev~-
lop a p~e to be followed to conduct the Co~atibili~ Exception
A~I Hemrin~ keeping in mind they are to be kept aa simple ~
j;~ooa~ble.
A brief discuss~on ensued regarding Attorney Vega's hearing ache-
>~[ duled to take place this afternoon.
~n cai/ for the question, motion carried unanimously.
ESTAbLIShMENT OF PUBLIC HEARIN~ DATH FOR THH ADOPTION OF TH~ OOLLIER
OOUNTT FIRE PRH~ENTION CODE ORDINANCE, ADOPTIN~ AND AMKNDIN~ SP~OIFIO
STANDARDS AND CODES OF THE NATIONAL FIR~ CODES AS PUBLISHED B~ TH~
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION A~ENUY - 4/14/92 ESTABLISHED AS HEARIN~ DAT~
Page 15
February 11, 1992
Commxlnity Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that
the State of Florida requires counties with fire safety respon-
sibilities to adopt minimum codes and to keep them updated. He
reported the present Fire Codes have not been updated since 1986.
Co~iasioner Saunders ~oved. seconded by Conieeloner Chanahan and
carried unanimously, to establish April 14, 1992 as the public hearing
date for the adoption of the Collier County Fire Prevention Code
Ordina~ce. and adoption and a~end~ent of specific standards and codes
of the ~ational Fire Codes as published by the latlonal Fire
Protection Agency.
~T~X~T OF PUBLIC HEARI]G DAli TO CONSIDER ADOPTION 0F 1991
Glt0~l~~ PLAN .~1~1~ AND INVlli TH~ DKP~ OF
~ ~AIRS TO PARTICIPATE - 3/17/92 KSTABLISWRD WITH STAI~ TO
Community Development Services Administrator Brutt disclosed that
fo/lowinG the Board of County Commissioners previously conducted
public hearing on October 1, 1991, staff transmitted the proposed
amendments to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which in turn
forwarded their comments to staff on January 29, 1992. He relayed
staff's recommendation of March 18, 1992 as the date for the public
hearing to consider adoption of the 1991 Growth ManaGement Plan
Amendments. He advised that, although an invitation was extended for
a representative of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to
attend the public hearinG, to-date there has been no confirmation that
they will have a representative in attendance.
C,m~ui~loner Shmnahan moved, seconded by Co~miasioner ~me and
~t~d m~mntmousl¥, to sat the hearing date for the 1991 Growth
~t Plan A~end~ents for Narch 17, 1992, with a tim cart&in to
be mt k~ staff after con~ultation .tth the ~rt~nt of Co~tty
A~ai~ (~A).
~er thim item
~AX ~ ~mg the proc~em ~or ~blic heuA~g8 r~dAag a~a2m
Page 16
19~2--95 ~ POLICIES AND FR~S - BUDget POLZCZU · PROC~IX;I~$
~ ~A~HD ON FLEXZBILITT/CONCENSU$ TO APPROV~ 8150,000.00 FOR
Mike MeNses, Budget Director, explained the proposed program
budgeting step outlined on page 2 of the Executive Summary. He
referred to the statistical and economic information detailed on pages
6, reflecting the changes in assessed property value; 7, Iljustrating
the per capita General Fund property tax; 8, depicting the employees
per thousand population; 9, portraying the General Fund balance; 11,
the per capita General Fund expenditures, and 12, a synopsis of the
Citizens Survey results. He pointed out that Attachment III of the
Executive Summary represents the proposed budget policies for FY
1992/93. Re explained that the Revenue Allocations Issue, Section 2,
essentially details what has been the current practice in allocating
revenues between the MSTD General Fund, the unincorporated area, and
the County-wide General Fund. Referring to page 14 under Operating
Budgets, he stated staff is proposing to continue funding the
Pay-For-Performance system in the County Manager's Agency and for the
other offices, the dollar amount being 4~ of gross payroll allocated
for pay increases. He pointed out page 15 reveals that FY 1992/93
provides for $177,900 In support of contract agencies, with the ambu-
lance fees for County residents being subsidized 50% by General Fund
ad valorem taxes.
Commissioner Saunders remarked there may be a couple of policies
which cannot be set today such as the gasoline tax revenue allocation
on page 13 of the agenda packet. He suggested the contract agency
funding should be kept in place for FY 1992/93 and consideration given
to the best method for addressing some of the social problems
currently being dealt with by these voluntary organizations.
In response to County Manager Dorrtll, Commissioner Saunders
stated as long as policies are entered into with the understanding
Page 17
February 11, 1992
that guidelines are being established which are all subject to change,
then he has no problem with adopting the policies.
Commissioner Volpe stated he Is supportive of the idea of funding
growth by Increases tn Impact fees. He stated he ts supportive of
phasing out the business of contract agencies.
Co~lmIoner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Contsetoner ~ee and
carried u~ani~u~l¥, to accept the budget policies and procedures
b~eed o~ the discussion of today and with the understanding that they
Ce~ai~i~mer Saundere ~oved, ~econded by Conisstoner Ha~ee and
ca~ried ~ni~l¥, to approve Funding at 8150,000 for Contract
EATI~.~ ~TNOLD~ U SUPPORT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN SCHOOL IN COLLXU
Kathleen Reynolds reported having sought and being granted the
endorsement of the Marco Island Board of Realtors, with over 400 mem-
bers; The Women's Club of Marco Island, with membership tn excess of
200; the Naples Daily News; as of tomorrow, The Marco Island Eagle;
the Marco Island Taxpayers Association; The Economic Development
Council of Co/l/er County; and with positive reactions by various
businesses of the area. She acknowledged that included among those
present with her today are some senior citizens, some educators,
parents with small children ae well as older children in the school
district, and business people. She briefly summarized the proposal
for a new American School put together by the major Fortune 500 com-
panies An this country for the purpose of educating all children. She
proceeded to outline the selection process.
In response to Commissioner Hasse0 Ms. Reynolds discussed some of
the funding options currently available, with Commissioner Shanahan
pointing out this ts all private money and there la no funding commit-
ment on the part of the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 18
February 11, 1992
Commissioner Volpe asked those who have registered to speak to
this issue and who are tn support of the proposal submitted by Ms.
Reynolds to stand, and a number of persons stood.
Tanya Ferrao read a statement detailing the reasons for her oppo-
sition to the New American School proposed by Marco Island residents.
She referred to the strate~ booklet published by the U. S. Department
of Education, copy not provided for the record. She questioned why,
if the school board has avoided discussion or taking issue wtth the
~ubJsct, the Board of County Commissioners Is addressing the matter
today.
Couulss~oner Saundsrs reported there Is a letter from Oovernor
Lawton Chiles to the Superintendent of the Collier County Schools,
copy not provided for the record, wherein the Governor asked the
school boards not to get involved in this particular program because
of another program called Florida's Blueprint 2000. He stated the
Board of County Commissioners is not making any commitment An terms of
f~dlng but simply making a commitment to support them for purposes of
their applying for a grant.
Ms. Fsrrao countered that it says right tn the book from the U. S.
De~rt~ent of Education that it is the state and local governments
that provide 90~ of the funding for education.
Kenneth Hunt offered to make available to Ms. Ferrao the 50 page
proposal for a New American School in Collier County.
Commissioner Hasse questioned whether the best approach might not
be to present the matter to the school board first to insure against a
conflict with established policies, and Ms. Reynolds responded that
has been historical thinking.
o~ ~ly, to ¢onceptn~lly endorse this application for the
~ o£ · Ne~a~erlcan School in Cellist Connt~, with
sion amd~tlonml funds &loc coming from the oa~e sources of revs-
sss iloceooed: 12:38 P.M. - Rec~: 1:25 P.M. at vhtch
Deputy Clerk Meyers replaced Deputy Clark tarfA. ***
Page 19
~Z~T~MI~RZ~ TO BIGN A LaTTeR STAT/NO COLLIER COU~fYtS
~ TO )~NT Tl~ CORDZTIO~ OF Tl~ B~LZCOPT~R G1U~T AGRE~I~IT -
Peter Bolton, Chief Helicopter Pilot with Emergency Services,
reported that on December 3, 1991 the Board signed a grant application
for a fifty percent matching grant request, for the purchase of a new
helicopter for Collier County. He noted that on January 10, 1992
the grant was approved in the amount of $773,813.00, which ts half the
total purchase price ($1,547,626.00) for the new helicopter. He added
that aa part of the grant award the EMS State Office requested a
letter from the Board of County Commissioners stating that Collier
County is willing to meet certain conditions, which are lasted in the
Executive Summary.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Diane Flagg, w/th Emergency
Servlcem, verified that helicopter service will be provided to por-
tions of Hendry and Monroe County, but only if the helicopter ts not
co.mitred to an emergency call tn Collier County. She stressed that
Collier County's primary responsibility ts to Collier County.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Flagg stated that Lee
County would provide backup for Collier County for both ground and air
medical transport, if Collier County ts already committed to a call.
In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Ms. Flagg confirmed that
there was no change in the mutual aid agreement with Hendry County,
and Monroe County Is being covered because access time by air is 30
Ilnutes.
In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Ms.' Flagg explained that a
mrkat analysts valued the helicopter at $610,600.00, leaving a
b~l~nce of $163,273. She stated that the market analysis was
co~pleted b~ the American Aircraft Appraisers Association, so she per-
cetved it to be accurate.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bolton commented that if
the balance could not be raised through the conUnunlty, then the
availability of impact fees would be looked into.
OOO- .. 99
Page 20
February 11, 1992
In ~nswer to Couisetoner Volpe, Ms. Flagg expressed that partial
Funding of the balance through the District 8 Health Council could be
investigated.
County Nanager Dorrtll said that first it must be determined what
Collier County's existing helicopter Is worth, and then It must he
determined where, other than property taxes, the difference can be
obtained. He said he recommends the approval of the proposed
&oreement.
Cooede~ioner S~r~ ~, eec~d~ ~ Co~ie~io~r ~ ~
~l~ ~1~1~, to nthorize Cootssl~er Vol~ to et~ ~he
letW ~atl~ t~t Collier C~W will ~t the condttl~ of t~
~11~ ~t ~nt.
100
Ftbru~-y 11, 1992
· B/D 11-1112 RgG&RDI~ CON~TRUCTIOR OF M,IkT*gR &,RD SgM~lq LTB'g
~ ON 8.R. 951 SOUTH - AMARDED TO FLOR/DA $T&T~ UNDERGROUND
IN T~ J~IOUNT OF 01,581,889.48 M/TH T~CHNICAL DEFECTS MAZVED
Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, stated that
this ts a bid award for water and sewer line improvements along S.R.
952, between U.S. 41 and a point 2 miles north of the Marco bridge.
He stated that seven bids were received, the lowest being a bid of
$1,581,889.48 from Florida State Underground, Inc. Mr. Bloetscher
advised the Board that the contract required an "A" rated bond, as
rated by A. M. Beet, with a Glass V or better financial size category,
with the ~erformance bond amount not to exceed 5~ of the available
poltc~holder's surplus. He reported that Florida State Underground
could not meet this requirement.
Mr. Bloetscher summarized that staff was recommending the bid be
awarded to the second lowest bidder, Stevens & Layton, Inc. , since
Florlda State Underground cannot meet the requirements of the
contract.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher explained that
the bond requirement in this contract was t~tcal for contractors per-
forming in other outstanding construction projects (i.e. Gulf Shore
Drive, Goodlette-Frank Road). Additionally, he noted that outside
construction counsel had recommended this bid requirement.
In response to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Bloetscher confirmed
that Florida State Underground has worked under contract with Collier
County on the Pine Ridge Project, which cost lees than $800,000. He
further verified that Florida State Underground is capable of doing
the work within a reasonable period of t~me.
Mr. Bloetscher commented that Florida State Underground ts pro-
posing to post bond at $150,000 and have a re-insurer ~uarantee the
reminder of the contract. He stated that the Board would have no
direct relationship with the re-insurer, and that this bond ts not as
etron~ as the "A" rated bond.
ee 000 , 105
Page 22
February 11, 1992
In response to Commissioner Saundere, County Attorney Cuyler
explained that instead of having a direct relationship with the
bonding company, the Board would have a re-insurer who is in privity
with the contractor, who then answers to the County.
Thomas McKimm, President of Florida State Underground, informed
the Board that the bond would be for the full amount of the contract.
Randy Burnley, with Sedgwick James of Fl, Inc., an international
Insurance brokerage house, stated that Florida State Underground is
his client. He reported that Sedgwick James facilitated the bid bond
and would also facilitate the final bond for this project. He
atreeeed that this final bond will be "A" rated tnsurety in the full
face a~ount, and that both the primary carrier and the re-insurer are
"A~ rated by A. M. Best. He informed the Board that re-insurance is
atandard in the Insurance Industry, and that the re-insurance
agreement is as per all the Best requirements. He said that the
COl~Aty~s requireaent that the bond should not exceed 5~ of the coa-
bined capita/ and surplus of both the primary and the re-insurer would
be met.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley stated again that
he believes that the combination of the primary carrier and the re-
in~urer exceeds the requirements set forth within the bid document.
David Pesh with Reliance Insurance, spoke concerning their client
Stevens & Layton, who was the second lowest bidder. He explained
that Reliance Insurance was the bonding company for Stevens & Layton,
and that Reliance Insurance would provide on a primary basis, with no
re-insurance ties, a bond that meets all the requirements as stipu-
lated in the original specifications.
In answer to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Pesh confirmed that re-
ln~rurance could be considered standard on large construction pro,acts,
~nd that it ia an industry standard.
Robert Wtlentus, President of Stevens & Layton, stated that
he believes that Collier County has the same b~d requirement for all
lobe, and that Florida State Underground is not meeting this. He
108
Page 23
February 11, 1992
stated that Stevens & Layton bid on this project according to specifi-
cations and now the rules are being changed, after the fact. He said
that the bond being provided by the lowest bidder is not essentially
equivalent to the bond that is belng asked for by the consulting engi-
neers and detailed in the specifications.
Comutsstoner Volpe stated that the Intent ts not to change the
rules in the middle of the game.
Jeff Walker, Director of Risk Management, explained that it ia
highly unusual for a bond to be presented with a re-insurance. He
stated that normally a re-Insurance Is never mentioned, and that
Collier County deals with the strength of the primary Insurer. He
Indicated that the bond ts presented to make It appear that Florida
Underground qualifies.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Walker responded that the
re-insurer Is covering everything above $150,000. He said that should
the contractor fall to perform the lob, Collier County would not
be able to collect from the re-insurer, and would have to go through
the State Guaranty Fund, creating substantial delays.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Walker s~mmartzed that the
primary surety is not strong enough for this Job.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Burnley stated that the
free capital and surplus of American Bonding Company at their last
report was 8.6 million dollars. He explained that as a matter
of normal prudent business practice they reinsure at a much lower
level as that In the event of a catastrophic loss It does not wipe the
colpan¥ out. He agreed with David Pesh that re-insurance is a stan-
dard insurance practice.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley verified that In .the
event of default, the value of that default would have to exceed
$1~0,000 before the insurance would kick in, because the re-Insurance
treaty will be excess of loss.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley stated that should
this company file for bankruptcy, Collier County's recourse Is to
107
Page 24
February 11, 1992
look directly to that company and then to t~etr re-insurer to relm-
bu~ee them; if it becue a court action, Collier County does not have
to file against the primary carrier and the re-insurer.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher verified that the
retainmge provided for in the agreement ts 10~ throughout the life of
the contract.
ComaA~ion~r ~mdera ~oved, seconded by Co~ataaloner Shanahan and
c~z~l~d ~/mou~l¥, to ~d Bid ~91-1812 to Florida State
Og~ ~nd to w~tve ~ry technical defects in the bidding proca-
dura that aa? have ~volv~d from the bonding requirement.
!~11~OII Ol-lO0 A~D DEV~LOIR~E~T ORDER 92-1
~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8~lA~8, IRC.,
~ ~ ~1 IN ~ I~I~ OF ~ USES AS DKS~X~
~ C.R. 9~1 (~~ON TO ~XTXON ~83-18(3)) -
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
December 29, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition DOA-91-2,
f/led by Wtlllam R. Vines of Vines and Associates, Inc., representing
Ashley Papineau of Tollgate Commercial Center, requesting an amendment
to the To//gate Commercial Center PUD Development Order 84-1 to allow
the addition of 30.83 acres of land which will increase the intensity
of land uses as described in the amending document for property
located in the southeast corner of I-?§ and C.R. 951 consisting of
100.23 acres. (Companion to PUD-83-18(3))
Ray Bellows, Project Planner, recalled that this petition was pre-
oentad to the Board on January 28, 1992 and was continued so the Board
could study the language concerning affordable housing. He stated
that staff found it to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan,
Co~tsatoner Yelps reiterated that this ts a large interstate
acttvit~y center which at bulldout wall result in the employment of a
Page 25
February 11, 1992
significant number of people, and the Southwest Regional Planning
Council had Initially asked for some sort of commitment with respect
to affordable housing. He mentioned that Mr. Vines had provided the
Board with a copy of the new language on February 10, 1992 (Copy not
provided to the Clerk to the Board).
Mr. Vines explained that the alternative language states that
that the Petitioner will pay an Impact fee on all new development on
land to be platted as a result of this development order approval, up
tO the point that the county adopts a general Impact fee; at this
point the special fee tn the development order would cease and the
general countywide one would take effect. He noted that if the county
does not met the terms of its obligation tn the Growth Management Plan
by adopting some sort of housing program by 1994, then this language
would no longer be valid.
Commissioner Volpe pointed out that at butldout approximately
12,000-13,000 new service Jobs would be created and the issue of
affordable housing needs to be addressed. He expressed that he ts
satisfied with the alternative language that Mr. Vines and his client
have presented.
In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Cu¥1er confirmed that he ts
coordinating with the Manager's office on trying to complete the
second half of the linkage fee ordinance, which will definitely be
finalized by 1994.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Vines reiterated that the
Petitioner would pay 20¢ per square foot up to 1994 at the latest, and
if at anytime beforehand an ordinance Is adopted, this would cease.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Vines verified that the
building space referred to in Section F (1) refers to gross building
area ~nd this wording will be amended to read as such.
Gar~ Beardsley, 2393 13th Street North, served each Individual
Bo~rd member with a subpoena from ~he Department of Community Affairs
to appear at the Collier County Courthouse on March 9, 1992.
000 . . 109
~brua~ 11, 1902
~ ~~ly, to clo~ the ~bllc ~lng.
~t~ ~l~ly, to m~r~ ~itlon ~a-91-2, ~bJect to the
~lltt~ t~t ~ ~n a~d to with re--ct to affo~ble ~tng,
:... 8 ~ ~l~lltl~ pro~ ~ staff.
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on
December 24, 199! as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition PUD-18(3),
filed by Mr. Wtlltam R. Vines of Vines and Associates, Inc., repre-
senting Ashley M. Paptneau of Tollgate Commercial Center, A Florida
General Partnership requesting an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial
Center PUD to allow the addition of 30.83 acres of land which will
incre&se the Intensity of land uses as described tn the amending docu-
nent for property located southeast corner of 1-75 and C.R. 95!
(Companion to Petition DOA-91-2).
This item was discussed tn conjunction with the previous Agenda
Item #12B1.
eoodni~ht ~v~d, ~conded t~ Co~lsst~r ~ ~
to clo~ the ~bltc he~tng.
to a~rm ~tttt~ ~83-18 (3), ~ t~t the
nd titled ~1~ ~ adoptS, ~bJect to t~
~n~ ~d dts~s~ with Co~ton Petition
into ~dt~ce ~k No. 51:
ORDINANCE 92-10
AN ORDIHANC~ AMENDING ORDINANCE )lUMBER 91-102 TH~ COLLIER COUNTY
L&ND IFEF~LOFMKNT CODE MIIICH INCLUDKS TR~ COMPR~R~q~IV~ ZON/NG
R~L&TIO~8 FOR THE UNINCORPORATED ARE& OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND JkI~NDIIIG TH~ OFFICIAL ZONING ATLA~ MAP(S) NUMBEreD 963536
0~O102~ BT CNARGING TH~ ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF TH~ HER~IN
I~V~LO~ ~ AS TOLL~AT~ CO~D~RCIAL CENTER FOR MIX~D BU-~II~SS
A~D LIGHT IND~BTRIAL USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH~ SOUTHEAST
~ OF 1-75 AND C.R. 951, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY C.R.
~'fI~Y~ 35, TO#NSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 2,
T~q~BXP 50 SO~TH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
C~3~I~TIR OF 100.23_+ ACRES,; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
O~D~ NDMB~R 14-6, AS AMENDED, TH~ FORMER TOLLOATH COMMERCIAL
~ PUD; AND BT PROVIDING AN EFFECTIV~ DAT~.
February 11, 1992
,~;;:* ~ em)--ea-4s(2), RXCXJLRZ) v'rrrz~, aLoazs~x,rxxo NZST ~
~ ~TXON, ~~X~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~, ~~ 600 ~ ~ OF AI~-~LX~ RO~, ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~l~, ~OXI~LY 900 ~ SO~ OF ~lO RO~ -
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on
January 8, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition PUD-83-45(1)
flied by Richard Vetter representing West Coast Development
Corporation, requesting a PUD Amendment to the Westvtew Plaza PUD,
located 600 feet east of Airport-Pulling Road, North and South of
~.i Nestvlew Drive, approximately 900 feet South of Radio Road, consisting
of 20.37 acres, more or less.
~:..
Sasl Saadeh with Planning Services, summarized that this Is
currantly an approved PUD that Is undeveloped, but It is surrounded by
developed Industrial zoning to the north and west, by developed rest-
dsntt&l RSF-3 zoning to the east and across Donna Street, and by deve-
· ...~'~":: loped estates to the south and across Gall Blvd.
~',:' In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh explained that the
/~: only access to the subject property Is through Airport-Pulling Road,
~. and no through traffic would be permitted through the residential
&tiaa.
Re stated that the proposed amendment complies with the Growth
Management Plan, since the PUD has been deemed improved as defined tn
.~:,. the Collier County Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance.
HI pointed out that the proposed PUD Amendment has more stringent
development standards than the current PUD and makes it more com-
pattble. He explained that the Petitioner Is requesting to add whole-
?, sale distribution, warehousing and fraternal organizations to the list
of currently approved uses, and further agrees to the following
restrictions on locations for the proposed uses: fraternal organiza-
~/ tiona to lots 5 & 6, warehousing and wholesale distribution to lots 2,
: 3, 4, aa permitted uses and to lots 1, 7-12 as conditional uses. He
Page 29
mtated that the Petitioner also has agreed to:
February l!, 1992
75' setbacks as
opposed to the current 50' on Gatl Blvd., maximum height abutting
residential property 25' as opposed to 30' in the current PUD,
landscape buffer of 25' on the eastern boundary and 35' on the
southern boundary instead of 10' in the current PUD, loading and
unloading hours of operation limited from ? a.m. to ? p.m., restricted
language for burglar alarms, architectural controls, special con-
dition~ that would restrict the noise order and chemical discharge,
~d all activities are to take place within an enclosed structure.
Mr. Saadeh stated that the proposed PUD was a more compatible PUD
than the current one and that staff recommends approval of the PUD
a~and~ent. He verified that the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC} unanimously recommended approval subject to their stipulations
which are incorporated into the Executive Summary, however, citizens
prelent at the meeting expressed their opposition.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh confirmed that he
has not received a copy of the documents (correspondence) that the
Board received on February 10, 1992 from the Petitioner and th~ rest-
dents (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board).
In ~n~w~r to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh specified that the PUD
a~ it is proposed ia considered more compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood because of the added restrictions that are
not in the current PUD.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh replied that the PUD
as it stands could be considered commercial with light manufacturing,
the proposed PUD would be considered heavy commercial or light
industrial.
Bill Hoover with But/er Engineering, stated he ts representing
RIchard Vetter. He revealed that Mr. Vetter wants to create a busi-
ness p~rk on 12 ~ubdlvided lots, similar to the Radio Square PUD. He
pointed out the ~ubJect property on a color-coded map and identified
the ~urrounding properties.
Page 30
February 11, 1992
Cozmissioner Volpe pointed out that the current PUD has come
before the board three times in the last five years (1985, 1986, 1987)
for similar types of requests, and each time was denied.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh confirmed that ware-
housing ~nd wholesaling would be allowed In lots 2, 3, and 4 and con-
ditionml use would be allowed in lots 1 and ? through 12.
Richard Vetter, the Petitioner, mentioned that he has also agreed
to place a chain link 8' fence at the end of Westview Drive.
Lind~ Hel~, residing at 4000 Gail Blvd., mentioned that she has
provided each member of the Board with a letter (copy not provided to
the Clerk to the Board). She stated that this PUD has no business
being across the street from their residential neighborhood. She
Doreen Vachon, residing at 4361 Lorraine Avenue, stated she owns
acr.s on Oail Blvd.. whio .i l be her future horn..
that Mr. Vetter knew what the property was zoned when he bought lt.
She stated that the PUD should remain as it ts.
Betty Gulacstk, residing at 9615 Berkshire Street, stated that
this ts her fourth appearance before the Board concerning this pro-
perry. She stated that property adjacent to a residential area should
never be zoned Industrial. She stated that when the residents bought
their land, the subject property was zoned agricultural.
Janice Elltott, residing at 4121 Gall Blvd., stated she has had
conversations with realtors, and they feel that the proposed changes
would adversely affect property values. She stressed that this propo-
~l would only benefit the landowner, and that warehousing, whole-
smling and fraternal organizations should not border a residential
neighborhood.
Ruth Betcher, residing at 3950 Gall Blvd., stated that her husband
is a builder and would never develop a commercial area like this adJa-
:i. cent to a residential area.
Rosalla Dante, residing at 4182 Kathy Avenue, submitted a signed
petition and informed the Board that there is a total of 89 signs-
Page 31
!,itlZre~ opposed to this ,end. ant.
February 11, 1992
Bob Beckler, residing at 4?20 Gall Blvd., stated that his primary
concern ts the noise that the commercial vehicles will create.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Beck/er stated that he
does not object to fraternal organizations as long ae club members
have no outside functions and will not generate noise.
Coutsstoner Volpe mentioned that tn looking at the PUD document
·nd the intent, tt states within Section 3.0 that the development
strategy ts intended to produce a general commercial/light manufacture
ual environment. He expressed that he has reservations about
Omem/mto~e~ Eu~e moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnl~ht and
o~led~lm~aely, to close the public he~rtng.
Commissioner Volpe summarized that this appears to be an oppor-
tunity for financial gain on the part of the developer to try to add
to the already existing 49 different uses, and that he sympathizes
with the community for having to appear before the Board ttme after
time.
~mmdsmt~ ~ moved, seconded by Co~isstoner aoodni~t, and
· eZT~~~l¥, to deny Petition PUD-a3-45(1) and to &llo~w the
OOODs~atT Clerk Hoffu~n replaced Deputy Clerk Meyers at thio
During the public speakers' portion of Item #llB4, the following
discussion took place with respect to continuing various agenda Items:
Commissioner Volpe suggested for the Board's consideration, that
"'because of the lateness of the day, that the remaining scheduled
public hearings be continued for one week with the exception of Items
12C2, 12C3 and 12C7.
Ommmmioo~ee~r Baoee moved, eeconded by Couateetoner Shanahan and
~'~~17, that the follo~tn~ re~ainlnG ~tv~rtt~ public
hm~a-~ Mled for this meettq be c~tt~ to l~b~ 1[, 1992,
~ k ~in of Its ~12C2, 12C3 ~ 12C7:
~~ ~~ ~I~TI~ ~ ~~ ~A~ ~ ~ ~
I~ ff ~~ ~, ~/4 ~I ~ OP S.n. 962 - ~I~ ~ 2/X8/~2
0
Page 32
February 11, 1992
~ CC~L-gl-9, RI V~ILT BL~CH COUFfY PARE - COFf~ TO
~*.." I~T/TI~ F!~'O-91-'4, 3AM~S J~'*KTIINKY, 3R., REQUESTING VJtRTAIIr~ FOR
isJl~0J"~l~'T &T 618 S~IIHrT DRIVE, r, OT 20, ~ Is, GOODLAIFD ]'flT,,E~,, I~Iq:ST
: ~ - COFn'BOWD TO 2/18/92
PRTXTIOIV-91-19, DAVID AWO C&IqOLYW RYAleo RIq~ESTX1M VARI~ i~OR
: i~PlRTTAT $$80 21ST AVE., S.#., GOLDKN (IATE ESTATKS, UIflT NO. 28 -
CCgTn~D TO ~/18/02
FLORIDA CELLULAR RSA, LTD. PAR., REQ~ESTZB~
~A 280 ~ ~ZCATZON ~ ~R ~)~
~ O~ X-?~ (S.R. e4), ~ST OF ~ ~:A~ ~ S.R.
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
December 17, lggl, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to cons/der an ordinance amending
Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, re
Petition PUD-80-20(4), Royal Marco Development8 represented by Donald
A. Plckworth of Asbell, Heine, Doyle & Pickworth, P.A.
Planner Lord explained that the petitioner is requesting an amend-
ment to the PUD document to allow 77 boat slips as an accessory use to
the Group 2 - Single Family Residential Dletrlct, to /nd/cate on the
Mamter Plan that Lots 1 thru 4, the parking areas, the boat sltps and
the existing residence on Lot 3 will be owned by and accessible to the
&eaoctatton and the residents of Hideaway Beach. He announced that
Pa~e 33
February 11, 1992
:; this project Is located in the northwest corner of Marco Island, adja-
cent to Collier Bay and the Renard Waterway, noting that the site ts
developed with an existing structure and parking facilities currently
used aa a sales center.
Mr. Lord detailed the surrounding land use and zoning, noting that
because the Hideaway Beach PUD Is designated In the Future Land Use
llsmnt aa Urban Residential, the addttton of the proposed docks will
b~ consistent with the Plan's direction to encourage water-dependent
land uses. Re remarked that the construction of docks at this site
will also be consistent with both the use and siting priorities con-
tained In the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Plan.
Mr. Lord advised that the proposed docking facility site Is
disturbed and the upland is seawalled and has no native vegetation.
He indicated that no dredging or impacts on marine life will occur as
a result of dock construction making the stte even more suitable for
the proposed facility. He announced that it Is staff's opinion that
the proposed modifications to the PUD are consistent with all ~lements
Of the ffro~th Management Plan.
Mr. Lord related that if approved, the project will be constructed
in two phases: Phase 1 will allow a maximum of 38 slips and e~tend
east~eard 175' Into the Bay; Phase 2 proposes the balance of 39 boat
slips and will couence upon approval of state and County staff that
Phase I has produced no Impact on the waterway as to boat traffic and
has not adversely affected the water quality.
Nr. Lord stated that the request for boat slips and the private
ra~p requires a sewage pump out facility, will adopt the ~anatee
protection requirements and will not allow trailers or the dry docking
of boats at the site. Re reported that the assignment of the boat
sltp~ will be the responsibility of the developer, however, upon
completion, will be owned, maintained and managed by the Hideaway
::... B~ach Homo~nera &ssoctatlon which clearly Indicates that the proposed
~' uss ts an accessory use to the PUD and not a commercial endeavor.
Pl~r~ner Lord reported that staff recommends approval, subject to
February Il, 1992
stipulations aa contained in the staff report and the revised PUD
document. He affirmed that the Collier County Planning Commission
unm~l~aualy recommends approval, subject to staff's stipulations and
the following conditions:
No boats or docking facilities shall be allowed on Renard
Waterway.
No boat ra~p.
A ~axi~um of 26 boat slips shall be allowed with this
request.
Approval ts granted for Phase I only.
No boat moored at this facility shall exceed a length of 31
feet.
6. No commercial or public functions may take place on Lots
thru 4 or within the existing residence.
7. A vegetation barrier, with 100~ opacity shall separate Lots 1
thru 4 and the residents to the south of Renard Waterway.
8. No walls or fences shall be used to create the screen.
N~. Lord advised that at the CCPC hearing, one resident spoke In
favor of this request, citing that the residents of the Hideaway Beach
PUD need this amenity within the project rather than having to impact
the public road system with the trailering of their boats.
Mr. Lord stated that 5 residents spoke in opposition to
petition at the CCPC hearing. He reported that letters totaling 36 In
rru~ber and a petition signed by 429 residents opposing the approval of
this request have been received, citing that the new docking facility
· ~uld reduce the value of their homes and Impact the environment.
Mr. Lord revealed that staff is of the opinion that these changes
will not impact the intent of the original PUD or the surrounding pro-
perttea with the stipulations and development standards wtthtn the PUD
document. Re noted that the requested PUD changes enhance the
recreation opportunities of the Hideaway Beach residents by making
~ora convenient, their access to the local waterway systems.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lord stated that no dockage
would be allowed on Renard Way.
Mr. Lord announced that he received a letter at 10 A.M. this date
Page 35
February Il, 1992
the Regional Planning Council Indicating if this project moves
forward with ?? boat slips, this would become a DRI Issue. He
affirmed that without going through the DRI process, the petitioner
would bo allowed 74 slips.
Attorney Donald Plckworth advised if the petition ts approved, the
four lots may only be used for those uses specified in the petition,
I.e. a small parking lot and the building would be used by the
Holteowners Association for administrative purposes. He explained
that no co--ercial uses will be allowed.
In response to Coamtsotoner Volpe, Mr. Ptckworth stated that he
does not believe that 6 or 8 boat slips In the Renard Waterway would
bo unreasonable, which would bring the total slips to 32. He tndt-
cited that the total protrusion into the waterway not be any Btore than
the protrusion which would be authorized for homes on the other side
of the waterway, therefore the boats would have no more than a 9'
beB. He suggested that a reasonable way to deal with the boat ramp
wo~ld be to have a permit system which would limit the amount of
i~," usage.
A discussion ensued with regard to the m~xlmum length of bcats to
be accommodated in the fingers. Attorney Ptck~orth stated that he
would not want to be deprived of the ability to have two boats In the
40'-45 * range.
Mr. Pickworth pointed out that some of the concerns have been
environmental Issues, noting that the first 38 slips a/ready have DER
permits. He reported that an objection was flied to DER*o Intention
to file the permit by some of the folks opposing this project which
, WaS heard before a hearing officer. He explained that the hearing
officer recomuended the Issuance of the permits. In addition, he
indicated that the hearing officer found insufficient evidence that
local bird and fish habitats would be adversely affected.
The following persons spoke tn opposition to the proposed project:
Mr. Robert Duane (representing property owners) (Tape
Mr. Todd Tares (Tape ,5)
Mr. Nick Carstllo (representing MITA) (Tape ,5)
February 11, 1992
Mr. Carl Ullmann (Tape
J~. Clyde Shadley (Tape
,Mr. Ray Parer (Tape
,v;. Mr. George Keller (Tape
?:' ~. b~o Conlon (Tape ~5)
~. ~o~ D*~bro8~o (Tape ~5)
b. ~ Stretch (Tape S6)
~o8e o~er8 voicing opposition cited that: many properties
~ld ~ efffected In ~erms of their view of the waterway and boat
traffic; 14 criteria ~n the L~d Development Code have not ~en met;
negative ~act8 on properties of 15~ to 20~ of market values; pro-
~rt~eo ~re purchased tn H~deaway Beach knowing that docks ~d a
~r~na ~re not part of the deal; residents property rights should be
protected; the PUD does not permit docks; the docks would on~y benefit
77 of The 660 members; It's a mistake to allow a PUD to chugs ~altty
tn order to aattsfy the developers; otl from the boats will pollute
the entire area; there are already too many marinas on Marco; Impacts
on the envtro~ent tn addition to impacts from diesel fumes, noise,
ITC.; do~sitc tran~lllty would be affected; and the residents should
not ~ nbJected to looking at a parktn~ lot tn the middle of
The following persons spoke In favor of the proposed project:
Rick end Sharon Kraft (letter)
Mr. Anthony Pinto (letter)
... Mr. L~onard Llewellyn (Tape #5)
Mr. Herb Savage (Tape #5)
Dr. James Finneren (Tape #5)
Mr. Kenneth Brown (Tape #5)
Mr. Nalter Landau (Tape #5)
Mr. Nark ~yson w/petition (Tape #5)
Mr. J&ck Skoog (Tape #6)
· hoae persons speaking tn favor, cited the following: Narco ts a
boating con.unity and ts designed for recreational use; boat docks
would increase property values; Hideaway should not be committed to a
life sentence of no boating in a boating community; and the residents
of Hideaway B~ach should be afforded the same rights as those of other
Marco residents.
ee INl~latl'Ol~z'k Ouevin replaced Deput~ Clerk Hoffman at thim tim oe
~e foll~tng person spoke In opposition to the petition, stating
187
Page 37
February 11, 1992
boats belonging to residents of Hideaway Beach should be docked In
front of the Royal Narco Point condominiums on the river where there
is a~ple room for boats of all sizes:
Fays Oraefe
The following people spoke tn favor of the petition, stating reel-
dents of Hideaway Beach should be allowed the right to enjoy what
other residents of Narco raland are allowed; and there wall be a
greater environmental impact by 600 residents hauling boats down the
roa~eay~ to launch at another facility than would occur with the pro-
poled boat slips:
Nltch Murch Robert D. Pearce
Ed lqullaney
Hr. Pickworth pointed out this ia a private facility and very
limited in its uae to residents of Hideaway Beach. He said of' the
potential for 2,O00 boats utilizing Collier Bay, this request is 3~ of
that allocation and does not create a major impact. He concluded this
request ia very reasonable, and the petitioner has worked for months
with Staff in developing stipulations which will protect the m~lgh-
borhood.
ConAsaloner Shanahan communicated his desire to protect tho
integrity of homeowners in the area. He suggested the Board consider
approving a maximum of 28 boat slips starting at Lot ! tn this phase,
not allow a boat ramp or a parking area other than for golf carts, and
no conercIal use of any kind at any time. He also suggested that
additional channel markers on both sides with manatee awareness signs
are necessary. He further requested the Board set a cap of 6? boat
e~ipe as the maxiarum amount allowed tn this development.
In an~r to Commissioner Ooodnight, Planner Lord replied the
application ia for ?? boat slips, however, any amount over ?& slips
re~u2te tn this development becoming a Development of Regional Impact
(mHz).
Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney
8tmdent stated the position of the County Attorney's Office is that
Page 38
February ~1, 1992
> this is a rezone petition.
Colmissioner Volpe questioned if certain findings necessary for a
razons w~re not ~ade by the CCPC, does that impact on the procedural
posture in which this petition comes before the Board of County
Comissioners?
Assistant County Attorney Student advised that those findings are
traditionally a part of the Staff Report sent to the CCPC with their
recommendation. She said the Board receives the CCPC's approval or
denial with conditions, and since that Is part of the record to the
CCPC in the Staff Report, they would have addressed those points and
asked Staff or the petitioner any questions as they concern each
point.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney Student
Mid ~he Is satisfied that the procedural requirements of a rezone
have been met. Furthermore, she said, the Board has an opportunity In
this hearing to ask the petitioner or any member of the public what
their position on any one of those points might be.
Commissioner Volpe Inquired if this is an accessory use or a new
use being added to the PUD for Hideaway Beach?
Attorney Ptckworth replied in terms of the structure of the PUD,
this is being added under the residential portion as an additional
. a¢casaory use.
Col~tasioner Volpe asked what are the maximum number of parking
spaces proposed for the four residential lots?
Attorney PIckworth explained parking currently exists at the
sales center building and Staff has requested those 20-30 spaces
· remain. He Indicated he understands Commissioner Shanahan~s proposal
~ to mill there will be no parking other than golf cart parking on Lot
Comlsstoner Shanahan clarified for Mr. Plckwor~h that the con-
'eideratton he has asked of the Board Is for phase one. He said he is
atte~pting to cap the number of boat slips at 67 so that if the peti-
tioner receives the appropriate approvals from all regulatory agen-
1119
Page 39
February Il, 1992
the assurance is in place that there will never be more than 67
boat slips.
Co-~isaloner Saunders commented he would prefer the Board take
&etlon on a total of boat elide, rather than discussing two phases.
Oeem~eet~er Shanahan ~v~d, seconded by Commissioner ~odntght
~ ~A~ ~~ly, To clo~ The ~blAc he~An~.
~ ~At~ ~8~20(4), ~bJect to the foll~ing ~te:
aim l~r three single-family residences; no boat ram~ faclllt~
all~ ~ ~ts liattg to a mln len~h of Sl-f~t ~c~t for
Plier Lord stated for clarification that the mot/on approves 28
~t slips plus one per lot tn Renard Wate~ay, with boats limited to
a length of 31 feet except for two allowed up to 45-feet, no boat
r~p, no co~erclal use of the property, channel markers on both
sides, ~ollter Cowry landscape retirements to be followed and golf
carts only to be parked on Lot 1.
Plier Lord noted the beam of a boat tn Renard Wate~ay can only
~ nine feet because of the 2S-foot m~t~m tn the wate~ay.
Coatsstoner ~oodntght co~untcated the motion should not Include
~y slips on Renard Wate~ay, because those wishing to build on those
lots are allo~d ~ accessory dock the same as all others.
Coalsstoner Sanders e~latned his major concern was the boat
len~h In Renard Wate~ay. He said tn terms of the other 28 slips,
~rhaps there should be some leeway given.
In res~nse to Coutsstoner Volpe, Tim ~rham with Wilson,
;;:)(~ ~ton · Peek, Inc., stated the docks have been designed to
accom-
~o~te ~ats up to 40-50 feet.
Page 40
February 11, 1992
~ l~titio~ !~)-80-20(4), with s minim of 28 tx)mt slips; fac/-
~ ~~ ~ ~t r~ s~ll ~ c~stncted; the ~ly ~king
~ ~1~ ~ ~th sides of the c~el, Including ~t~ p~tec-
~11~ wt~ ~ ~ ~ts all~d up to 45 f~t, all other ~ts to
Attomey Ptc~rth co~ented he would be satisfied w/th two boats
up to 45 feet tn length, three or four boats In the range of 31 to 40
feet with the remaining limited to ~der 31 feet In length.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED MB2A
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD, FOR PROPERTY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1
THROUGH 4 OF BLOCK 24, HIDEAWAY BEACH ENTRANCE, IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 305 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE
NUMBER 80-81, HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD, AS AMENDED; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIV~ DATE.
ess ~c~e~: S=~O P.N. - Reconvened: 6:45 P.N. st which tilt
Qle~k PI~TIO r~place~ Depnt~Z Clerk ~vtn eeo
Xt~m
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on
JiRusr~ 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
000 ,,:171 ag. ,,
February 11, 1992
[.the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition $NR-91-6
flied by Ms. Kathy Wood requesting to rename approximately 1,000 feet
of ~r&ld Circle to Sewel Lane.
Planner Wa~e Arnold ~nounced this Is basically a tec~tcaltty
f~d u~n revt~lng the const~ctlon documents for this piece of
~ 4/{, {~.t~r ~, not prmnt) ~o cl~ the ~bltc
~ m ~ f~ br~ld Circle to ~nl ~e for ~ ~rtl~ of
~ l--tg in th brlld ~ ~, ~d record~ ~ braid
b It ~i~t ~ ~ivtst~, there~ ~optlng XKlutton 92-101.
Page 42
February ll, 1992
(JlO3]iliC~ tJ-~, R:IANENII(K:IFT O~ORD][NANCl 88-42 TO COIq3qlCT
IGR_TlIIIR~I ~ ZIITKI LEGAL I~SCRZFTZOJIrOR PROPKRTYLOCATKD ON OLD
TAMLM~ TRA.TL (C.R.867), APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FrBT NO~ OF THE
I]rlI:RBL'MA~OJIOFOLD TAMIAMI TRAZL (C.R.867) AND U.S. ROUTE 41 -
Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on
January 23, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance amending
Ordinance 88-42 to correct scrivener's error tn the legal description
for property located on Old Tamlamt Trail approximately 1,000 feet
northeast of the Intersection of Old Tamtamt Trail and U.S. Route 41.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Wayne Arnold stated
this ts the fifth revision on a legal description of a typographical
error that was found tn the Ordinance which has been taken care of.
~mmlsmt~ ~odniGht moved, seconded by Co.missioner ~h~ahan
eeg esrelei ~l~e~sl¥, to cio# the public he~rin~.
Oalm~eolonez- Eases lov~d, seconded by Commissioner Shmnihmn and
c~rl'ldut~ly, to approve the correction of the 8criv~neF'o
the legal description for propmrt~ located on 01d Tm~tmm!
Trail, tbereb/ ~loptlng the O~din&ncs es numbered ~nd titled belo~ aud
e~tegs~ J~toOrdln~nceBook Xo.
ORDIN&NCE 92-12
A O~~ AMENDING ORDINANCE 88-42 TO CORRECT 8CRIVKSER*S Klq~OR
Z~THI L~GAL I)K~CRIPTION OF TH~ II'REIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED
0~[ Ol~ TI~Y~t~I TRAIL (C.R. 867), APPROXIMATELY 2,000 ~
II01FTHKAST OF TH~ INTERSECTION OF OLD TAMIAMI TRAIL (C.R. 867) AND
U.S. ROOTE 42, IN SECTION 16, TOWNNHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLI~R COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN KFFKCTIVE DATE.
BI~N3LUT~GII~J--102 Il AOTHORXZATION FOR SUBMISSION OF ANAPPLXCATION TO
TI~BSOIEIBADBI~~ 0FCOIMON/TY JLFFAZR8 FOR A COIOIOIFZTT
~V~J~TBLOCEGRAJlT01IDKRTNKNKIGHBORNOODRKVITALZZATZONCATEGORY
TO ~TWIT~ mT~t, SAFITP~f 8~, AND STR~T IMFR~ IN
COI~KLAilBANDJkIIOTH~R APPLICATION UNDER
CAT~8~IrlrTO ASSIST IN FINANCING A BOZLDING FOR A FIXED B~srD OPERATOR,
AIlDOTIIR AVZATZOll BOBZNESSE8, TO BE BO~LT IN THE ZRDOSTRZAL PARE AT
Legal notices having been published in the Naples Dally News on
January 19, 1992 and February 3, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of
Page 43
February 11, 1992
~Publtcatlon flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con-
~lder two applications for Community Development Block Grants, one in
the category of Neighborhood Revitalization and one in the category of
~conomic Development.
Co~sunlty Development Services Administrator Brutt explained that
the first block grant application ie for $6§0,000 for water, sewer and
street llprovements in the Cope/and neighborhood. Secondly, he
reported there is a fixed based operator at the Immokalee Airport who
desires to construct a facility with employment In the range of some
thirty Individuals. He stated that, although the request for the
[' ioney ts et&ted to be $200,000 in the Executive Summary, it should be
increased to $350,000 with an increase in the number of employ~es from
15 to approximately 30. Be relayed staff's recommendation for appro-
val of both requests. Regarding the Resolution itself, he reported
two corrections need to be made, one on page 2 where the Econo=ic
Development grant increases from $200,000 to $300,000 and the amount
of administrative fees Increases from $10,000 to $30,000. He rt~ported
the ~yoff of the Economic Development Grant gains the County approxl-
Ilately $450,000 estimated over a twenty year period.
Jane D. Bee, resident of Copeland and President of the current
N&ter and Sewer Co-op, made a plea for help to the Board of County
Co~tsstoners.
C~ZT~~I?0 to close the public he~tng.
o~met~ ~d~o~ly, to approv~ the ffrant applications and the ~ended
llzlglll~l~ by staff, thereby adopting Resolution 92-102.
Page 44,
February 11, 1992
II~or,,UT/Og 02-10~ RI APPO/BTMEFr 01~ ROBERT 3. ~ ~ ~ ~y
(::hmm~ootoner Shenehan moved, oeconded by Comntooloner lleooe and
C~TTIodun~n/B~UOly0 tO accept the application from Robert 3. Meyoro
for atppo~ntn~nt to the T~oly Golf Eot&too Beautification AdvtooL"y
Cogm/ttoo, tho~oby ~doptlng Reoolutton 92-103.
Page 45
February Il, 1992
FOR TI~ FIRST Q~JLRT~R OF FISCAL 1992 - COMTZMU~D
~ OF ~~ 18, 2992
continue this ires for one ~eek to the Besting of
~ T~ ~ ~ AT ~ING OF 2/5/92 ~ ~ITIO~
After considerable discussion regarding the intent of the Motion
,: made by Commissioner Goodntght and seconded by Commissioner Hesse at
the meeting of Wednesday, February 5, 1992 regarding County Manager
Dorrtll's proposed reorganization plan, Chairman Volpe announced he
z..
i;~ will Bake a decision as to whether he, for one, wants to have the
,[,matter reconsidered by the Board.
PUBLX~Sm~FI~OBJ6~RAL TOPI~
Victor A. Valdes proposed that the Board of County Commissioners
appoint a committee to receive Information collected by himself over a
period of five months regarding bids for telemetry maintenance ser-
vice. He suggested the County has contracted to overpay for a certain
lei-vice.
County Manager Dorrtll clarified that a complaint was made to the
State Attorney's Office about some alleged wrongdoing involving this
particular bid and, after review, the State Attorney*s Office deter-
" lined there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
JTgm thai poln~ on, due to machine malfunction, thez~ il no mudio
~ of tbs mooting mtlabls.
~:/'"~lOkl, llOl*~l~ C~MMXSSIOMERS* COMMUMXCATXOM~
Commissioner Goodntght advised she has asked questions of staff
regarding the CRKW Trust and, additionally, that she has requested
that staff return with a Resolution regarding a moratorium on burn
Page 46
February ll, 1992
plants. She suggested staff look into the bid policy and install a
stipulation that considerations will be given to In-county bids. She
explained the Intent of her request is to promote the local economy.
Commissioner Goodntght recommended that anyone not having seen a
map regarding the reapportionment of districts should do so.
Commissioner Volpe announced that the Board of Regents has asked
iI for clarification of the Resolution adopted by the Board of County
~ Commissioners supporting the selection of the Altco site, and It was
· '. the consensus that the "support" referred to was meant as staff sup-
::- port and not financial support.
sa, ~mt~er Goodnt~ht moved, seconded by
~ FAczLrfz~:~ &CCBa~ZI~ FOR PAVILION LA]O~ TERRACES
The water facilities to serve the project cannot, be placed
Into service and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be Issued
until the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation fur-
nishes a letter approving the water distribution system for
service.
2. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements.
3e
The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been
satisfied, and the Fire District furnishes a letter accepting
the fire hydrant for ownership and maintenance.
Receipt of payment of water usage from Utilities for bac-
teriological testing.
OR Book 1694 Pages 1420-1425
l~OY, lZ~Z0~l 92-70 FI~OVZDX~ FOR A~$~q~IT OF LIEN FOR THE COif OF
A~AT~IIT OF FO~LXC NUXSJOIC~ ON T~)T NOS. 4 AND 5, BLOCE G, OF ROYAL
~OD~LFAND~CLUB, UNIT I~. TRRE~, BARCLAY BUZLDIN~
~ 47
Fmbl*u&T~ 11, 1992
~I~OLUT/OSI 92-72 PROVZDZMG ~OR &SSKSSMK~T OF LZKR fOR THE COST OF
AB&TBM~rI O~ PUBLIC ~UZSM~'E OM LOT 29, BLOCK 210, URXT 6 PART I -
80T~I~IS&TI, RUS~KL~ ARD DORIS DKB~AULT
See Pagee ~/- ~~
lJ~B~q~TXOBI 9J-73 PROV];DXI~3 Iq:)RASSKSSIqKWT OF LZK]I FOR Till COST OF
~O~lqBLX~ BIU~ OII TRACT mA' OF BLOCK A,
See Page.
Page 48
FebruaF¥ 11, 1992
II~l~.,l~'I~l 92-71 FROVlDING FOR ,I~S~SM~IT 0Y LID )'OR T]~ COST O!
A~IkT~T O~ ~X~ NUX~k~'"~ ON ~ 34 ARD 35, LgLY ~ CLUB,
~&T,J~TTO ~ ~g~TION, &. PAUL GR~GG, ~
,ce P.ge...~ /~,- .~./~
~&~T'J:~ ~'~-"J'~ PROV/DI~ ~R ASSeSSMEnT OF L]:EM ~OR ~ COST 0F
~e. Page. .~/?-.~/~
92-81 PROV]:DZJ~3 FOR ~S~S~ 0F L~ ~R ~ ~ 0F
~ ~IC ~S~ ON ~ 102, 106 ~ 111, ~Y ~
See Pages ..~ /~- ~c~(~
xram d~SAOO
IlB:B~S&IT~I3g 92-82 ~D~ ~R ~~ OF LI~ ~R ~ ~ OF
~~ ~ ~lC ~~ ON ~ 93, 100 ~ 101, ~Y ~
See Pages
B~O&UTX~-.SS PStOV/DXIB3 FOR ~ OF LXKB' ~ORI*KK COST OIP
AB&I'~ITOJ'PUBLICB~/~ O~LOT 217, P~ ~ 8AII3TI3IS, LELY
C~gM~{ITII~TI~,,gB, A. PAUL GR:EGG
See Pages
Page 49
February 1!, 1992
FIt0VXDXJl6 FOR A3S~S~XT OF LIKM FOR THE COST OF
MUXSJLIKrl OM LOT 12, BX~CK 135, UMXT · PART --
AND JONANNA M. P~INDIVILLK
~4rflOI t2-1~ PROVlDZN6 FOR LSSESSNZNT O! LIEN for THI COST OF
&BAThMaT Off FOBLZC MUXSAMCE OM A PORTXON OF PROPKRTY XM XJOe0KALKK,
M.D. Jt0ll3tTS
Rl~iirrxol 12-17 PROVXDIN6 FOR ASSLISIq~ET OF LXKN FOR TH~ COif OF
AB&TB~ffT Off POBLIC ~ZSLW~ ON LOT 8, BLOCE 125, ~NXT 4, ~OLDKN ~&T~,
See Pages
333 - 3
IW~Ms~rXOII 12-ee FROVXDI]~3 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKM FOR THE COST OF
~ eft PUBLIC IUXSJUF~ OW LOT 23 OF BLOCX 782 RKPLAT OF A
~ ~1' ~ I~ACH UNIT ~,~F~I, J0Sle A. BJtL&V~RRTA AND DORA
See Pages
J~BOLUTXOII 02°80 FJtOVXDIMCI FOR ASSESSMENT OF LXKM FOR THE COST OF
&BiT.lilT OF PUBLXC MUXSAIICE ON LOT 698, UNXT 4 OF RXVXIIqJt 6OLF
· ~T&T~, ~ILL~ OF NAPLES, INC.
See Pages $37-
J~OLUTX(~ 92-00 FROVXDI]~3 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN FOR TH~ COST OF
JLBJLTB~IIT O/ PUBLXC MUXSAIffCE ON LOT 699, UNIT 4 OF RXVXKJUt OOLF
See Pages
~ 9t--91 FR~VIDZ~ FO~ ASSKSSMI3i'T OF LZ~ FOR THI ~:)ST OF
AB&'FB~IT O!~ PUBLX~ Jfl2XS~ OW TOT THRIE (3), BDOC~ 2.26, ~I'XT rOq~R
(4) eSI,BSI earl, IDSEL AB3) LORRAXXl ~ #&XSllZEY
JW~0E. UTXOII OS"-O~ ffltOVXDX~ FOR LsmgMI3rT OF LXKII FOR THI COST OF
auaTl~fr Off POBLXC W0XS&W~ OW LOT 28, B~)ClC *B" OOODL&WD XSLES, JOaW
Februar~ 11, 1992
See Pages
See Pages
I~ *~&'*~4 I~IOVXDXIKI I*OR ~m~M~w'r o~ LXB:M ]'OR ~ ~ O~
&~~I~O~I~$,XOMI~UI~'IOMTIt&CT ~Bw O~ BLOC~A, 1~3~q~'r~
It~B~TX~ 0~-09 AFFROVXII~ ~ ZMXTXAL ~ OF OFFZC~ OF THE
'AII~mm~BLE mo~xlm ~~XO~
See Pages
FLAT OF 'GREY Om, UFXT Ol~' AFFROVXD FOR RKCORDXM6
2o
Accept the Performance Bond as security to guarantee comple-
tion of the subdivision improvements.
Authorize the recording of the Final Plan of "Grey Oaks, Unit
One."
3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached construction
mad maintenance agreement.
4o
That no required Certificates of Occupancy be granted until
the required improvements have received preliminary accep-
tance.
See Pages -~,~/-- .~ ~ 0
~LITT~t OF CRKDXT ACCEPTED AS SKCURXTY FOR ~XMG FOR
8XTEB~ILOIq~MT PLAM MO. 91-127 *HI:RR.KRA COMVKMIKMCK STORI', LOCATED
XWS'BCTXCIg 4, TOI~ISHXP 47 SOOTH, RAJlG~ 29 KAS~
~1~~ 9~-94 I:~TABLXSllZNG T~ ~ FOR BOARD ~ OF T~
COXZ, X~ I~OOITT llX~TORXCAL/~LOGXCAL FKBS~RV&TXOW
Page 51
:1992
See Pages '~ ~ RECE~'~ ~'4 CLER~ TO BOARD O~FIC~
I:XI:CV/~BI ~ A COJlBULTTRG KJIGIE~LRXIIG SKRVZCKS &~ WZTH JOH]ISOR
~ TO VAJlDKRBTLT DRIVE (PORSOART TO BOARD ACTZOJl Oil ROV~XB~
26, 'tOO3., AGEIlDA TT'D! 8B5) - IN TH~ LOMP SON FIXL'D MllOOJ~ OF 0374,993
See
Xtom ,16B3 continued 1:o 3/3/92
~ TO KIL'OT~ A COIISTROCTZOR COIITRACT JUEARDKD TO PITTS~IKLD
C~I~IIU~ZO~I, 11C., lq:)R SIL'ATE ROAD 29 ~IA]I OVXIq~ASS ~
PORSSAIIT ~O BID BO. 92-1830 (RE-BID OF 91-1797), COORTY CTE PRO3XCT
IlO. 0~8 - Zig ~11 TOT&L BASE BID AMOO]FF OF 8526,578.60
~ TO APPLY lq3R A GRAJIT TllROUGH THE DZOCKSI~ OF VKIZCKo CA~PAZGE
JOlt BBBIMI ~'V'KZ~iqlBBT, TO IEKLP DKJ'RAT OPKRATZOIIAL COST FOR A SUIg4KR
See Pages ~ ~ R~'~'rv~_ _~_ ~ TO ]~AP, D 0~iC~A~-~
];tom drJ, OG~
B];D ~1---1910 /OR TIK)PH/KS, PT.,AQOKS AND AMARDS AMARDKD TO GOLDKII GAI"K
TROPII' ~ - III THE AIqCX:JIFT OIP $13,7¢8.22
~ TO BID ~91-1824, COIFFR&CT lq3R ~ COWSTRUCTZ011 OF PZJlK RIDGK
I~ATER MAll PHASE ZV AMARDKD TO T.A. YORSBKRG, ZNC., Ill TH~ AMOOHT
301.40 AIlD BID ZRRL'GULARZ~ #AIVKD
Ztem ~la
~ ~ ~ TO PROIP~SSZOHAL SKRV/CKS A~ WITH HOLE,
~ · ASSOCIATe:B, ZIIC., FOR ~ CARZCA TAI~ DKSZGW PROJ-KCT
RBSOLUTZOII O~"g7 AUTHORXZZM6 THE CHAZIlMAM TO KXBGOTK DKKD~ ~
~ lmOIt DB:KD TO RZGHT OPt ZIITKIq:MKI~ FOR TH~ PI:JRGHA3E OF BORXAL
r, OT~ ~T ~ TRAFYORD Je:MORIAL 6ARDKIlS L'~I~I'~, FOR TI~ CURREMT
CHA11NMI" S ~
?.90
Page 52
February 11, 1992
See Page
" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~tS ~Z~ 225 ~Z~ ~ZT
&UTBOi~ZI3) TO SZGN CKRTZFZCAT~8 OF CORRKCTZON TO TI~ SOLID
SPECIAL ASSKSSMKMT ROLL
Ztem
1002
2989 TAX ROLL
287 02/05/92
1990 TAX ROLL
305/306 02/05/92
1991 TAX ROLL
~ 000.~,: ~.§1 Page 53
122/132
February 11, 1992
01/27/92-02/10/92
1991 TANGIBLE PKRSOItKL PROPERTY
1991-61/1991-62, 1991-64
69531
01/30/92-02/07/92
37603, 15848, 74271, 44344,
S&T~~OM OF LrKll FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DKIt~NDKR
iiA~-£::''- _2£ ~~-'~Jiu~i~;~ - FILI:D &IID/0R REYKRRKD
The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or
referred to the various departments as indicated below:
Certificate of Registration from The Arabian Horse Registry
of America, Inc., for Collier Aladdinn. Filed.
Letter dated January 21, 1992, to Producer from Shetla K.
Abbott, County Executive Director, Hendry-Collier County
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
Office, United States Department of Agriculture, enclosing
1990/1991 disaster ass/stance program stgnup forms. Copies
to Ken Ptneau, Denise Coleman, Nell Dorrtll, and filed.
From the Regulatory Division, South Permits BranCh,
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, Public Notice re: Permit Application No.
199102217(IP-BB), application from Florida Cellular R.S.A.
for a Department of the Army permit. Copy to Bill Lorenz,
and f/led.
Letter dated January 26, 1992, to Commissioner Volpe from
Robert Pennock, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, Department
of Community Affairs, enclosing Objections, Recommendations
and Conents (ORC) Report, re: proposed comprehensive plan
amendment (DCA NO. 92-1). Copies to BCC, Bill Laverty, and
filed.
Dated January 27, 1992, from the Department of Community
Affairs, re: Case No. 91-LDR13-02, Florida Affordable
Housing, Inc., vs. Collier County, Order Dismissing Petition
to Challenge County Land Development Regulations Resolution
Nos. 91-339 and 91-399. Cop~ee to Nell Dorrill, Ken Cuyler,
and f~led.
Letter dated January 24, 1992, to Chairman, BCC, from 3on M.
Iglehart, Environmental Special,et, Department of
Hnvironmental Regulation0 re: Collier County - WRR; File No.
112074115; Application for Mangrove Alteration Permit from
Little Hickory Bay Condom~nium Association, Inc. Copies to
Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt, and filed.
Page 54
9e
30.
11.
12.
13.
14.
February 11, 1992
Rule~aktng notices dated January 24, 1992, from the
Department of Environmental Regulation, Notices of Public
Meeting. Copies to Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt, and filed.
Letter dated January 22, 1992, to BCC from Tony D. McNeal,
Engineer, Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation,
Department of Natural Resources, re: coastal construction
control line permit, File Number: C0-349, Permittee:
Collier County. Copies to Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and
filed.
Minutes Received and Flied:
Minutes of Marco Island Beautification Advisory
Committee Meeting of January 7, 1992.
Minutes of Isle of Capri Fire & Rescue District Meeting
of December 12, 1991.
Minutes of Library Advisory Board Meeting of December
De
Minutes of Golden Gate Architectural Review Board
Meeting of January 17, 1992.
Minutes of Board of Supervisors of the Port of the
Islands Community Improvement District Meetings of
November 21, 1991, and December 19, 1991.
Minutes of Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board
Meeting of January 27, 1992.
Minutes of Local Emergency Planning Committee of
Southwest Florida District IX Meeting of October 24,
1991.
Notice to O~er dated January 23, 1992, to BCC from F/re
Industrial Pipe Co., under an order given by E.R.C. General
Contracting, for rental of fusion unit, technician, freight,
polyethylene pipe and fittings for Collier County Landfill,
Cell 6. Copies to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosk~, and fi/ed.
Notice to Owner dated January 14, 1992, to BCC from Sun Coast
Underground Utility Constr., under an order given by
Fourlico, Inc., for spread and compact drainage sand for Cell
Six Drainage Sand, Naples Landfill. Copies to Steve Carnell,
John Yonkosky, and fi/ed.
Preliminary Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to BCC
from U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp., under an order given by
Rocket Industries, Inc., for aluminum fabricated access doors
for East Golden Gate Wellfield Exp., Project #91-1768,
Contract SI. Copies to Steve Carnell0 John Yonkosky, and
filed.
Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to BCC from Raeta Sod
Company, under an order given by Florida State Underground,
for delivery and installation of sod for Pine Ridge Road from
Livingston to Goodlette. Copies to Steve Carnell, John
Yonkosky, and filed.
Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to Collier County
from Sahara Cabinets, Inc., under an order given by D.L.
Porter Construction, for firestatton cabinets and counter
tope for East Naples Fire & Rescue Facility. Cop/es to Steve
Carnal1, John Yonkoaky, and filed.
293 P.g. 55
February 11, 1992
15.
16.
Nemorandu~ dated January 2?, 1992, to Chairmen of Boards of
County Commissioners, Florida, from Norm Wolftnger, State
Attorney, 18th Judicial Circuit, re: Additional Costs to
Counties of Proposed Changes tn Sentencing Laws and other
dangers pending. Copy to Ken Cuyler, and fi/ed.
Letter to Commissioner Volpe from Guy L. Carlton, Col//er
County Tax Collector, requesting $4,4?§ to refund mullet
fishermen who purchased safety permits pursuant to Ordinance
91-19. Copies to BCC, and filed.
Letter dated January 23, 1992, to Commissioner Volpe from
Robert L. Patton, Controller, Collier County Tax Collector's
Office, enclosing distribution recap showing year to date
totals of taxes collected. Copies to John Yonkosky, Mike
McNees, and filed.
18.
Dated January 24, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0008-CA-0! tn the
Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for Collier
County, Florida, Albert and Anne Stanko vs Collier County,
Florida, and Collier County Board of Commissioners,
Suggestion of Death. Copies to Nell Dorrtll, Ken Cuyler, and
filed.
39.
Dated January 21, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0007-CA-01 In the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for
Collier County, Florida, Vincent P. and Carol A., Ocuto, vs
Collier County, Florida, and Collier County Board of
Commissioners, Notice of Hearing. Copies to Nail Dorrtll,
Ken Cuyler, and filed.
20.
Dated January 21, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0008-CA-01 tn the
circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for Collier
County, Florida, Albert and Anne Stanko vs Collier County,
Florida, and Collier County Board of Commissioners, Notice of
Hearing. Copies to Net] Dorrill, Ken Cuyler, and filed.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
·eettng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:45 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD{S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROr~
~roved by the Board on
or as corrected
Page 56